Man plans appeal of beach decision

A Crystal Bay man will appeal last week's federal ruling in favor of the Incline Village General Improvement District regarding his civil rights lawsuit that alleges the district's recreation ordinance and beach access policies are unconstitutional.

U.S District Court Judge Edward C. Reed granted the district and current and former trustees motion for summary judgment, stating that Steven Kroll's rights under federal law were not violated by the district's recreation policies, as outlined in IVGID Ordinance No. 7, according to the ruling signed Feb. 10.

"I'm discouraged by the judge's decision," Kroll said at his Crystal Bay home on Monday. "I felt that the facts of the case were clear, but the judge doesn't agree, and I have to live with that. It's frustrating that after two years and 2,000 hours of work, I'm essentially in the same place as when I started.

"But I will fight on."

Reed's one-page decision denied a number of the case's pending motions, and that Kroll's remaining claims be remanded back to state court.

"It is ordered and adjudged that defendants' motion for summary ... is granted on the following basis: Plaintiff's rights under federal law were not violated ..." according to Reed's decision.

The federal portion of Kroll's appeal would transfer the case to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Kroll's original complaint - filed April 2008 - claims IVGID violated both federal and state rights.

The complaint argues Ordinance No. 7 violated Kroll's right to peaceful assembly as granted by the First Amendment. It also states he was denied the right to due process of the law as protected under the Fifth Amendment, in that his property was leveraged by the district to obtain borrowed money to improve facilities to which Kroll was denied access. The suit further claims the ordinance is a violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all U.S. citizens equal protection under the law.

Kroll further claims decisions made by the IVGID Board of Trustees violates Nevada statutes, specifically NRS 281.501.2, which stipulates "a public officer shall not vote upon or advocate the passage or failure of, but may otherwise participate in the consideration of, a matter with respect to which the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in his situation would be materially affected by ... his pecuniary interests."

Kroll said he believes current trustees Bea Epstein, John Bohn, Gene Brockman and Chuck Weinberger and then-trustee Robert Wolf have a vested financial interest in restricting public access to the beaches because the private nature of the beaches increases real estate prices.

"All five of the trustees own property that has exclusive access to the beach," Kroll said. "They benefit by restricting access to the beaches. It is a clear conflict of interest."

Kroll has 30 days to file an appeal; the federal aspects of the case would be heard in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, while elements of the case that pertain to Nevada law will be remanded to Nevada District Court.