Two residents living near the site designated for the Campus for Hope have initiated a legal challenge to stop the construction of the $200 million housing and resource facility, pending further studies and evaluation of alternative sites.
The facility, which is slated to rise at the intersection of Charleston and Jones boulevards, aims to provide 900 beds along with various social services for housing-insecure individuals in the community.
Funded equally by the state of Nevada and private entities, including Las Vegas Strip resorts, the Campus for Hope has faced criticism from residents James Root and Matthew Wambolt, who argue that construction will dramatically change the character of their neighborhood, increasing traffic congestion and potentially crime.
The lawsuit names a number of co-defendants, including Nevada state officials, Clark County, the City of Las Vegas, Councilman Brian Knudsen, and the nonprofit organization overseeing the project.
Root and Wambolt expressed their concerns in the lawsuit, claiming that the project would lead to significant decreases in property values and adversely affect the quality of life for the surrounding community.
“The approval process was not transparent,” the lawsuit claims, arguing that comprehensive studies evaluating traffic, crime, and community impacts were not conducted prior to the facility’s approval.
Campus for Hope’s leadership has responded by stating that they have adhered to all state and local requirements throughout the project’s approval and will continue doing so moving forward.
Las Vegas officials have acknowledged the press release stating their intention to defend the city and discuss the lawsuit with involved co-defendants.
A spokesperson for the city emphasized the urgent need for more temporary housing and services to assist the unhoused population in Las Vegas, affirming the importance of the project for fostering healthier and employed communities.
Both Clark County and the Nevada Attorney General’s office have refrained from making public comments about the lawsuit’s specifics.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants ignored their voices during the planning process. They assert that local authorities provided no details on alternative sites that were supposedly considered in deciding on the Charleston and Jones boulevards location.
James Root’s affidavit emphasized that the residents feel blindsided by the whole process, arguing that municipal authorities have consistently failed to disclose significant information regarding the selection criteria for the proposed facility’s site.
The Campus for Hope was approved under Assembly Bill 598 during the recent Nevada legislative session, which has drawn scrutiny from locals.
This legislation, according to the lawsuit, eliminates city-level permitting and inspection requirements, thus granting complete control of the construction process to state authorities.
Root argues that this situation violates open meeting laws and zoning procedures, suggesting that residents were left in the dark throughout the decision-making processes.
“Residents say they were blindsided by the announcement and feel betrayed by a process that ignored their voices,” a statement from the plaintiffs noted.
Councilman Knudsen has publicly addressed residents’ concerns, stating that collaborative efforts are being made across various sectors to ensure the facility is beneficial not only to those experiencing homelessness and their families but also to the neighboring community.
As part of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking a District Court injunction to halt construction until proper studies are conducted and made public.
The plaintiffs specifically ask the State, City, and County to prioritize transparency by examining alternative locations and informing the community about the project’s details prior to initiation.
The complaint also asserts that the Campus for Hope creates an “Incurable Defect” impacting homes, churches, schools, and businesses within the vicinity of the proposed site.
As of Thursday, the case had yet to be assigned to a judge.
image source from：reviewjournal
