LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — The City of Las Vegas is breaking its silence on Badlands—the defunct golf course near Queensridge that became a battleground when the city prevented a private landowner from developing his own property.
Sources tell 13 Investigates that Mayor Carolyn Goodman directed the city's communications department to draft a statement that was posted Wednesday morning on the city's X account.
Statement on Badlands pic.twitter.com/j1cx3BqiL9
— City of Las Vegas (@CityOfLasVegas) May 8, 2024
Nearly three weeks ago, the city had "no comment" when asked about losing their appeal in the Badlands case by unanimous decision in the Nevada Supreme Court. The state's high court affirmed that the city illegally took developer Yohan Lowie's land, thereby saddling taxpayers with a nearly $60 million judgment in that one case.
When that decision came down in April, the city said they were aware of it and that the council would be briefed, but that no comment would be made because of other pending Badlands cases — nearly identical cases involving other parcels on the same piece of land. The city has lost those other cases in District court and has not yet appealed any of the judgments.
When asked why the city posted the statement, they said it was "in response to many requests for comment on the Badlands situation, especially in regard to the latest Supreme Court ruling."
But the statement doesn't acknowledge the substance of that ruling. In fact, what it says contradicts the court record.
13 Investigates spent the day speaking with numerous attorneys familiar with the case and combing through court records, dissecting and fact-checking the city's statement in an effort to hold our local leaders accountable for what they're telling the public.
City of LV: "What started as a dispute between Queensridge residents and a prominent developer has evolved into a complicated legal battle regarding the old Badlands golf course."
FACT CHECK: Homeowners may have opposed development but the real issues are between the landowner and the City of Las Vegas. The city is obliged to comply with state law.
City of LV: "The city was drawn into this private matter because of the required approvals needed by the developer to change the use of the golf course to various types of housing."
FACT CHECK: This was never a private matter. The developer did not need approvals to change the use of the golf course as the land was already zoned for single-family and multi-residential development. The golf course was allowed as a "non-conforming use." Dating back to 1990, the land was zoned as R-PD7 for residential housing—which was confirmed by lower courts and the Nevada Supreme Court.
City of LV: "The ability to oversee land use within its jurisdiction is fundamental to any local government in Nevada and in the country. The city exercised its land use authority, like it would for any other project, based on long-standing state and city laws that promote harmonious and compatible development."
FACT CHECK: The city violated zoning laws by denying the use of residential zoning that already existed. In finding that the City illegally took (privately-owned) land by depriving the developer of all economic value, the Supreme Court wrote, “The city showed a general hostility to allowing any development on the site," denying Lowie's applications despite its own Planning staff repeatedly recommending approval, and "did not provide any viable alternatives."
City of LV: "... other municipal entities from across the state, such as Henderson, North Las Vegas, Reno and West Wendover have supported the city of Las Vegas in this particular legal matter, joining the case as amicus partners."
FACT CHECK: This is an issue of land use vs zoning and the city's own attorney said in 2017, "zoning trumps." A planning director for the city testified in a 2016 deposition regarding development of the golf course acreage that, "If the land use and the zoning aren't in conformance, then the zoning would be a higher order entitlement." Legal sources tell 13 Investigates that the amicus partner briefs were ambiguous and nonsensical, further stating that the city's mention of the other jurisdictions is just an excuse designed to obfuscate the truth.
City of LV: "The city has attempted to settle this dispute from the onset—both working with the developer and residents during their differences, and negotiating in good faith with the developer to resolve the litigation."
FACT CHECK: Sources close to the case say in August 2022, the city pulled the one and only settlement offer without letting it go to vote after changing the terms at the last minute, which amounted to "gutting the agreement." Attorneys for the developer say the city has not made any real or substantive offer since then.
City of LV: "The developer seeks hundreds of millions of dollars for a settlement on land that his company purchased for far less, along with a much higher density of homes than was ever envisioned for the area."
FACT CHECK: Multiple courts have said the development plans were appropriate within the zoning. Legal sources say this statement tries to confuse the public and make the developer look like a bad guy. The city itself approved higher density development in acreage comprising a high traffic corner. Lower courts have approved the land valuation as laid out in the judgments and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
City of LV: "... the city has been compelled to find a solution in the courts."
FACT CHECK: EHB Companies was compelled to find a solution in the courts, not the city. The city denied the developer's use of his own land, so EHB Companies had to go to court and has prevailed at every turn. Legal sources say the city is "trying to flip the script, claiming it wasn’t their fault and they got pulled into it, but if what they did was in accordance with the law, they wouldn’t have lost in court at every turn."
City of LV: "Nevertheless, the city remains open to finding a settlement that is agreeable to the developer and to the tax-paying residents of Las Vegas. We are still hopeful that such a solution is attainable, and the city manager and city attorney are actively pursuing that solution."
FACT CHECK: In October 2021, Mayor Carolyn Goodman said in a City Council meeting, "We have been dealing with this for such a long time and the ultimate decision is with the Nevada Supreme Court." Despite that, the city's statement does not even acknowledge the Supreme Court's ruling. Attorneys for the developer say, "Now that the court has decided, the city is ignoring the decisions and sending out false information. They still have not paid the verdict and continue taking steps to delay, including asking the Supreme Court for time to file a petition for re-hearing, despite the unanimous decision." That petition is due May 20.
Vickie DeHart of EHB Companies sent the following statement:
“I am utterly shocked by the City’s recent statement released on X. These statements and accusations are demonstrably false, indicative of a lack of good faith. Despite our genuine attempts to cooperate, we have been met with continual delays and aggressive legal tactics. Independent assessments, by the Nevada Judiciary have unanimously debunked the City's claims. The recent unanimous decision by the Nevada Supreme Court on April 18, 2024, further solidifies this rejection of the City's assertions.
"It appears that reaching a settlement is unattainable under the current leadership of the Mayor and City Council. Their actions have consistently prioritized political interests and donor relationships over the well-being of Las Vegas taxpayers. Despite numerous opportunities, they have failed to halt the accumulation of interest and attorney’s fees on outstanding judgments or to engage in fair negotiations. The forthcoming election presents an opportunity for voters to select new leaders committed to prioritizing the needs of taxpayers.”
13 Investigates reached out to every City Council member about the city's statement but only got responses from the two who are currently running for mayor: Victoria Seaman—whose ward Badlands is in—and Cedric Crear, whose connections to influential Queensridge homeowners 13 Investigates reported on in 2021 as part of our ongoing Badlands investigation.
Statement from Victoria Seaman:
"While local governments should have wide latitude to address zoning and development issues to ensure they are harmonious and compatible with the surrounding community, the decision-making process must be fair and free of bias. The Nevada Supreme Court clearly ruled that this did not occur when a previous City Council made these decisions regarding Badlands. Three lower court judges and the Supreme Court have now ruled against the city. The only thing that matters now is the solution I have advocated for since I was elected. We need to limit the damage to the taxpayer and resolve the situation once and for all. I hope my fellow council members are ready to join me and settle."
Statement from Cedric Crear:
"My loyalties lie with the thousands of neighbors who live near Badlands and I will never let the threats from a developer dictate my decisions. I make every vote based on protecting the integrity of neighborhoods and honoring the property rights of homeowners, not just big developers."
As of August 2023, courts had awarded Lowie $223 million in his various cases. The settlement that fell apart in 2022 would have been for a fraction of that. City taxpayers are also funding multimillion-dollar legal bills to outside attorneys.
The city's petition for re-hearing is due to the Nevada Supreme Court on May 20. If rejected, the city has the option of petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the matter.
