LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — The City of Las Vegas has paid outside lawyers nearly $6 million and counting in the battle over the defunct Badlands golf course—a legal fight they've lost in every court that's heard the cases so far.
But, the tax dollars will keep flowing as the city digs in its heels, even after a loss at the Nevada Supreme Court.
Plainly said, the city thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong.
Despite a unanimous opinion where all seven justices upheld a District Court's ruling that the city illegally took a developer's land without paying for it, the city wants the court to reconsider it's ruling.
And now other jurisdictions are joining the fight.
"Why are they saying they want to keep paying for this?" Darcy Spears asked Victoria Seaman in April.
"Because they voted for it. They got us into this mess, and I presume that they believed they weren't wrong, even though three judges said they were wrong. So, here we are today at the taxpayers' expense."
With the exception of Councilman Cedric Crear, who, in a recent mayoral forum said, "I don't think the city did anything wrong," every other candidate for mayor has publicly said it's past time to end the Badlands battle and settle the remaining lawsuits with developer Yohan Lowie, whose EHB Cos. own the defunct golf course near Alta and Rampart.
There are four cases involving different land parcels on the Badlands property. Despite residential zoning, the city's elected leaders prevented Lowie from developing homes on his property by repeatedly denying permits, which they did against the advice of their own staff and planning commission.
Every court has sided with the developer, calling the city's actions an illegal taking without just compensation, leaving city taxpayers on the hook for nearly $240 millionso far.
As 13 Investigates reported, the city is beginning the next fiscal year in the red after setting aside $60 million to satisfy the Supreme Court's decision involving just one of the four disputed parcels.
We spoke to Jim Leavitt, one of Lowie's lawyers, after the Supreme Court's April ruling when he said, "I think the most important part of this decision is that it definitively defines what property rights landowners have in the state of Nevada."
But on May 20, the city filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to change its decision, claiming justices, "overlooked, misapprehended, and disregarded controlling authority and material facts..." adding, "the opinion has widespread serious consequences for the city and the entire legal framework for master planning."
Last week, Clark County, and the cities of Henderson, Boulder City and Mesquite added their voices, filing what's called a "Friend of the Court" brief, writing, "If rehearing is not granted, it will not only result in the overpayment of compensation by the city for the taking, but also impact the valuation of property in other takings cases."
The county and municipalities believe the court, "was prevented from hearing all the relevant evidence" regarding the land's value.
And they claim the court "abused its discretion" by not allowing the city to cross-examine the landowner's expert appraiser, calling it, "contrary to overarching principle in all takings cases that just compensation must be 'just' not only to the landowner but also to the public that must pay for the taking."
When asked to respond to that, Leavitt said, "The Amici (Clark County and the municipalities) were not involved in this case and, therefore, are unfamiliar with the facts. The representation that the District Court denied the City’s request to cross examine the Landowners’ expert appraiser is misleading at best. In fact, the Amicus Brief fails to provide a citation to the record where the District Court denied the request to cross examine the Landowners’ expert.
"The District Court Judge Timothy C. Williams never denied the City the right to cross examine the Landowners’ expert appraiser. In fact, the City was given the opportunity to conduct the deposition of the Landowners’ expert appraiser and did not do so. The Nevada Supreme Court noted this at page 9 of the opinion - that the City “did not depose” the Landowners’ expert appraiser. The City also “stipulated” to introduce the Landowners’ expert appraisal report at the bench trial on valuation. And, the City was given three opportunities to hire its own expert appraiser and did not do so."
"Does something smell here?" Spears asked Leavitt.
"I'm going to leave that up to the judges to decide," he replied.
In response to other portions of the Amicus brief and the City's petition, Leavitt said:
"The County's amicus brief asks the Supreme Court to hold the purchase price a landowner paid for their land is always admissible in eminent domain cases. This serves only to harm and prejudice Nevada citizens. If a homeowner purchases their property in 1994 for $100,000 and then the government takes that property thirty years later in 2024 when it is worth $1 million, the government will introduce the 1994 $100,000 value in an attempt to drive the value down and get the property for pennies on the dollar in violation of the Constitution. The Nevada Supreme Court properly rejected this troubling government argument in its opinion and it is disturbing the County is pushing for a ruling that would severely harm Nevada Landowners.
"The City's petition for rehearing is nothing more than re-argument of issues the City lost at the Supreme Court level and has repeatedly lost before every district court over the past seven years in the Badlands litigation. The Nevada Supreme Court issued a well-reasoned and detailed en banc unanimous (7-0) opinion that is based on long-established Nevada eminent domain law. There is no reason for the Court to rehear or reconsider this opinion and the City's petition for rehearing is nothing more than another delay tactic the City has employed over the past 7 years."
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether they will rehear the case.
