LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — The Nevada Supreme court has had its final say in the battle over the defunct Badlands golf course, denying the City of Las Vegas' request to rehear the case.
The court also denied the arguments in a Friend of the Court brief filed by other jurisdictions, including Clark County and the cities of Henderson, Boulder City and Mesquite.
The simple, one-page order was filed Wednesday morning and signed by a majority of the Supreme Court justices.
Despite a unanimous opinion back in April where all seven justices upheld a lower court's ruling that the city illegally took developer Yohan Lowie's land without paying for it, the city attempted to argue the Supreme Court got it wrong.
But clearly, the justices don't agree. In fact, the Supreme Court didn't even require an answer from the landowner; it simply denied the petition outright.
It now remains to be seen whether the city will settle the remaining lawsuits with Lowie, which encompass three other land parcels on the Badlands property.
Despite residential zoning, the city's elected leaders prevented Lowie from developing homes on the defunct golf course. Leaders repeatedly denied permits against the advice of their own staff and planning commission.
Every court has sided with the developer in a nearly seven-year battle, calling the city's actions an "illegal taking without just compensation," leaving city taxpayers on the hook for nearly $240 million so far.
The city's only remaining — albeit unlikely — option is to appeal this case to the United States Supreme Court.
Every delay costs taxpayers even more as interest on the existing judgments is accruing at about $100,000 per day, according to Lowie's lawyers.
13 Investigates asked the city, county and other municipalities about this latest defeat. Clark County and the City of Henderson had no comment.
The City of Las Vegas sent a statement saying, "The City Attorney’s Office is aware of the Supreme Court’s decision not to rehear the 35-acre case. Three other cases related to Badlands, with different City Council outcomes based on different facts and development proposals, are pending with the court. The city will continue to litigate these cases absent a mutually agreeable settlement."
13 Investigates noted the city's statement appears inconsistent with statements the city attorney has made in court.
Wednesday's statement says the other cases are based on "different facts and development proposals." But court transcripts show during argument in District Court when the City was asking for a stay of the 17 Acre Case on March 26, 2024, the city attorney called the cases "identical," saying that the "decision of the Nevada Supreme Court [in the 35 Acre Case] will resolve every issue of law and fact."
Wednesday's statement says, "The city will continue to litigate these cases absent a mutually agreeable settlement." But in District Court transcripts, the city said that there will not be an appeal in the 17 Acre Case, because the 35 Acre Case decision from the Nevada Supreme Court will resolve all issues.
Court transcripts show the city made similar statements to the District Courts in the 65 and 133 Acre Cases.
