Gypsum Resources LLC (also known as Truckee Springs Holding , Inc) better known as James Rhodes. sued the State of Nevada, Clark County and Board of County Commissioners in a summary judgement declaring the Red Rock Canyon Area and Adjacent Lands Act, factually invalid and unconstitutional.
Please Read the Following:
In May of 2003, Clark County adopted an ordinance (Ordinance 2914) that prohibited the acceptance of land use applications for increased density or intensity within the Red Rock Overlay District. Ordinance 2914 paralleled legislation adopted by the State of Nevada (SB 358) around the same time period which similarly prohibited Clark County from accepting land use applications seeking to increase density or intensity on property within the Red Rock Design Overlay District.
In 2005, Plaintiff Gypsum Resources, LLC (“Owner”), the Owner of approximately 2,400 acres of land within the Overlay District, sued Clark County in Federal District Court alleging Ordinance 2914 violated equal protection, procedural and substantive due process and constituted a taking of Gypsum’s property without the payment of just compensation. Through the course of the litigation, Clark County was successful in convincing the Court to dismiss three of the four claims against it, including the takings claim.However, the equal protection claim asserted by the Owner has not been dismissed – trial is scheduled to commence the week of May 3, 2010. In the meantime, the Court struck down the parallel legislation enacted by the State (SB 358). The State of Nevada is in the process of appealing the Court’s decision.
Recently, the parties were required to participate in a Court mediated mandatory settlement conference. The parties met multiple times and ultimately arrived at a potential resolution whereby the Owner would dismiss its case and forgo attorney fees and costs against Clark County. In return, Clark County would amend its Red Rock Design Overlay District regulations to allow the acceptance and review of a Major Project application on the Owner’s property. Accordingly, the District Attorney’s Office offers this amendment, to create an exception to Clark County’s Red Rock Design Overlay District regulations for a Major Project on specified land adjacent to but outside the boundaries of the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, in an effort to achieve settlement of the case.
The District Attorney’s Office recommends introduction of the Ordinance to amend the Red Rock Design Overlay District regulations March 17, 2010 and recommends approval at a public hearing set for April 21, 2010.
I know how I feel about this, and I read ALL 800-pages of the legal case. I don’t have time to go through all the details, but those of us who spent a year of our lives trying to do the “good-deed” and “Save Red Rock” by simply trying to protect the beauty and immense value of the Red Rock Conservation area, were in one way and another involved this mess. In testimony, there were things said that actually put “at-risk” what should have been protective legislation. Maybe I just missed this, but even if I did, it has come back to once again threaten the tax payers, tourists, bikers, hikers, and future generations who should know Red Rock Conservation Area, as we know Red Rock.
Bottom-line. This is an issue for and about this community. Not just Jim Rhodes.
The ordinance will “exclude” this 3,600 acres from the Red Rock Design Overlay District, thus allowing for a “Major Projects” land use application (Mountains Edge, Summerlin, Coyote Springs!).
This is a tough situation. I really want to hear from you.
The last thing we need in this community is more sprawl. We have acres and acres of infill land to build on in all parts of Clark County. I am a big advocate for creating jobs; bringing in new industry, providing good jobs to those who live in Nevada. BUT the where and how we build homes in the future needs a huge overhaul. Look at the economic crisis of building ‘Major Projects”.
This weeks item is ONLY an introduction. But it needs public comment.
I really don’t have the answer as how to handle this situation. I have some ideas. I think the board is between a (Red Rock) and a hard place. The Major Projects language does have impact and compatibility thresholds, but those are subject to interpretation. Bottom-line, this a vote that is up to the seven member board of County Commissioners.
Please let me know what you might know, and how you might see us as a concerned community moving forward.
Lisa Mayo DeRiso
