Nevada
Is Clark County’s $80M settlement with Red Rock developer the new model for land use disputes? – The Nevada Independent
When Clark County commissioners unanimously agreed earlier this month to an $80 million settlement with an aggrieved developer hoping to build thousands of homes across from Red Rock National Conservation Area, they closed the book on a yearslong string of litigation that had threatened to bankrupt the county.
For roughly two decades, the county was locked in legal battles over a proposed large-scale housing development atop Blue Diamond Hill, home to Blue Diamond Mine and directly across from Red Rock — one of Nevada’s natural crown jewels.
That litigation has stemmed from the vision of Southern Nevada developer Jim Rhodes, who, since the early 2000s, has pitched the idea of converting the mine site — which overlooks arguably some of the most scenic vistas in the county, if not the state — into thousands of houses.
Rhodes was not the first developer to propose building houses at the site, but he has been the most persistent. And after years of back and forth with the county, he’s finally won.
Facing potentially $2 billion in damages from a jury trial that was set to begin in July, county commissioners earlier this month unanimously agreed to settle with Rhodes’ Gypsum Resources, approving a master-planned community and commercial development on more than 2,000 acres in what is currently a rural open land zone. The property is bordered on three sides by Red Rock Canyon Conservation Area and directly across from the developed portion of the park that draws more than 3 million visitors per year.
The county cited a recent land use case decided by the Nevada Supreme Court as a major reason for settling, as well as fear of financial insolvency for the county. Instead of filing for bankruptcy, Clark County will instead search for ways to account for the $80 million, which is being taken out of its capital improvements budget.
The settlement “is the best we can do under these circumstances,” Commissioner Jim Gibson said during a June 18 meeting to vote on the matter. “We join you in being disappointed.”
Project opponents disagree it is the best the county can do.
More than 52,000 people signed a petition or emailed county commissioners opposing the settlement, citing concerns for the wild character of Red Rock and the rural community that surrounds it.
With towering red and white sandstone cliffs reaching thousands of feet into the sky, Red Rock Canyon is a hiker and rock climbers’ paradise. Perched a couple thousand feet higher than downtown Las Vegas, its shady canyons are home to lush plant life and surprising desert waterfalls; bighorn sheep and wild burros can be found in the more remote corners of the park.
Beyond the effects on Red Rock, opponents fear what the settlement portends for future contested development projects.
“Local governments in Nevada believe they cannot tell developers ‘No’ on what they want to do on properties they already bought,” Vinny Spotleson, chair of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, said after the meeting. “If we can’t engage in basic community planning in this state, this is a huge crisis.”
Read more: Dealmaking, lobbying and delays: Inside the political fight over homes at Red Rock
Cutting county spending to recoup the funds
One of the nation’s most populous counties, Clark County’s annual budget is staggering — the county’s general fund was nearly $2 billion in the 2024 fiscal year, about a fifth the size of the entire two-year state budget.
Over the next five years, the county’s capital improvement budget — earmarked for one-time uses such as construction of parks and fire stations and the same pot of money the county will pull from to pay the settlement — contains $4.03 billion in potential projects. The cost to construct and equip a new fire station, for example, is approximately $15 million — roughly a fifth the cost of the settlement.
In an interview, Clark County Manager Kevin Schiller told The Nevada Independent that the county is “still identifying those projects” that will be affected by the $80 million loss of funds — only a fraction of what the county estimated it would have needed to pay had it gone to trial with Rhodes and lost, but still sizable.
Clark County officials say damage experts, speaking on behalf of Rhodes, were expected to present $2 billion in damages to jurors at the July trial. In a court filing earlier this month, Rhodes testified that county officials had told him if a judgment of that size was entered against the county, they would seek special legislation to allow the county to file for bankruptcy as “a judgment of this size would financially ruin the county.”
Gibson echoed those comments during the June commission meeting, saying the issue was no longer about the development’s proximity to Red Rock but rather the “undoing of the financial capacity of the county to function.”
“This is not about we have options and we’re going to fight to the end,” he said. “We’ve fought to the end.”
Gibson did not return calls from The Nevada Independent.
Todd Bice, attorney for Rhodes, said the damage experts explored various models that in some cases showed the damages as much as $2.5 billion.
“Any number approaching what Gypsum was seeking would bankrupt them (the county) and result in an impact upon public services, including health and safety,” he told The Nevada Independent. “They were imploring Mr. Rhodes to not do that to the county.”
The $80 million settlement is a small piece of the larger equation for Gypsum, he added.
“Where Gypsum will recoup its losses is in the form of development. Eighty million does not make much of a dent in the harm to Gypsum.”
Postponing or reconfiguring projects is more palatable to the county than a potential bankruptcy, according to county staff. And there is one thing Schiller is sure of, something he’s repeated frequently since the settlement was announced — the money used to pay the settlement won’t affect county employees, wages or hiring.
Badlands
Environmentalists and fans of Red Rock are less worried about the county’s capital projects budget and more concerned with how the settlement and the commission’s justification for it may set a precedent.
Before voting, Commission Chair Tick Segerblom said the Nevada Supreme Court’s recent Badlands decision — ordering the City of Las Vegas to pay $48 million to the owner of a shuttered golf course who was blocked from converting the course into housing — weighed heavily on his decision.
“What the Badlands decision says to me is, if the developer says, ‘This is what we’re going to do’ — then we have to let them do that,” Segerblom said at the June 18 meeting. “So, I really want the Supreme Court to look hard at what they’re telling us … What they are basically saying is that if the landowner has the right to build something, we have no ability to ask the neighbors if they want that, and that’s not the way it should be.”
In a follow-up call with The Nevada Independent, Segerblom called the court’s decision “devastating and inappropriate.”
In the Badlands case, which also spanned multiple years and lawsuits, the city cited public opposition and concerns from surrounding residents as reasons for rejecting development applications.
But Supreme Court Justice Douglas Herndon wrote in the ruling, “When a governmental agency acts in a manner that removes all the economic value from privately owned land, just compensation must be paid.”
Schiller and other county staff declined to comment on the Badlands case and how it influenced the county’s decision to settle, citing additional pending litigation.
Multiple legal experts from UNLV contacted by The Nevada Independent also declined to weigh in on the Badlands case and how it may have influenced the county’s decision to settle with Rhodes.
To Spotleson, the Sierra Club chair, Segerblom’s justification paves the way for developers to steamroll their way into building future unpopular projects.
“I didn’t realize how bad the Badlands deal was for the state,” Spotleson said. “What happens the next time a developer wants to do something? What happens to sustainability planning?”
History of the project
The proposed development’s size has changed over the years — rather than the more than 5,000 homes a previous board approved, just 3,500 homes will now be permitted. Under the settlement agreement, traffic will be rerouted off Highway 159 and onto Highway 160, pending a right-of-way approval by the Bureau of Land Management. If that access is not secured within two years, the county will pay Rhodes up to an additional $6 million.
Prior to moving dirt, Rhodes still will need to jump through multiple other hoops, starting with a July 3 county zoning meeting but also including obtaining building and grading permits and completion of a drainage study.
That permitting will continue to draw out the process — litigation over development of Blue Diamond Hill dates back two decades.
In 2002, John Laing Homes proposed a project that would add 8,400 homes on 3,000 acres of the mine site, drawing public opposition because the development would be visible from Red Rock Canyon. The project fell apart when Laing Homes couldn’t get zoning approval, and the following year, Rhodes purchased just over 2,000 acres for $50 million.
Rhodes is a well-known name in the Southern Nevada development scene. He has planned, built, and sold more than 11,000 homes in 173 communities and is the force behind developments such as the 9,000-residential unit Rhodes Ranch golf course community and Southwest Ranch’s 3,500 residential units and retail and office spaces.
He’s also been involved in numerous lawsuits and filed for bankruptcy multiple times, including losing his namesake company, Rhodes Homes, to bankruptcy proceedings in 2009.
In 2003, the Legislature passed a law expanding the Red Rock Conservation area to prevent large-scale development in the area. The county followed with an ordinance echoing the state’s bill. Rhodes, who had already purchased the mine site, filed a lawsuit against the county and state, and a court ruled in his favor.
The county responded by settling with Rhodes; the state continued its litigation, eventually losing.
Rhodes told the Las Vegas Sun at the time that development might be preferable to continued mining, but that one of his main priorities was the “restoration and reclamation of this wonderful area,” and in 2011, he received county approval for residential development.
Development stalled, and the county, Gypsum and Save Red Rock became embroiled in another lawsuit — including accusations of quid pro quo between Save Red Rock and then-Commission Chair Steve Sisolak — over whether the original county decision approving construction had expired.
The attorney representing Save Red Rock, Justin Jones, was later elected in 2018 to the Clark County Commission, where he moved to deny a waiver for the project in early 2019. The commission unanimously agreed, and Rhodes sued.
In the lawsuit, Jones was accused of deleting texts in 2019 related to the development. After Rhodes’ lawsuit was rejected in federal court,he refiled in district court, which ruled in favor of Rhodes earlier this year.
Jones, who still serves on the commission, recused himself from voting on the settlement.
The future of Red Rock
Red Rock’s significance was first recognized in 1936 by Congress, when it designated the land as part of the Desert Game Refuge (now the Desert National Wildlife Refuge).
In the 1960s, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) withdrew some of the canyon from mining and other development, and in 1967 designated 62,000 acres as Red Rock Canyon Recreation Lands. Over the years, the amount of protected land grew, and now nearly 200,000 acres are protected.
It was the state’s first national conservation area and is now one of the BLM’s most visited areas.
Most of the park’s several million visitors funnel through a visitor center and loop road that features a dozen or so scenic vistas, picnic areas and trailheads, but the boundary of the conservation area extends much further.
When the current protections around the land were put in place in 1990, housing developments weren’t creeping toward the park’s perimeter. The same year the conservation area was established, construction was just starting on Summerlin, and the Las Vegas Beltway and Spaghetti Bowl didn’t exist yet. But as sprawl has crept further north and south, the conservation area’s boundaries are now just a few miles away from houses and shopping centers.
Just across the highway from the Red Rock Visitor Center sits Blue Diamond Hill Gypsum Mine. The visitor center and mine are bisected by Highway 159, designated a “Nevada Scenic Byway” for its outstanding views of the sandstone cliffs and a popular course for road cyclists and runners.
The mine has been active since 1902, with the Blue Diamond Co. taking ownership of the Gypsum mine in the 1920s and building corporate housing for its workers — which is now the rural community of Blue Diamond, home to several hundred people.
Having a mine across from a conservation area is not ideal, but having houses, commercial development, nighttime light pollution and heavy traffic will mark the end of the area’s treasured rural character, according to those trying to protect Red Rock.
“You can’t contain the effects of urban development on top of a mountain in the middle of a canyon. Every big house that has a view of the canyon or view of the city, if that house can see the canyon and the city, the canyon and city can see that house,” said Heather Fisher, president of Save Red Rock. “You’ll be able to look across and see the development, and for the next how many years, you’ll be able to hear the beeping and see the construction and the dust.”
There are protections in place for the conservation area, including the Red Rock Overlay, designed to maintain the area’s rural character and minimize additional traffic. While the Overlay mandates no more than one house every 2 acres, Rhodes is exempt from that requirement.
Now with the settlement in place, thousands of houses are slated for construction atop the hill.
“It’s problematic. It’s not like [it’s] down in the canyon. It’s overlooking the canyon. It’s on the one mountain that separates the canyon from the city,” Fisher said. “You leave Las Vegas, you go around the corner, and you don’t see Las Vegas anymore. [The mountain is] a natural barrier.”
As part of the settlement, the county will be able to purchase 192 acres of environmentally sensitive land, protecting tortoise habitat and a rare cactus.
That tradeoff isn’t worth it to Fisher.
“If the whole thing has to be developed for that to become public land, we don’t want it,” she said. “If you can’t protect your crown jewel, what can you protect? There’s a lot of random desert you can build in, but only one Red Rock.”
Nevada
How the strikes on Iran could impact gas prices in northern Nevada
The United States and Israel launched targeted attacks on Iran on Saturday. The move brought new uncertainty into global energy markets, as northern Nevadans could be paying more at the pump in the coming weeks.
Following the strikes, oil prices increased. Brent crude, the international benchmark, jumped to roughly $73 a barrel, while the national benchmark, West Texas Intermediate, traded above $67.
Much of the concern centers around the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Iran and Oman. which carries about a fifth of the world’s oil supplies.
Patrick de Haan, head of petroleum analysis with GasBuddy, a price tracking company, spoke on the current questions in the region.
“The known would reduce oil prices if there becomes clarity, but it’s the unknown that is stoking fears…. If there is some sort of clarity in the days ahead, whether from Iran, the United States, or Israel, on how long this would last. We’d be able to put potentially an end date for the potential impacts that we’re seeing,” said de Haan.
Experts say for every $5 to $10 increase in oil prices, drivers could pay 15 to 25 cents more per gallon.
According to Triple-A, the average price of a gallon of gas in Nevada on Sunday comes in at $3.70, which comes in above the national average of roughly $2.98.
Over at the Rainbow Market on Vassar Street, prices sat just below four dollars a gallon on Sunday. Reno resident Abran Reyes talked about gas prices potentially going up.
“Whether it’s to work, to maybe run errands, to do stuff that helps you, gas is essential…. That gas price really hits, especially in today’s economy, where gas prices are extraordinary…. I just hope everyone’s safe. I hope our soldiers and all of our troops can be okay,” said Reyes.
Nevada
Nevada debuts public option amid federal health care shifts
More than 10,000 people have enrolled in Nevada’s new public option health plans, which debuted last fall with the expectation that they would bring lower prices to the health insurance market.
Those preliminary numbers from the open enrollment period that ended in January are less than a third of what state officials had projected. Nevada is the third state so far to launch a public option plan, along with Colorado and Washington state. The idea is to offer lower-cost plans to consumers to expand health care access.
But researchers said plans like these are unlikely to fill the gaps left by sweeping federal changes, including the expiration of enhanced subsidies for plans bought on Affordable Care Act marketplaces.
The public option gained attention in the late 2000s when Congress considered but ultimately rejected creating a health plan funded and run by the government that would compete with private carriers in the market. The programs in Washington state, Colorado, and Nevada don’t go that far — they aren’t government-run but are private-public partnerships that compete with private insurance.
In recent years, states have considered creating public option plans to make health coverage more affordable and to reduce the number of uninsured people. Washington was the first state to launch a program, in 2021, and Colorado followed in 2023.
Washington and Colorado’s programs have run into challenges, including a lack of participation from clinicians, hospitals, and other care providers, as well as insurers’ inability to meet rate reduction benchmarks or lower premiums compared with other plans offered on the market.
Nevada law requires that the carriers of the public option plans — Battle Born State Plans, named after a state motto — lower premium costs compared with a benchmark “silver” plan in the marketplace by 15% over the next four years.
But that amount might not make much difference to consumers with rising premium payments from the loss of the ACA’s enhanced tax credits, said Keith Mueller, director of the Rural Policy Research Institute.
“That’s not a lot of money,” Mueller said.
Three of the eight insurers on the state’s exchange, Nevada Health Link, offered the state plans during the open enrollment period.
Insurance companies plan to meet the lower premium cost requirement in Nevada by cutting broker fees and commissions, which prompted opposition from insurance brokers in the state. In response, Nevada marketplace officials told state lawmakers in January that they will give a flat-fee reimbursement to brokers.
The public option has faced opposition among state leaders. In 2024, a state judge dismissed a lawsuit, brought by a Nevada state senator and a group that advocates for lower taxes, that challenged the public option law as unconstitutional. They have appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Federal Policy Impacts
Recent federal changes create more obstacles.
Nevada is consistently among the states with the largest populations of people who do not have health insurance coverage. Last year, nearly 95,000 people in the state received the enhanced ACA tax credits, averaging $465 in savings per month, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.
But the enhanced tax credits expired at the end of the year, and it appears unlikely that lawmakers will bring them back. Nationwide ACA enrollment has decreased by more than 1 million people so far this year, down from record-high enrollment of 24 million last year.
About 4 million people are expected to lose health coverage from the expiration of the tax credits, according to the Congressional Budget Office. An additional 3 million are projected to lose coverage because of other policy changes affecting the marketplace.
Justin Giovannelli, an associate research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, said the changes to the ACA in the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last summer, will make it more difficult for people to keep their coverage. These changes include more frequent enrollment paperwork to verify income and other personal information, a shortened enrollment window, and an end to automatic reenrollment.
In Nevada, the changes would amount to an estimated 100,000 people losing coverage, according to KFF.
“All of that makes getting coverage on Nevada Health Link harder and more expensive than it would be otherwise,” Giovannelli said.
State officials projected ahead of open enrollment that about 35,000 people would purchase the public option plans. Of the 104,000 people who had purchased a plan on the state marketplace as of mid-January, 10,762 had enrolled in one of the public option plans, according to Nevada Health Link.
Katie Charleson, communications officer for the state health exchange, said the original enrollment estimate was based on market conditions before the recent increases in customers’ premium costs. She said that the public option plans gave people facing higher costs more choices.
“We expect enrollment in Battle Born State Plans to grow over time as awareness increases and as Nevadans continue seeking quality coverage options that help reduce costs,” Charleson said.
According to KFF, nationally the enhanced subsidies saved enrollees an average of $705 annually in 2024, and enrollees would save an estimated $1,016 in premium payments on average in 2026 if the subsidies were still in place. Without the subsidies, people enrolled in the ACA marketplace could be seeing their premium costs more than double.
Insights From Washington and Colorado
Washington and Colorado are not planning to alter their programs due to the expiration of the tax credits, according to government officials in those states.
Other states that had recently considered creating public options have backtracked. Minnesota officials put off approving a public option in 2024, citing funding concerns. Proposals to create public options in Maine and New Mexico also sputtered.
Washington initially saw meager enrollment in its Cascade Select public option plans; only 1% of state marketplace enrollees chose a public option plan in 2021. But that changed after lawmakers required hospitals to contract with at least one public option plan by 2023. Last year the state reported that 94,000 customers enrolled, accounting for 30% of all customers on the state marketplace. The public option plans were the lowest-premium silver plans in 31 of Washington’s 39 counties in 2024.
A 2025 study found that since Colorado implemented its public option, called the Colorado Option, coverage through the ACA marketplace has become more affordable for enrollees who received subsidies but more expensive for enrollees who did not.
Colorado requires all insurers offering coverage through its marketplace to include a public option that follows state guidelines. The state set premium reduction targets of 5% a year for three years beginning in 2023. Starting this year, premium costs are not allowed to outpace medical inflation.
Though the insurers offering the public option did not meet the premium reduction targets, enrollment in the Colorado Option has increased every year it has been available. Last year, the state saw record enrollment in its marketplace, with 47% of customers purchasing a public option plan.
Giovannelli said states are continuing to try to make health insurance more affordable and accessible, even if federal changes reduce the impact of those efforts.
“States are reacting and trying to continue to do right by their residents,” Giovannelli said, “but you can’t plug all those gaps.”
Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? Click here to contact KFF Health News and share your story.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Nevada
NEVADA VIEWS: Planning for a resilient economic future
Southern Nevada has a proud history of competing — and winning — through boldness and reinvention. We have developed a world-class tourism economy, built globally recognized brands and demonstrated our ability to rebound from significant disruptions. In today’s fiercely competitive global economy, however, we must intentionally design the next chapter of our economic story. Communities worldwide are continuously enhancing their sophistication, and we must keep pace.
Since joining the Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance in late August of last year, I have consistently heard from community partners that we must diversify and enhance Southern Nevada’s economy. Our goal is to build upon and complement the strengths we already possess.
To achieve this, the alliance, as Southern Nevada’s regional economic development organization and designated Regional Development Agency, is embarking on a comprehensive strategic planning process. This initiative will guide our economic development priorities both in the near and long term, ensuring that we focus on areas that will yield the most positive impact.
The alliance has a history of reinvention, having been established in 1958 as the Southern Nevada Industrial Foundation, later becoming the Nevada Development Authority, and since 2011, operating under its current name in partnership with the Governor’s Office of Economic Development.
Economic development extends beyond merely attracting companies. It encompasses the ability of local families to access high-wage careers, the opportunity for young people to build their futures at home and the resilience of our economy to withstand disruptions.
Over the past decade, Southern Nevada has made significant strides toward economic diversification, with investment outcomes in 2025 surpassing those of 2024. However, our work is far from complete. While tourism will always be a foundational strength and source of pride for our region, over-reliance on any single sector poses risks. A diversified economy enhances stability, and stability creates opportunities. We are united in our desire for more accessible housing, expanded health care and education, and greater upward mobility for our residents.
This strategic planning effort aims to ensure that the alliance and its partners concentrate on the right initiatives in the right manner. It will validate the region’s target industries and subsectors, narrowing our focus on areas where Southern Nevada has genuine competitive advantages and long-term potential. The planning process will include community interviews, focus groups and surveys to ensure our final strategy reflects the real opportunities and challenges facing Southern Nevada. We will establish flagship goals and a prioritized strategy matrix to direct our attention and resources toward meaningful outcomes.
A crucial aspect of this process involves clarifying roles within the broader economic ecosystem. Economic development is a team sport — when organizations replicate efforts, operate in silos or compete for recognition, the region loses valuable time and credibility, allowing opportunities to slip away. I have witnessed this behavior in various markets, serving as a red flag for prospective companies.
We have already made strides in building partnerships, exemplified by a Memorandum of Understanding signed in November 2025 with the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada to jointly support economic development education and advocacy for community leaders statewide.
Our strategic work will also include a organizational assessment of the alliance, evaluating our mission, resource deployment and engagement model. Economic impact requires operational excellence and measurable execution. Most importantly, this plan — which we anticipate completing by late April — will feature a three-year road map with clear timelines, recommended actions and meaningful metrics to transparently track our progress. A longtime mentor of mine often said, “What gets watched gets measured, and what gets measured gets done.”
Las Vegas has always taken the initiative to shape its own future. This strategic plan presents an opportunity for us to do what we do best: come together, think bigger, act smarter and create something lasting. Together, we can build a purposeful and resilient economic future for Southern Nevada.
Danielle Casey is president and CEO of the Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance.
-
World4 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts5 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO5 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
News1 week agoWorld reacts as US top court limits Trump’s tariff powers