Nevada

Las Vegas may ask Nevada Supreme Court to review another Badlands case

Published

2 weeks ago

September 3, 2024

Las Vegas may ask Nevada Supreme Court to review another Badlands case

Litigation related to the defunct Badlands golf course might again appear before the Nevada Supreme Court.

The Las Vegas City Council could vote Wednesday on whether to petition the state’s highest court to review one of the four cases against the city, according to this week’s meeting agenda.

Lower court judgments in that case have ballooned to just over $80 million for 17 acres of the defunct golf course near Alta Drive and Rampart Boulevard, court records show.

The cost includes nearly $48 million for “fair market value” of the land, more than $2 million in property taxes and attorney fees and nearly $30 million in back interest, court documents show.

Interest is accumulating at a daily rate of $21,121.53 until the $48 million is paid, records show.

The yearslong court battle began shortly after EHB Cos. bought the 250-acres golf course in 2015. The company, which is led by CEO Yohan Lowie, has argued that the city illegally “took” the property by not allowing the developer to exercise land-use entitlements and build homes on the property.

Judges in three of the lawsuits — one each for three of the four parcels Lowie had purchased — have agreed. The Nevada Supreme Court previously upheld a $64 million judgment in another one of the cases.

Meanwhile, city officials are bracing for a fallout that could exceed more than half a billion dollars if court opinions don’t shift, Las Vegas City Manager Mike Janssen wrote to staff earlier this summer.

“The cost to file the frivolous appeal is unjustifiable,” wrote EHB partner Vickie DeHart to council members in a letter shared with the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

The letter outlined the city’s losses in the previous Supreme Court decision for a 35-acre plot.

The city has began paying that $64 million judgment, earmarking $60 million from the 2024 fiscal year liability fund.

EHB argued in the letter that city attorneys have previously admitted that the case is “factually identical” to the one involving the 35 acres and that the Supreme Court could enter a summary judgment based on previous deliberations.

Both parties have expressed interest in settling the cases out of court, and an attorney for EHB said recently that talks appeared promising.

To offset accumulating costs, Janssen told staff that the city was exploring freezing open positions, and that officials were considering pausing projects and selling public land and properties.

The potential city liability of half a billion dollars would represent a quarter of the city’s total annual $2 billion budget.

A previous version of this story misattributed a statement that cases involving 17- and 35-acre portions of EHB’s property are “factually idential.” The statement was made in a filing by attorneys representing the city of Las Vegas.

Contact Ricardo Torres-Cortez at rtorres@reviewjournal.com.

Source link

Nevada

Nevada to allow pregnant women to use taxpayer money to fund abortions

Published

7 hours ago

September 15, 2024

Press Room

Nevada to allow pregnant women to use taxpayer money to fund abortions

Nevada is set to become the 18th state to allow low-income pregnant women to use Medicaid funds to pay for abortions.

The state government declined to appeal a judge’s ruling earlier this year that found denying coverage for abortions violated Nevada’s equal rights protections adopted by voters in 2022.

It’s unclear when the coverage will begin, but the ruling judge said it should be no later than early November.

“Nevadans who have Medicaid as their health insurance will no longer need to fear that they will be forced to carry a pregnancy against their will,” Rebecca Chan, a lawyer with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, which sued in the case, said.

The issue of abortion has become a key voter issue across the country since 2022 when the US Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, which had federally guaranteed abortion access for women for half a century.

Most GOP-controlled states have implemented bans or restrictions — including 14 that have barred abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions, and four more that generally prohibit it after about the first six weeks of pregnancy.

Conversely, most blue states have moved to protect and expand access to abortions. Nevada, whose legislature is controlled by Democrats, is among the states that has protected access.

Just this past week, a judge struck down North Dakota’s abortion ban and Arizona repealed its long-dormant 1864 law that criminalized all abortions except when a woman’s life was jeopardized.

Voters in The Silver State will consider enshrining the right to abortion in the state constitution in November. If the referendum passes, there will be a second vote in 2026.

However, a major issue even in states where abortions are readily available to women is whether the procedure is covered by Medicaid for patients on the joint state-federal program for those with lower incomes.

Under a 1977 law, federal funds are prohibited from paying for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when abortion is necessary to save the life of the pregnant person. States are permitted to use their allocations to pay for abortion under certain circumstances.

The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights, says that most follow the federal law for the state funds, too — or do so but with some additional exceptions.

Seventeen states cover abortion without limitations. Nine of those are under court orders and eight cover abortion voluntarily.

Roughly one-third of American women between the ages of 15 and 49 live in states where abortion is accessible and Medicaid covers abortion but only in limited cases, according to the healthcare nonprofit KFF.

About one in five women in those states has Medicaid insurance coverage.

Those with Medicaid are disproportionately low-income, Native American and Black.

With Post Wires

Source link

Nevada

We asked Donald Trump questions on the issue that matters most to locals in Southern Nevada

Published

14 hours ago

September 14, 2024

Press Room

We asked Donald Trump questions on the issue that matters most to locals in Southern Nevada

LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — Former President Donald Trump was in town this weekend for events both large and small in the swing state that he knows is critical on his path to the White House.

“We win this state, we’re going to win the whole thing. We win this we’re going to win the whole thing,” Trump said at his rally on Friday.

I met with the former president here at the Trump International Hotel to ask him about an issue that’s been on the minds of locals since this campaign began…

The Economy

Steve: I wanted to find out from you, what one policy or program would you pursue that you think is most important that would help local Las Vegans in terms of the economy?

This is what the former president had to say:

“As far as hotel workers and things as you know, no tax on tips is going to be very good. Also as we announced last week, and I think it’s going to be — even maybe in a certain — way more important, no tax on overtime. And then for the seniors, which will be fantastic because they’ve been devastated by inflation — this makes up for it, this would just about make up for it — we’re going to have no tax on social security benefits. So those three things are going to be great for this area.”

Earlier this year, Trump proposed a “No Tax On Tips” policy at a rally in June and recently held an event in August specific to the proposal here in Las Vegas. The push for no taxes on tipped income was again mentioned during his campaign rally on Friday, and now Trump has gone further with these proposals for no taxes on overtime pay and social security benefits.

Nevada is home to plenty of hourly workers and retirees who would benefit from those proposals, but I also wanted to know how Trump planned to pay for the revenue lost when those taxes are cut and what effect it might have on the federal debt.

Steve: Once you take that revenue out of the federal budget, how are you going to replace that?

Trump said:

“We’re going to have tremendous growth — you know, drill, baby, drill. We have more liquid gold under our feet than anybody else, and we’re going to be charging countries that have been ripping us off for years with tariffs. And the tariffs will make us… we’ll have money like we never had before.”

I followed up in our exclusive interview to ask the former president if tariffs wouldn’t undercut the gains people would see with tax cuts since economists believe prices would rise in response to tariffs.

Trump told me tariffs were necessary to cut trade deficits and might even end up creating jobs in the United States.

Trump said:

“You know, when you have a 100% tariff on a nation, better than the money is the fact that they’re not going to pay it very long, and they’re going to build a plant here. If they build a plant here, there is no tariff.”

The idea of tariffs is one of the things that old-school, free-trade Republicans find frustrating about Trump.

I asked him about the group “Republicans for Harris,” members of the GOP who say that while they disagree with Harris on issues, Trump presents a threat to democratic governance.

Steve: If there was a Republican for Harris in the room with us, what would you tell them in terms of persuading them to vote for you as opposed to vote for Harris?

Trump said:

“I probably wouldn’t tell them anything because maybe it would be a personality problem, maybe they don’t like the way I was tough on China. You know, a lot of them don’t want me to be tough on China. A lot of them don’t want me to be tough on anybody.”

This weekend will not be former President Trump’s last visit. He’s promised to return to the Silver State before the election on November 5.

You can watch our full interview with the former president in the video player above.

If you have a question about politics, elections or government, you can Ask Steve via the link on our website. He will endeavor to answer your questions on air or online.

Source link

Nevada

What time, TV channel is Nevada vs Minnesota football game on today? Free live stream, spread, odds

Published

22 hours ago

September 14, 2024

Press Room

What time, TV channel is Nevada vs Minnesota football game on today? Free live stream, spread, odds

Coming off a dominant 48-0 win over Rhode Island last weekend, the Minnesota Golden Gophers square off against the Nevada Wolf Pack, who come into the contest at 1-2. This game kicks off at 12:30 p.m. PT/3:30 p.m. ET (2:30 p.m. CT) on Saturday, September 14 with a live broadcast on Big Ten Network, and streaming live on demand.

• WATCH: Minnesota vs. Nevada live for free with Fubo (free trial) or with Sling (cheapest streaming plans, $25 off your first month) or see more streaming options below.

What TV channel is the Minnesota vs. Nevada game on?

When: Kickoff takes place at 12:30 p.m. PT/3:30 p.m. ET (2:30 p.m. CT) on Saturday, September 14.

Where: Huntington Bank Stadium | Minneapolis, MN

TV Channel: Big Ten Network

How to watch live stream online: If you don’t have cable, you can still watch this game live for FREE with Fubo (free trial). If you are out of free trials, the cheapest and best way to watch this game and more football this month is by signing up for Sling (promotional offers, cheapest streaming plans), which is $25 off for the first month if you add the “Sports Extra” package that includes Big Ten Network, SEC Network and a few other sports channels. If you already have a cable or satellite subscription, you can watch the game on FOX Sports Live by signing in with your provider information.

What TV channel is Big Ten Network on?

You can find out more about which channel Big Ten Network is on in your area by using the channel finders here:: Comcast Xfinity, DIRECTV, Dish, Verizon Fios, Spectrum/Charter, Optimum/Altice.