Clark County lawsuit against environmentalists seeks to head off a legal minefield

The view from the top of windswept Blue Diamond Hill is breathtaking — from there, you can see almost the entire Las Vegas Valley and the majestic Red Rock Canyon.

The vantage belies the legal minefield in the valley below, as developer Jim Rhodes continues a years-long quest to build more than 5,000 homes on the scenic ridge, and a committed band of local residents fights to preserve the natural status quo.

In the latest skirmish, citizens group Save Red Rock claims Clark County is trying to muzzle activists who successfully lobbied the county’s planning commission to reject Rhodes’ latest development plan. The county, however, maintains it’s simply trying to head off thorny legal issues before they erupt into full-blown litigation.

You can’t blame the county for caution: Rhodes has successfully sued over Blue Diamond Hill before.

Back in 2003, the county and the state passed laws to prevent development on the hill, just outside the boundary of the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. Rhodes went to court, and a federal judge (along with the Nevada Supreme Court) later struck down the state law as unconstitutional.

In settlement talks, the county agreed to consider Rhodes’ development proposals “in good faith.” And in 2011, commissioners ultimately approved a concept plan with 5,026 homes, accessed by a street that would connect to Blue Diamond Road rather than to the road that winds through Red Rock Canyon. (A concept plan functions as a broad outline of a development. Developers still must submit more specifics before the county grants final approval.)

But Rhodes was negotiating at the time with the Bureau of Land Management to trade his Blue Diamond Hill property for more easily developed acreage elsewhere. Those talks collapsed in 2014.

And now Rhodes is back, filing a new concept plan last year that’s substantially similar to the 2011 version. But he’s being opposed again by Save Red Rock, the same group that fought his development six years ago. That opposition, in part, led the planning commission to reject the newest concept as inconsistent with the rural zoning of the property.

Here’s where it gets really interesting: Clark County filed a motion for declaratory judgment against Save Red Rock and Rhodes’ development company. That motion contends the 2011 concept plan never expired, that Save Red Rock cannot challenge it now because the group failed to sue six years ago when it was approved, and that the county cannot decide the issues differently based on the same facts than it did in 2011.

If a judge agrees, the county can avoid lawsuits in the future and Rhodes can proceed with additional planning. If not, the county will likely be in for more legal skirmishes.

But Save Red Rock contends the county is trying to muzzle its members in a so-called SLAPP lawsuit. It argues a county attorney (one who has been consistently friendly to Rhodes’ side of the debate in years past) never claimed until the lawsuit was filed that the 2011 concept plan was still in effect, and that the group should be free to argue — and sue — over the development. “It’s pretty shocking and unnecessary,” said Justin Jones, Save Red Rock’s attorney.

While the county says its motion doesn’t seek to bar objections to the development at public hearings, if it’s successful, such opposition could be mooted.

And Save Red Rock contends there wasn’t even a public vote to authorize the lawsuit, just a closed meeting with county commissioners and their attorney, after which the motion was filed.

As the legal fighting — as twisted as a desert Joshua tree — continues in the valley below, the wind keeps blowing over Blue Diamond Hill, pristine for now, although perhaps not forever.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 702-387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.