logo
Developers, conservationists clash over bill to sell public land for housing

Developers, conservationists clash over bill to sell public land for housing

Yahoo05-05-2025

The Clark County Lands Bill would open 25,000 acres of public land in Southern Nevada to development. (Photo courtesy Kyle Roerink)
Housing developers and conservation advocates clashed over a bill Thursday that would encourage the federal government to open thousands of acres of public land in Clark County for development, a move critics say will encourage sprawl and supporters argue would lower housing costs.
Assembly Joint Resolution 10, a non-binding statement of support sponsored by Democratic Sen. Sandra Jauregui of Las Vegas, urges the federal government to prioritize the passage of the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act, colloquially known as the Clark County Lands Bill, which would open 25,000 acres of public land in Southern Nevada to development.
The federal legislation is sponsored by Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto in the Senate and Democrat Susie Lee and Republican Mark Amodei in the House.
Thursday was the first time state lawmakers held a public hearing for the resolution, which drew criticism from conservation groups and Nevada residents who spoke in opposition of the measure. Despite forgoing a public hearing, the bill passed the Assembly in April with only six members opposing it, all Democrats.
During the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections hearing Thursday, supporters of the measure told lawmakers the release of public land would spur the construction of affordable housing, but critics argued the measure does not guarantee housing affordability and would only encourage unsustainable urban sprawl and exacerbate water scarcity.
Jauregui said there is a severe housing shortage in Nevada, leading to skyrocketing rents and home prices. Jauregui pointed to a 2022 report from Applied Analysis put together for the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association that found the region could exhaust all available land for development in seven years if current construction trends continue.
'This housing epidemic isn't just about a housing supply shortage, but also a land shortage,' Jauregui said.
Several housing developers and business interests spoke in support of the resolution Thursday, including the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, Builders Association of Northern Nevada, Nevada State Apartment Association, and the Greater Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce.
The Nevada Republican Party, City of Henderson, Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority and the Nevada Rural Housing Authority also spoke in support of the resolution.
Nevada faces a shortage of 80,000 affordable rental homes for extremely low-income residents, according to the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority.
'This is not about unchecked expansion. It's about strategic, responsible growth that allows our communities to meet the real needs of families, seniors and essential workers,' said Mindy Elliot, a lobbyist speaking on behalf of the Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority and the Nevada Rural Housing Authority.
Jauregui acknowledged that just opening public land to development would not be enough to address rising housing costs in southern Nevada. She advocated for the resolution in combination with other housing bills she is sponsoring, including Assembly Bill 241, which would encourage more infill development in urban areas.
For nearly an hour, advocates and Nevada residents spoke in opposition to the resolution during public comments. Several took the opportunity to castigate Democrats in the Assembly for failing to hold a public hearing before passing the resolution. The Senate panel also came under criticism for scheduling the Thursday hearing at the last minute.
The resolution's opponents cited concerns about water scarcity, utility costs, urban sprawl, and the urban heat island effect — a phenomenon that creates higher temperatures in cities due to an abundance of superheating man-made surfaces like roads and pavement.
Some residents expressed concern about the financial burden on taxpayers to fund new infrastructure, services, and roads in low-density suburbs if the resolution passed.
During the hearing, critics of the resolution also pointed out that the Clark County Lands Bill does not specifically set aside any land for affordable housing, meaning there is no guarantee any of the released land will result in lower housing costs.
Jauregui refuted arguments that the Clark County Lands Bill would not create affordable housing, pointing to Ovation Development Corp's affordable senior housing project being built on land that had belonged to the federal government before it was released to the City of Las Vegas.
'It took five years for this land to transfer from the [Bureau of Land Management]. This new act will streamline the process that allows for these types of affordable housing developments to happen and to happen faster,' Jauregui said.
Organizations opposed to the resolution included the Great Basin Water Network, Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition, Sierra Club, Make the Road Nevada, and the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada.
Conservation groups argued that infill development of existing neighborhoods is a better solution than development on parcels sprawling along the metro area's edges where federal land would be privatized. Development would exacerbate water scarcity, increase urban sprawl, and worsen housing inequities.
An analysis by the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada found that around 80,000 acres of vacant or underused land in Southern Nevada's urban core — more acreage than the entire City of Henderson — could be developed for housing near public transit and existing infrastructure.
Olivia Taniger, the director of the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter, argued the resolution would undermine attempts to promote infill and public transportation development.
'Folks don't want housing out in Jean. They don't want resources taken away from their communities in East Las Vegas when folks already struggle to get around on public transportation,' Tangier said.
She argued much of the public land released by the Clark County Lands Bill would likely be sold for warehouses and manufacturing rather than housing.
Kyle Roerink, the executive director of the Great Basin Water Network, highlighted the cost of urban sprawl on water resources in the state. Roerink pointed to research that the Colorado River's flow has shrunk by about 20% since 2000, with further declines projected due to climate change.
'Are you willing to tell your constituents that you support inviting another 800,000 people to the region with Lake Mead sitting at 33 percent full? That's what you need to consider with this legislation,' Roerink said.
A joint study by Clark County and the City of Henderson found that development under the Clark County Lands Bill could increase daily water demand by 49 million gallons, or about 18% of Nevada's total allocation from the Colorado River.
Democratic Rep. Dina Titus, who represents much of east Las Vegas and Henderson along with the Las Vegas Strip, spoke out against the Clark County Lands Bill to state legislators last month.
No action was taken on the resolution. The resolution will need to pass in the State Senate by May 23 before being sent to the governor's desk for final approval.
Unlike bills, Nevada resolutions don't require approval from the governor. But Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo has repeatedly advocated the sale of federally managed lands to developers. Last month, Lombardo signed a data sharing agreement with the Bureau of Land Management to help facilitate the privatization of federal land.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The ultimate loser of Trump and Musk's bloody battle royale could be the nation
The ultimate loser of Trump and Musk's bloody battle royale could be the nation

New York Post

time20 minutes ago

  • New York Post

The ultimate loser of Trump and Musk's bloody battle royale could be the nation

Godzilla vs King Kong. Ali vs Frazier. Yankees vs. Red Sox. Trump vs. Musk is bigger than all of them because — unlike the first match — this one is real. And unlike the other two, it has real-world consequences. The future of the republic — not to mention the future of Tesla, ­SpaceX and Musk's other cutting-edge tech companies — could be at stake, depending on how bad it all gets. Of course, with this pair, they could make up while this column is at the printer. Musk is known to do 180s in business like most people breathe, and he seems open (at least for now) to rapprochement. That's why, after tanking during early rounds of the fight, Tesla shares spiked on Friday. Trump, meanwhile, can be forgiving when he sees an opportunity. Remember how he mocked 'Little Marco,' who after a ­MAGA-esque transformation is now Secretary of State Marco ­Rubio. Trump wanted to ban TikTok but as I was first to report, he's extending its life in the US. He came to believe that even if it is Chinese spyware, it helped him win a second term. But there's a better case that the Trump-Musk feud will linger. These men maintain some of the biggest egos on the planet; Musk actually thinks he's the reason Trump got elected since Elon owns X (formerly Twitter), which became a MAGA megaphone. If you know Trump like I do, someone taking credit for his success is a third rail. Plus, Musk isn't a natural convert to MAGA. These dudes bonded because Musk, a former Democrat, believed his party lost its mind on woke. His EV maker Tesla, a darling of the environmental movement, has a big operation in China, the main target of Trump's trade war. Musk called Peter Navarro, Trump's lead trade warrior, 'Peter Retarrdo' because Elon's no fan of tariffs. For his part, Trump is no budget hawk. It's telling that this fight started with Musk's critique that the president's 'big, beautiful bill' spends too much money. It quickly exposed other fissures lurking beneath the surface, according to my sources, and now it has gotten messy. No way to treat a pal Trump is teeing up killing all of Musk's lucrative government contracting after Musk outrageously — and foolishly — claimed the president is holding back the Jeffrey Epstein files because Trump's in the docs in some nefarious way. Not a way to treat a friend, particularly a powerful one. All of which gets me to laying odds on the winner if this feud keeps going. I say Trump is the heavy favorite. Musk has no political base, even if he splinters and begins spending his billions on Dems. Yes, some lefties are relishing the battle, but Musk will never be acceptable to most Democrats for the unforgivable sin of aiding Trump, then via DOGE cutting all that government lefty spending. Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet Sign up to receive On The Money by Charlie Gasparino in your inbox every Thursday. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Meanwhile, Musk poses little threat to MAGA. He's not a natural politician — he's not even comfortable in his own skin. He controls X and has a huge following, but Trump has his own following and social media platform that attracts as much media attention. And Trump can hit him where it hurts — his pocketbook. Musk is the world's richest man, but mostly on paper. It could diminish fast given how much of it is built on government work. Recall Musk smoking a joint on Joe Rogan, which is a no-no when you do defense contracting as SpaceX does. I reported how it sparked scrutiny by the feds that went nowhere. Maybe now it goes somewhere. Musk's accounting at Tesla has drawn regulatory attention in the past; it now might get some more. The company just had a lousy quarter as its lefty EV-buying base went somewhere else. Shares have recovered somewhat but remain under pressure. They fell as much as 16% when the feud went defcon. Trump could go after other parts of the Musk empire. The president could throttle SpaceX's government contracts, using the weed issue as an excuse to re-examine the relationship. Maybe more of those go by the wayside along with all his other government contracts. Musk is obviously miffed that Trump's tax bill didn't cut enough fat, but what might have really stoked his anger is that it did take aim at various green-tax credits that Tesla has feasted upon. Musk's recklessness in his attacks underscores one of his weaknesses as a CEO; he once said he had a buyer to take it private at a premium but no one emerged. And you wonder why the Epstein barb shouldn't be taken seriously. The smarter move Yes, Trump has a lot of levers to pull to get at what makes Musk so powerful. But here's why he shouldn't: For all of Musk's flaws, he's smart and has his finger on the pulse of the emerging economy. Tesla's tech is first-rate. ­SpaceX is transformational, and serves a significant national security function. Musk is rich and can continue to elect Republicans to keep Trump from being impeached and derailing what is really working in his second term, such as his war on woke, closing the border and, when this tariff stuff subsidies, tax cuts to grow the economy. And they did make beautiful music together exposing stuff with DOGE. Someone please call a timeout.

Trump says he has no desire to fix his relationship with Musk, even after the former 'first buddy' deletes his X posts
Trump says he has no desire to fix his relationship with Musk, even after the former 'first buddy' deletes his X posts

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump says he has no desire to fix his relationship with Musk, even after the former 'first buddy' deletes his X posts

President Donald Trump says he has no desire to repair his relationship with Elon Musk. He also said Musk would face "serious consequences" if he funds Democrats. Meanwhile, Musk deleted some of his most incendiary X posts on Saturday. It seems Elon Musk won't be President Donald Trump's "first buddy" again anytime soon. Trump told NBC News on Saturday that he has no plans to repair his relationship with Musk after it imploded this week. When asked if their relationship is done, Trump said, simply, "I would assume so, yeah." Trump said he doesn't intend to speak with Musk and said the tech billionaire was "disrespectful to the office of the President." "I think it's a very bad thing, because he's very disrespectful. You could not disrespect the office of the President," Trump said. The epic and very public fallout began after Musk criticized Trump's tax bill, which the president calls his "One Big Beautiful Bill." During Thursday's dramatic exchange, which took place mostly on the social media networks each billionaire owns, Trump threatened to terminate Musk's government contracts and subsidies. Musk shot back that Trump was in the so-called "Epstein files" in a now-deleted post. In the NBC interview on Saturday, Trump warned Musk against funding Democratic candidates running against GOP members voting in favor of the bill, saying there will be "serious consequences." "If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that," Trump said. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that." Last month, Musk said he would spend "a lot less" on political campaigns in the future. He spent hundreds of millions in support of Trump in 2024. "If I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it," Musk said at the Qatar Economic Forum last month. "I do not currently see a reason." Trump's remarks on Saturday came after Musk deleted some X posts from his account. He deleted the post referencing the Epstein files and a video he re-posted that appeared to show Trump partying with Epstein in the 1990s. Musk also deleted an X post in which he called a Trump comment an "obvious lie" and another post saying SpaceX would decommission its Dragon spacecraft "immediately." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Business Insider that passing the tax bill is the president's priority. "President Trump and the entire Administration will continue the important mission of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from our federal government on behalf of taxpayers, and the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill is critical to helping accomplish that mission," Leavitt said in a statement. Representatives for Musk did not respond to a request for comment from BI. The repercussions from Musk and Trump's dispute were swift, affecting the price of Tesla stock and Dogecoin. A senior White House official told BI that Trump is now considering selling his Tesla. On Saturday, Vice President JD Vance said it was a "huge mistake" for Musk to "go after the president" during the newest episode of "This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von." "I'm not saying he has to agree with the bill or agree with everything that I'm saying," Vance said. "I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man, I think one of the most transformational entrepreneurs ever — that's Elon — to be at this war with the world's most powerful man." During the interview, Vance said he thinks everything will be fine between the pair if Musk "chills out a little bit." "Hopefully Elon figures it out and comes back into the fold," Vance said, adding that Trump had been a "little frustrated" with Musk's recent criticisms. "But I think he's been very restrained because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk, and I actually think if Elon chilled out a little bit, everything would be fine," Vance said. Musk responded to Vance's comment on X on Saturday, writing, simply, "Cool." Read the original article on Business Insider

After outcry, 4-year-old girl can stay in U.S. for lifesaving care
After outcry, 4-year-old girl can stay in U.S. for lifesaving care

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

After outcry, 4-year-old girl can stay in U.S. for lifesaving care

Deysi Vargas's 4-year-old daughter was fussy on Wednesday as she carried her into their Bakersfield, California, home after a dental procedure. In a few hours, Vargas would have to prepare the girl's next feeding - washing her hands thoroughly, measuring formula and flushing her daughter's gastric tube. It was a routine Vargas had perfected through fear. Missing even one step could mean disaster, she said. But for the first time in months, she felt like she could finally breathe. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. Vargas and her family, who hail from Mexico, could stay in the United States, the only country where her daughter can receive the complex and specialized treatment that keeps her alive. The girl has short bowel syndrome, a condition where the body cannot absorb enough nutrients from food. The relief that washed over Vargas had come after nearly two excruciating months, she said. In April, the government had abruptly revoked the family's humanitarian parole without giving them a reason. The move triggered swift international outrage and prompted 38 Democratic members of Congress to send a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem urging her to reverse the decision. Then on Tuesday, Vargas received a notice from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: The family had been granted another year of parole. 'I felt more than tranquility - peace,' Vargas, 28, told The Washington Post. 'These moments of not knowing whether we'd be deported or allowed to stay were beyond overwhelming. It was horrible knowing that my daughter's ability to stay alive depended on this humanitarian parole.' In a statement Friday, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed the family was approved to stay in the United States. The agency did not respond to questions about why their parole had been revoked after initially being granted until July. Vargas's attorney, Gina Amato Lough, said the family fit into two categories of people who have seen their status canceled amid the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration: people with parole and those who entered the country through the Biden administration's CBP One app. The Trump administration has also rolled back humanitarian protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The girl, whom the family's lawyers identify by the pseudonym Sofia, was born in Playa del Carmen, Mexico, in fragile health. She had her first surgery at four days old for a malformation in her intestine. Four more surgeries followed, Vargas said, and left the girl with short bowel syndrome. Soon, the girl was transferred to a hospital nearly 800 miles away in Mexico City. Vargas and her husband uprooted their lives to move close to the facility, which their daughter did not leave for two years. After two more surgeries and a near-death experience, doctors told Vargas they were running out of options. The only thing left to try was an intestine transplant, which had never been done in that hospital before, Vargas recalled being told. 'They told me my child was most likely going to die,' she said. Vargas refused to give up hope. She started researching transplants and alternative treatments in Spain and the United States, and contacting hospitals. At the same time, she prepared an application for humanitarian parole, which allows people to temporarily live in the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons. In 2023, the family boarded a flight to Tijuana from Mexico City. They carried the girl - still connected to nutrition bags - to the border and legally entered the United States through an appointment secured through the CBP One app, Vargas said. They were granted humanitarian parole until July 2025. The girl arrived in California as an emaciated toddler and was transported to a children's hospital in San Diego. She soon began to thrive under specialized care, Vargas said, including hours tethered to an intravenous feeding system - a machine that pumps nutrients into her through a tube. Little by little, the child reached milestones - like sitting up and taking her first steps - that to Vargas had once seemed impossibly out of reach. She was transferred to Children's Hospital Los Angeles after a year. In September, the girl was discharged and allowed to live something close to a normal life: playing in the park, painting with her father and attending day care while Vargas works in a buffet-style restaurant. She loves dancing, especially to 'Mambo No. 5' by Lou Bega. 'She feels the rhythm and starts moving her body,' Vargas said, laughing. For a while, it felt like the family was moving forward. Then came the April 11 letter from DHS, giving them just seven days before their legal status would be revoked. 'Do not attempt to remain in the United States - the federal government will find you. Please depart the United States immediately,' read the email, which was reviewed by The Post. The family received two more such notices. The last one, from May 13, warned Vargas that her work authorization had also been canceled. 'I can't explain the fear,' she said. 'Feeling like any time we were out on the streets someone was going to take us away and deport us.' Adding to her anxiety, Vargas said, was the fact that her daughter's medical team had said the equipment that keeps the girl alive can't leave the country - and patients on this treatment aren't allowed to travel. DHS denied in its statement that the family was 'actively being deported.' Though the family hadn't been placed in removal proceedings or received a final deportation order, Amato Lough said the revocation of their status effectively left them undocumented. The letter the family received from DHS warned: 'If you do not depart the United States immediately you will be subject to potential law enforcement actions that will result in your removal.' On May 14, Vargas and her family filed another application for humanitarian parole. Weeks went by without an answer. Then, after the Los Angeles Times reported on the family's situation, USCIS contacted the family to begin scheduling biometrics appointments - a standard, early step in many immigration benefit applications. Days later, the family was told they would have status for a year. 'While we celebrate this victory, we cannot ignore the systemic challenges that brought [the girl] to the brink,' Amato Lough and her co-counsel, Rebecca Brown, said in a statement. 'Her parole was terminated without warning, and for weeks there was no functional avenue to alert USCIS that a child's life was in danger. It took an international outcry and pressure from elected officials to get a response - something that used to take a single phone call.' In Bakersfield, Vargas rocked her daughter gently this week and whispered reassurances. 'She's so groggy,' she said, as the girl whined. 'But she's going to be okay.' This time, she believed it. Related Content To save rhinos, conservationists are removing their horns Donald Trump and the art of the Oval Office confrontation Some advice from LGBTQ elders as WorldPride kicks off amid fears

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store