Douglas growth fight goes back to trial

The Nevada Supreme Court breathed new life Thursday into Douglas County's voter-approved growth cap.

The Sustainable Growth Initiative was approved by 53 percent of the county's voters in 2002, limiting Douglas to no more than 280 new building permits each year. County officials are expected to meet next week to decide whether to continue a court battle or put the growth limit into effect.

John Garvin, who headed the Sustainable Growth Initiative Committee, said it was necessary to prevent runaway development from destroying the lifestyle of residents.

He said that while the court battles have been going on, the county has authorized about 4,000 more homes. He said he's confident the committee will eventually win the battle to cap growth in Douglas County.

Developers fought the cap from the beginning, saying it would put them out of business and violate their rights to develop their property.

District Judge Michael Gibbons granted developers and the county summary judgment in their challenge, saying the initiative violated the county's master plan and was an administrative matter not appropriate for a ballot question.

In a split decision, the high court reversed that decision Thursday, sending it back to district court for trial.

"After comparing the SGI to the master plan as a whole, we cannot say that as a matter of law the SGI is noncompliant to an extent that would require us to usurp the will of the people," the opinion by Chief Justice Bob Rose states.

But he left the door open for the district court to review those alleged inconsistencies.

"Ultimately, the district court might strike down the SGI at trial after finding that these inconsistencies render the SGI substantially noncompliant. However, we cannot hold that, at this stage in the proceedings and with the evidence before us, respondents have met their summary judgment burden to demonstrate inconsistency as a matter of law."

He was joined in that opinion by Justice Michael Douglas and Senior Justice Miriam Shearing.

Justices Ron Parraguirre and Nancy Becker disagreed, saying the initiative "will lead to many unintended consequences" incompatible with the master plan.

In their dissent, they wrote that "limiting growth is but one facet of a plan that was intended to be a comprehensive tool for growth development." The rigid cap of 280 dwellings a year, they said, will cause conflicts with master-plan requirements the county develop affordable housing, by forcing a growth rate that is below the 2 percent minimum. They said it also interferes with a program designed to protect open space in the county by transferring development rights

The remaining justices, Mark Gibbons - whose brother issued the Douglas County ruling - and Jim Hardesty, recused themselves from the case.

The county and developers have fought the initiative at every step of the way, winning rulings from both Douglas District Court judges but losing at the Supreme Court level.

When organizers announced they had collected enough signatures to put the question before voters, opponents went to court arguing it was a zoning decision contrary to the county's master plan. They said the decision was administrative and not a proper subject for a ballot question.

Judge David Gamble agreed and pulled the question off the ballot.

The Supreme Court put it back on the ballot, saying the petitioners had no other remedy than to be allowed to vote. But the court made it clear at that time the legal issue of whether voters have the right to amend zoning code wasn't resolved.

When the question passed, the county and developers went to district court again where Judge Gibbons agreed and granted summary judgment in their favor. Again, Thursday, the high court disagreed, directing the district court to conduct hearings on whether the initiative conflicts with the master plan so badly as to render it null and void.

Claudette Springmeyer, acting county manager, said she will ask the planning and county commissioners for direction at a joint meeting of the two panels Thursday.

She said that could range from starting the process to put the initiative in the county code or continue the battle in district court.

District Attorney Scott Doyle could not be reached for comment.

-- Contact reporter Geoff Dornan at gdornan@nevadaappeal.com or 687-8750.