Sunday, Aug. 27, 2006 | 7:27 a.m.
A ballot question that will be decided by voters in November goes by the aptly named acronym, PISTOL. We say aptly named, because we believe that any taxpayer who votes for the initiative will be shooting himself in the foot.
The backers of the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land purport to be concerned about protecting property owners from having their land seized by the government and handed over to a private developer.
If the question were succinctly worded to prevent this - and only this - it would have our support. But it goes way beyond abusive government land seizures.
If approved by voters in November and again at the 2008 general election, it would amend the state Constitution in such a way that government would be hamstrung in nearly all land-use areas.
Because the question strays from eminent domain into zoning and other government land-use actions, giving people absurdly broad justification for filing compensation claims at taxpayer expense, planning for neighborhoods and commercial areas, and even for safe city streets, would be severely jeopardized.
Major projects, such as highway improvements, could cost Nevada taxpayers hundreds of millions - even billions - more than they're now paying. Oregon voters passed a similar law in 2004, and already the state is facing nearly 2,000 claims for compensation totaling $4.2 billion. The counties are facing additional claims.
We certainly believe that seizure of private property for a critical public purpose under eminent domain proceedings is a serious action and should be carefully regulated to prevent abuse.
And we strongly believe that it is wrong for the government to seize land for the sole purpose of transferring it to a private owner because his development plans would bolster tax collections. Regrettably, this has happened here in Las Vegas and elsewhere in the country.
Making matters worse, the U.S. Supreme Court last year ruled 5-4 that a Connecticut city acted properly in seizing private, residential oceanfront property so that a private developer could use it for a dense, multi-use complex.
This decision by the high court, though, also clarified that eminent-domain procedures are a matter for states to decide through their laws and constitutions, a ruling that led to the petition drive that garnered a place for PISTOL on Nevada's ballot.
Unfortunately, the financial backers of PISTOL used this opportunity to formulate a question that, if approved, would leave government emasculated when it comes to almost all land-use planning. The question's primary financiers are local eminent-domain attorney Kermitt Waters, whose business would almost certainly expand exponentially if voters approve the question, and New York City real-estate millionaire Howard Rich, who is chairman of Chicago-based Americans for Limited Government, a libertarian outfit.
Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, a Republican who has more than 25 years of experience in public land-use planning, has taken the lead in informing the public about the true implications of PISTOL. Also opposing the question are numerous government agencies, chambers of commerce, and such community groups as Nevadans for Nevada, supported by labor unions, and Nevada Tomorrow, an organization supported by gaming companies, other businesses and the Greenspun family, which owns the Las Vegas Sun.
The question has 14 sections containing language that could tie up legitimate government land-use planning in the courts for years and effectively negate the government's ability to enact zoning laws. If the provisions of this question had been in effect in the early 1990s, we'd still be dreaming of a Las Vegas Beltway instead of driving on it.
And if the question goes into effect, the Southern Nevada Water Authority's plan to pipe excess water from northern counties would fall victim to so many court claims that it would be dead. The pipeline is the best hope Southern Nevada has for continuing its growth into the near future.
Woodbury, a lawyer, says his reading of the sections means that government would be "virtually paralyzed" when it came to land-use planning.
At a hearing last week the Nevada Supreme Court was asked to strike the question from the ballot. Because Nevada law requires ballot questions to stay focused on a single subject, we believe the court has every justification for ruling against PISTOL.
If the question does make it to the ballot box, we hope, for the sake of taxpayers' wallets and Nevada's continued high standard of living, that the question is overwhelmingly defeated.
archive
