Eminent domain balancing act

Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2006 | 7:06 a.m.

Nevada voters still are waiting to learn whether the state Supreme Court decides to keep an initiative dealing with the hot-button topic of eminent domain on the November ballot.

Clark County commissioners, however, have decided not to wait before wading into the contentious issue.

In a feat of political tightrope walking, commissioners next week essentially will consider adopting part of the proposed statewide ballot initiative that they are simultaneously suing to block.

Earlier this month, commissioners voted to join a lawsuit to prevent the so-called Property Owners Bill of Rights from appearing on the November ballot.

The initiative would amend the state Constitution to greatly restrict government's ability to acquire private land through eminent domain. It also would require the government to pay higher amounts for property it takes, give land back to private owners if not used within five years and compensate private landowners for government actions as routine as zoning changes.

Led by Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, opponents of the ballot initiative argue that those changes could prevent government from providing basic services such as road construction. The measure also would jeopardize millions of dollars in federal highway funding, Woodbury says.

A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision has sparked concern that eminent domain - traditionally used by government to acquire private property needed for public projects - might be expanded so that private land so acquired could be given to a different private owner in the name of redevelopment.

Thus the need for the state constitutional amendment, say backers of the ballot initiative.

But two proposals that Woodbury and Commissioner Chip Maxfield will push at next week's meeting would pull the proverbial rug out from under that argument.

One proposal would ban the county's redevelopment agency from using eminent domain over the protests of a private landowner.

The other would establish a county policy under which eminent domain could be used only for public projects such as road, flood control, water and sewer projects.

A majority of commissioners have said they likely will support those proposals.

Woodbury also plans to roll out another proposal at the commission's Sept. 20 meeting that would formally denounce the ballot initiative as detrimental to taxpayers and a barrier to necessary public works projects.

The initiative "constitutes a radical overturning of long established law and will create a new realm of unlimited liability for every act of state and local entities in Nevada which might affect someone's property value," Woodbury's proposal says.

His proposal, Woodbury contends, demonstrates that commissioners are not opposed to the part of the ballot initiative that would prohibit governments from conveying private property from the hands of one private party to another.

If that concern is eliminated, Woodbury hopes, voters will see the other 12 law changes in the ballot initiative as unnecessary - and potentially dangerous.