Question of braking progress

Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2006 | 7:26 a.m.

Rare is the ballot initiative that strikes so much fear in Southern Nevada politicians that they would call a press conference on the rooftop of a casino parking garage just feet away from U.S. 95.

But that's where the mayors of Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas and Boulder City, two Clark County commissioners, four state legislators, the president of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and other business leaders, Republicans and Democrats alike, could be found Tuesday morning.

They used the busy highway behind the Main Street Station as a backdrop to sell their argument that Question 2, the proposed state constitutional amendment on eminent domain on the Nov. 7 ballot, would increase gridlock and cost taxpayers billions of dollars in additional land costs for public works projects.

But the real attempt to block Question 2 is not likely to begin until after the election, if it passes.

Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, organizer of the opposition, said he expects the so-called Property Owner's Bill of Rights, backed by a group called the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land (PISTOL), to be approved by voters next month.

"It's probably going to pass this time around, but it's our obligation to try to get the facts out to the public," Woodbury said.

"What we're saying is that there's an alternative way of resolving concerns about eminent domain abuses. We are collaborating on another constitutional amendment that will have a little bit of PISTOL but without the language that would jeopardize our federal highway funding."

To become law, Question 2 would have to be approved by voters in November and again in 2008.

Woodbury and other opponents say they are not bothered by a provision of the initiative that would prohibit state and local governments from taking private land and selling it to a private developer. The Clark County Commission recently passed an ordinance banning such takings, and similar resolutions have either been adopted or are being considered by local cities.

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said Question 2 could "put a stranglehold on continued growth in the community."

"I hope it does not pass, but there has not been the educational campaign on this that there should be," Goodman said. "If you see a cancer coming, you try to stop it."

What opponents find most objectionable about the initiative are provisions that would require the government to reimburse landowners at a value equal to the property's "highest and best use" - rather than the fair market value based on existing zoning - and offer back land acquired through eminent domain to the original owner at the original price if it is not used for a public purpose within five years.

"So many of our public projects take more than five years," Goodman said. "This doesn't take into consideration planning and financing of projects."

The opponents are armed with a study by Applied Analysis, an economic analysis firm in Las Vegas, that found that the ballot initiative could cost Nevadans as much as an additional $6.5 billion over 25 years through increased highway construction costs, traffic congestion and lost federal highway funds.

Regardless of what happens at the polls next month, officials at the press conference made it clear that the Nevada Legislature next year would hammer out an alternative to Question 2 from among eight proposed bill drafts.

"The Legislature is absolutely committed to addressing this issue," Sen. Warren Hardy, R-Las Vegas, said.

If the Legislature simply wanted to revise state statutes addressing eminent domain, it could pass a law that could take effect before Question 2.

But if the Legislature wishes to propose its own constitutional amendment, as Woodbury suggests, it would have to be approved by legislators in both 2007 and 2009 and then go before voters in 2010. Under that scenario, Question 2, if approved in 2008, would be part of the state constitution for two years before voters would have an opportunity to overrule it in 2010.

Las Vegas eminent domain attorney Kermitt Waters, co-author of Question 2, said he doubts that the Legislature would come up with a better alternative to next month's ballot measure. He also argued that his initiative would not worsen traffic gridlock.

"That is so much deception," Waters said of possible legislative alternatives. "It is only an attempt of the developers and casino-dominated Legislature to sweep it under the floor."