Editorial: Pared down, but still flawed

Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2006 | 7:23 a.m.

And then there were nine.

This is how many sections now remain of a ballot question known as the Property Owners' Bill of Rights that voters will decide in November.

As originally approved by petition signers, the Nevada secretary of state's office and a District Court judge, the question had 14 sections. Acting on an appeal filed by opponents, the Nevada Supreme Court knocked out five of the sections last week for legal reasons.

Ostensibly the question addressed the objectionable practice of government, under eminent domain procedures, forcibly acquiring private land for purely economic development purposes as opposed to purposes of urgent public need.

We strongly opposed the question in an Aug. 27 editorial because it diverged widely from its premise, in violation of state law. Several sections, had they passed, would have virtually ended government's necessary involvement in almost all land-use decisions.

All seven members of the Supreme Court found that the question indeed strayed into areas other than eminent domain. A five-member majority decided to allow the question to remain on the ballot after spiking five divergent sections.

Two justices, James Hardesty and William Maupin, partially dissented, saying the ballot question should have been stricken in its entirety. They argued that if any portion of a question is defective, it is wholly defective.

In our view, voters should still reject the question, as surviving sections still go beyond simply preventing government from taking land for economic development. One section, for example, requires that property acquired through eminent domain "revert back to the original property owner ... if the property is not used within five years for the original purpose stated by the government." Many vital public projects, including roads and highways, require much more than five years to get under way.

We would support a question that would simply prevent government from seizing private land for private economic development. That does not require 14 sections, or even nine.