Clark County commissioners Bruce L. Woodbury and Chip Maxfield have proposed a limited ban on using eminent domain to acquire property for private redevelopment purposes, but may file a lawsuit to block a ballot initiative seeking more stringent restrictions that has already qualified for the November election.
ban on using eminent domain to acquire property in the region for private redevelopment purposes
Woodbury’s effort comes weeks after the state Supreme Court upheld a judgment against McCarran International Airport for $6.5 million — and up to twice that amount in legal fees — for effectively taking the airspace surrounding the home of plaintiff Steve Sisolak. Woodbury, however, denied that his proposal was directly motivated by the ruling.
“I’d asked whether the Nevada state Legislature could overturn the Sisolak-McCarran decision and was told no because it’s based on federal case law,” he said in a telephone interview.
The type of reimbursement that the airport had to make to Sisolak would become mandatory under the eminent domain initiative opposed by Woodbury.
Last month the Nevada secretary of state’s office validated enough signatures to place on the ballot the “Property Owner’s Bill of Rights,” a constitutional amendment proposed by former Nevada district judge and Republican attorney general candidate Don Chairez that would make it harder for local governments to exercise eminent domain.
“The one part of the initiative being publicized is the prevention of using eminent domain for redevelopment purposes, and I agree with it. But it’s the rest of the initiative I have problems with,” Woodbury said. “There are a number of provisions that will increase the costs for right-of-ways in public works projects … and basically paralyze or bankrupt local government.”
Woodbury said that the ballot initiative adds to the overall public concern regarding last year’s Kelo v. New London, Conn., ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that affirmed local governments’ ability to seize property for private development.
While Woodbury and Maxfield agree with the opposition to the Kelo decision expressed in the proposed amendment, they disagree with the “fine print that would serve the agenda of the trial lawyers who handle eminent domain cases on a contingency basis as well as the libertarian agenda looking to do away with land use regulation and planning,” Woodbury said.
He also said that approval of the initiative could drive up the costs and drag out the amount of time involved in public works projects.
State law requires that proposed constitutional amendments be passed by majority vote in two consecutive general elections, which follow a biennial cycle. Constitutional amendments can also be approved by state lawmakers, a process that requires a simple majority vote in two consecutive sessions of the Legislature, which also meets biennially.
