EDITORIAL: Eminent domain - Opinion

SAVE THIS

EMAIL THIS Print

PRINT THIS Popular

POST A COMMENT

Nov. 30, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Eminent domain

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo ruling -- in which the liberal justices formed a 5-4 majority to OK government land seizures on behalf of private parties -- local attorney Kermit Waters put together a ballot initiative designed to limit such outrageous abuses of eminent domain in Nevada.

The proposed constitutional amendment, known as the People's Initiative To Stop The Taking of Our Land (PISTOL), would have to pass twice -- in 2006 and 2008 -- to become law.

Most Popular Stories

EDITORIAL: A pre-9/11 approach to terror

LETTERS: Public-sector workers are still doing well

LETTERS: Harry Reid: Working hard for all Americans

VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Barefooted, gun-toting hayseeds?

EDITORIAL: 'That's the ticket!'

LETTERS: Senator just trying to kiss up to Harry Reid

LETTERS: A giant octopus threatens rural Nevada

EDITORIAL: The time is right

LETTERS: America should try terrorists in open court

EDITORIAL: Religious freedom

Well, you'd have thought that Mr. Waters had attacked baseball, apple pie or even double-digit pay raises for government workers. The howls from the state political establishment were loud and shrill. The measure, they argued, was so Draconian that governments would have a hard time seizing land for even legitimate purposes such as road building.

Opponents of the measure sued to prevent voters from passing judgment. While the Nevada Supreme Court did modify the initiative, the justices then let it go forward and it passed easily in 2006.

Realizing that they would likely lose again in 2008 -- they did, as the amendment was approved with 61 percent support -- opponents arrived in Carson City for the 2007 session with a plan. Craft a compromise with Mr. Waters, get lawmakers to approve the plan twice and put the new proposal in front of voters in 2010 as an effort to override the original amendment.

Mr. Waters eventually embraced a legislative proposal that he says contains 90 percent of his original initiative. It easily passed the Legislature in 2007 and will almost certainly win approval by lawmakers in 2009 before heading to voters the next year.

In the interim, however, Mr. Waters' first proposal -- having passed twice -- is now the law. Meaning the mewling from the public sector has started all over again.

Opponents of PISTOL were back in court this week asking a judge to stay its application until voters have their say on the new measure in 2010. "Do you want PISTOL for the next two years with all its problems?" Bradley Schrager, an attorney representing two Clark County government agencies and a union front group, argued before a Carson City judge on Tuesday.

It's not clear what "problems" Mr. Schrager is talking about. At any rate, arguing that a voter-approved amendment to the state constitution should be ignored for two years because it might cause "problems" for government agencies is the height of imperial arrogance and simply outrageous.

Thankfully, District Judge James Todd Russell agreed, holding that he would be compromising the rights of Nevada citizens if he granted the request. PISTOL will remain Nevada law -- at least until such time it is amended or rescinded through the proper statutory channels.

And that's the way it should be.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	10 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. TimeRanger wrote on November 30, 2008 11:26 PM: ballot initiatives are the result of the elected representatives NOT doing what they were elected to do - Represent the wishes of their constitutents. oh please wrote on November 30, 2008 10:21 PM: I think Mr. Waters is public enemy number one... Progress wrote on November 30, 2008 10:20 PM: NVpartriot writes, "Ballot initiatives are an abomination. Someone should propose a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. It flies in the face of the representative government on which this nation was founded." You are absolutely right!!!! LVnative wrote on November 30, 2008 06:24 PM: Before nominating Mr Waters for sainthood, remember that he waited until after the highway 215 and other major public projects were complete and he had made his bundle pushing his clients' property values to unreasonable levels, increasing the cost of public construction for the rest of us, before he decided to become the hero of reform. He benefitted as much as anyone in the land condemnation game. Bruce Woodbury did far more to benefit the residents of our community than Mr Waters ever has or ever will. NVPatroit wrote on November 30, 2008 03:07 PM: Ballot initiatives are an abomination. Someone should propose a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. It flies in the face of the representative government on which this nation was founded. TimeRanger wrote on November 30, 2008 01:24 PM: "Progress" sounds like a government shill. I agree that eminent domain is needed for certain projects - freeways and the like, but it must NEVER be used to take land from one private party and give/sell it to another private party. And, just in case you hadn't noticed, the voters of Nevada heartily agreed, with their votes - TWICE. Progress wrote on November 30, 2008 11:21 AM: Eminent domain is a viable way to Las Vegas to grow and redefine itself. It’s the only way to get rid of dilapidated areas. Russ from N. J. wrote on November 30, 2008 10:26 AM: Remember, your judges are elected, every 2 years. That means they are campaigning and anyone that wants a favor in court might make a donation to that campaign. No judge has the power to change constitutional law. It's up to the voter. Virga wrote on November 30, 2008 09:45 AM: Should any judge have the power to suspend a constitutional law. Russ from N. J. wrote on November 30, 2008 03:41 AM: Remember, to take land for the betterment of the people is one thing, but to take nice and well maintained homes for apartments and condos to help builders and city government to raise taxes is another. Find another way to raise taxes or better yet cut wasteful spending.