LAS VEGAS-- A lawsuit filed Thursday asks a district court judge to declare the so-called "Nevada Property Owners' Bill of Rights" initiative illegal and bar the Secretary of State from placing it on the Nov. 7 general election ballot.

"All of us who filed this lawsuit are deeply concerned about the devastating consequences that the implementation of this initiative would have on the taxpayers and citizens of this state," said Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, one of the plaintiffs along with Nevadans for the Protection of Property Rights, Clark County and numerous other organizations and citizens.

"We all share the general public's concern about potential abuses of eminent domain in redevelopment cases, but the trial lawyers who authored the initiative are attempting to manipulate that concern to create a huge financial windfall for themselves," Woodbury said in a lengthy prepared statement.

Part of the proposal, Section 8, would cause a radical overturning of existing law and would subject every governmental entity in the state to unlimited new lawsuits by adversaries who would be excused from the potential of sanctions for filing frivolous actions, he said.

Section 8 states that "government actions which result in substantial economic loss to private property shall require the payment of just compensation. Examples of such substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limiting the use of private air space."

Many state and local agencies could face paralysis and grave financial difficulties, Woodbury said.

Nevada's quality of life could suffer significant consequences since developers and other property owners would be allowed to develop their property to the fullest extent possible -- regardless of whatever reasonable zoning and land-use restrictions might exist -- unless local governments were willing to compensate them. As a result, billboards, skyscrapers and adult businesses could end up being placed in formerly tranquil neighborhoods, rendering current zoning and land-use laws moot, officials said.

According to the lawsuit, the effort by the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land (PISTOL):

Unlawfully "violates equal protection of the laws under the United States Constitution by seeking to afford eminent domain plaintiffs special constitutional rights to control judicial proceedings not available to other litigants based solely on the criterion of property ownership, and seeking to allow a subclass of those litigants to obtain windfall compensation based on arbitrary standards of 'intended' and 'highest and best use.'"

"Unlawfully proposes multiple subjects for adoption in violation of [state law] by proposing eminent domain provisions, judicial rules and provisions proposing to affect zoning and related police powers in a single constitutional amendment."

"Unlawfully proposes multiple subjects for adoption in violation of [state law] by seeking to incorporate provisions pertaining to zoning and related police powers that exceed the scope of the proposed amendment's eminent domain subject matter." The initiative "is an example of logrolling in its grossest, most blatant of forms."

"Unlawfully affects multiple Sections of the Nevada Constitution and alters multiple functions of government."

"Unlawfully proposes administrative acts by mandating agency procedures and enacting judicial rules."

"Unlawfully alters the internal affairs of Nevada courts."

The lawsuit was filed by Nevadans for the Protection of Property Rights, the Las Vegas and Henderson chambers of commerce, the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, Nevada Contractors Association, Associated General Contractors, Nevadans for Nevada, Clark County, the Clark County Regional Flood Control District, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the Las Vegas Valley Water District, the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, Sparks City Councilman John Mayor, Woodbury and numerous citizens.

Their concerns go beyond legalities, they said, charging that the initiative would have the following effects:

Taxpayers would suffer as the cost of transportation, flood control, water and other public works programs escalate dramatically.

Commuters and the traveling public would suffer as highway and road improvement projects face serious delays and planning for future road construction through early right-of-way acquisition becomes increasingly difficult.

Federal funds for highway projects would be forfeited because the initiative would cause Nevada's laws to violate federal regulations. It is estimated that Nevada would lose $210 million each year in federal highway funds.

The legal process for eminent domain litigation would be perverted to create a special class of litigants with rights and remedies granted to no one else.

The plaintiffs share citizens' concern about potential abuses of eminent domain in redevelopment cases as embodied in the Kelo U.S. Supreme Court case, Woodbury said. But the initiative includes one sentence addressing Kelo-type cases among a large number of unrelated provisions, which would threaten the ability of state and local government to provide basic services to Nevada citizens.

"The Initiative would pose a(n) ... 'all or nothing' choice on Nevada voters," the lawsuit argued. "Those who favor curtailment of the power of eminent domain might be aghast at the far reaching effects of the stealthily included administrative 'takings' provision, a provision so wide sweeping, the financial impact of the proposed amendment cannot be gauged."

Further, the initiative "encroaches upon all three branches of government. It acts in a legislative manner by creating substantive rights and defining jurisdictional limits upon the court; it impacts the executive branches by curtailing agency and regulatory actions; and it affects the judicial branch by limiting the court's rule making authority regarding appointment of senior judges and preemption rights," according to the motion asking that the court declare the initiative "invalid."

Copyright Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006