|
|
 |
Nevada
Court Cuts Nevada Tax and Spending Ballot Measure and Trims Eminent Domain Proposal; Government Agencies, Business Groups Vow to Fight Initiative
In separate decisions against two broad November ballot proposals to curb government fiscal and developmental powers, the Nevada Supreme Court unanimously halted the Tax and Spending Control (TASC) measure and in a 5-2 vote trimmed the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land (PISTOL) -- both for violation of the Arizona Constitution's single-subject ballot clause.
TASC, report Las Vegas Review-Journal writers Sean Whaley and Molly Ball, would have limited public spending increases to the population growth rate plus inflation, with further outlays dependent on voter approval. PISTOL would have coupled the proposed restrictions on eminent domain, left by the court majority on the ballot, with several other crippling provisions, one of which would make governments compensate claims for property value loss due to rezoning and other land use restrictions with the highest amounts these properties would fetch on the open market.
TASC Executive Director Bob Adney denounced the court for its ''horrible decision'' to block the measure. He accused the justices of ''being activist judges and silencing the will of the people,'' and promised to push for such a ballot again. His prominent ally, state Republican Senator Bob Beers, called the TASC ruling ''a political decision,'' which ''is going to widen the gulf in Nevada between taxpayers and tax consumers.''
On the other side, backed by unions, Nevadans for Nevada Chairman Danny Thompson noted that TASC, funded mostly by out-of-state interests, would have been a disaster and promised to work for a legislative ''overhaul'' of the ballot initiative process to ensure checks and balances that would test similar measure campaigns in their early stages.
The 5-2 ruling on PISTOL is equally controversial, with the measure's proponents happy that its eminent domain sections, including a ban on taking private property for economically needed private redevelopment, are staying on the ballot, and broad opposition led by government agencies and business groups determined to fight it until the election. PISTOL Chairman Don Chairez described the truncated measure as ''leaner and meaner,'' expecting it to weaken critics' arguments.
But Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury -- who heads a group called, significantly, Nevadans for the Protection of Property Rights -- said that even without ''probably the worst provision,'' the measure would result in ''unlimited liability for every act of government,'' because its remaining sections undercut state and local authority ''to implement infrastructure programs.''
During the state Supreme Court's hearing last month, business group coalition attorney Mark Ferrario illustrated the threat, pointing out that should a road widening project affect nearby businesses, they could sue government for damages, which goes far beyond eminent domain issues.
Two judges voted to reject the whole measure, but the majority removed only those overreaching provisions and some administrative ones.
A few days later, PISTOL opponents asked justices for reconsideration, saying that by taking out some provisions they had created a new initiative, which doesn't comply with the constitutional requirements for qualifying a measure on the ballot. They also suggest the court should have removed a provision that would free property owners from liability for any government fees or costs due to an eminent domain action. Observers note that courts usually deny motions for reconsideration. -- Las Vegas Review-Journal 9/9/2006
Click here or here to view the source article or
here to view the source publication.
|
|
E-mail
to a Friend
View
Printer-friendly page 
