The Review-Journal recently editorialized regarding opposition expressed to portions of the "Property Owners Bill of Rights" ballot question. The editorial said that concerns raised by opponents of the initiative, which are based on legal opinions from the district attorney, are "strained, exaggerated and ridiculous." Other unflattering terms -- "political elite," "ruling class" -- were used to describe anyone who might dare to utter a word of dissent. Apparently the Review-Journal knows quite a lot about exaggeration.

We often agree with Review-Journal editorial positions, including your disapproval of the use of eminent domain for economic development. However, does the Review-Journal really believe that the ballot proposal is perfect and that only heretics would dare suggest there might be some language neatly tucked away among its more than 650 words which constitutes a legitimate cause for concern?

Because of the way the initiative has been reported and commented on by the Review-Journal -- that it's all about prohibiting eminent domain for non-public purposes -- almost no one has any knowledge regarding the approximately 600 or so words that have absolutely nothing to do with that.

Those 600 words have everything to do with cementing into our state constitution special rules and a radical new basis for lawsuits, which will create a perpetual gold mine for certain trial lawyers at the expense of the taxpayers.

We totally agree that eminent domain should not be used to obtain private property and then convey it to another private party to further some development scheme. That is why we opposed the creation of the Clark County Redevelopment Agency and later succeeded in implementing policies that make it almost impossible for the agency to use eminent domain. Although it never has used that power, we recently proposed a prohibition on the agency's use of eminent domain unless the property owner requests its use for the tax advantage. The County Commission will vote on our proposal in September.

It's those other 600 words which, according to legal opinions by the district attorney's office, will have the following harmful effects:

1. Several sections taken together will cause significant increases in the cost of land for essential road, flood control and other public works projects, where there is no question about the public purpose.

2. Long-term planning and early acquisition of property for these essential projects will be foreclosed because Section 11 of the initiative requires property acquired by eminent domain to revert to the original owner if not used for the stated purpose within five years. No government wants to hold onto unneeded property when it could be generating property taxes in private hands. However, projects such as the Beltway, U.S. Highway 95 improvements, Terminal 3 at McCarran International Airport and the Army Corps of Engineers flood control plan necessarily take far longer than five years to implement.

3. Because the five-year rule violates federal law, Nevada stands to lose millions in federal highway funding each year.

4. Section 8 of the petition, which has nothing to do with eminent domain, constitutes a radical overturning of long-established law and creates an entire new realm of lawsuits for any government action which significantly lowers anyone's property values. It doesn't say unlawful or wrongful actions. It says any action. That includes acting to grant or deny a zone change, approving a zoning master plan, granting or denying a gaming or liquor license, approving the location of new roads, improving a road, approving new power lines, and restricting the location of casinos, strip clubs, sex clubs, bars or billboards to keep them away from residential neighborhoods.

What about the Southern Nevada Water Authority's restriction on water usage due to the drought, or its plan to pipe in water from central Nevada? All of these actions, and a lot more will now become the basis for unlimited lawsuits whenever anyone can hire an appraiser who will say that the action significantly decreased his property value. This kind of government liability exists nowhere else in America, and for good reason. State and local government cannot act to protect its citizens because the taxpayers cannot possibly afford to pay the endless claims for compensation, and our quality of life will truly suffer.

What about the rights of taxpayers and motorists? What about the rights of 99.9 percent of property owners? In 2003, the Review-Journal issued a great editorial, headlined "A Homeowner's Bill of Rights," wherein it wrote that zoning and master plans must be considered an implied contract between existing property owners and local officials, subject to only minimal modifications unless consent is obtained from all concerned. If Section 8 of PISTOL becomes part of Nevada's constitution, master plans and zoning rules, designed to protect homeowners from undesirable development, will probably no longer be viable. If your neighbor can show that his property values will be substantially higher with a casino, convenience store or adult bookstore, rather than a house, the taxpayers will pay the price if the County Commission or City Council denies the zone change.

These are the reasons numerous private sector groups (business and labor, responsible developers and neighborhood zoning watchdogs, contractors and environmentalists) along with local agencies, are opposing the initiative. It is complex, confusing and deceptive. The authors, who say these results were not intended, should withdraw this plan and truly address the misuse of eminent domain for redevelopment. It is easy to fix without including these other provisions which carry so much potential harm.

Decide for yourself. To obtain a copy of the proposal and the district attorney legal opinions, call or e-mail our office at 455-3500 or ccdista@co.clark.nv.us.

Bruce L. Woodbury, Republican, represents District A on the Clark County Commission. Chip Maxfield, a Republican, represents District C.