A ballot question that would rein in eminent domain land-seizure powers has the potential to "paralyze" or "bankrupt" local government by slowing road projects and making them more expensive, local transportation leaders said Thursday.

The question on the November ballot would place hurdles before government on even the most innocuous projects, according to top officials with the Regional Transportation Commission.

"This will result in state or local government being paralyzed or potentially bankrupted, paralyzed because of potential lawsuits, or if we go forward, being subject to unlimited lawsuits," said Transportation Commission Chairman Bruce Woodbury.

"It'll have an incredibly adverse effect on all public projects," said Woodbury, also a Clark County commissioner. "It will mean in this rapidly growing community where we're struggling to keep up with the growth, that the struggle will be so much more difficult, We'll face so many delays."

Woodbury's concern about unintended consequences for taxpayers is the first significant public broadside of what has been billed as a populist measure to protect small landowners against predatory megadevelopers and pliant politicians.

The ballot measure -- known as People's Initiative to Stop The Taking of Our Land, or PISTOL -- is aimed at restricting the use and abuse of eminent domain laws allowing government to unilaterally acquire private land for private development instead of public need.

Don Chairez, a backer of the petition drive, has said his effort is not designed to stop legitimate eminent domain proceedings, such as government entities acquiring land for roads and schools.

Chairez, a Republican candidate for attorney general and former district judge, could not be reached for comment.

The question's genesis was a June 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of Kelo v. New London, which permitted the local government in New London, Conn., to force out 15 owners of homes who had refused to sell their property for development of office buildings and housing being built by a pharmaceutical company.

The question has been approved for November's ballot.

The proposal would entitle property owners to have district court juries determine that the land to be taken would be for a public use, not for private development. Compensation would be in the form of the highest price the property would bring on the open market, and not a lesser "fair market value" now offered. And property owners would not be liable for attorneys fees.

"A property owner can contend a road project doesn't serve a valid public purpose, and they have no penalty" in contesting it, Woodbury said. "Even if they're wrong, even if they lose on every issue, they have no incentive to settle. They can simply delay, and never have to pay the taxpayers' attorney fees or costs.

"Taxpayers will be forced to delay the projects for years," Woodbury said.

Transportation Commission General Manager Jacob Snow said he is worried that the new price standard would disregard land use restrictions that would typically deflate the price of a lot.

Right of way costs can represent up to half the cost of a typical road project. "For some projects, it can double the price," Snow said.

Road planners also are unsure whether a five-year limit on developing seized land or returning it to the landowner would affect the ability to bank roadside right of way for future road widening, as is commonly done now.

"This is written in such a vague manner," said Lee Thomson, a chief deputy district attorney.

Snow said the commission could consider a resolution expressing concern over the ballot measure as soon as next month.

"We've been hearing a lot of discussion with a lot of people in the public sector and private sector," Woodbury said, adding he expected a "grass-roots campaign" of local business people, labor groups, property owners and other community stakeholders to take the debate public.

Snow said no taxpayer money would be used for such efforts.