A coalition of Southern Nevada governments and business alliances filed a lawsuit Thursday, seeking to kill a ballot question that would rein in eminent domain land-seizure powers.

The suit's backers ask a Clark County District Court judge to strip from the Nov. 7 ballot the question known as the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land, or PISTOL, which they call overly broad and potentially crippling to prudent land-planning and government coffers.

"The lawsuit is an effort to present ... what we believe to be the invalidity of the initiative in several regards," said Bruce Woodbury, a Clark County commissioner who is among the plaintiffs.

"Of course, our concerns go well beyond that, and they have to do with what we think would be a very destructive effect that this proposal could have on our quality of life for everybody in the state."

Don Chairez, a petition backer, former district judge and current Republican candidate for attorney general, dismissed Woodbury's claims as those of power brokers trying to retain power on the backs of property owners.

"He (Woodbury) is trying to stifle and muzzle the voices of the people. I don't think people will go for it. I don't think the courts will go for it," Chairez said. "I'm not worried.

"This is to stop the abuses that the Woodburys of the world have been doing for 20 years," Chairez said. "Now, he's trying to say he's the friend of property owners? He's full of it."

The ballot measure would restrict the use of eminent domain and prohibit governments from acquiring private land through eminent domain proceedings and then selling the land to facilitate private development.

The question was born amid furor following a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Kelo v. New London, in which the local government in New London, Conn., was allowed to force out 15 homeowners who had refused to sell their property for the construction of office buildings and housing being built by a pharmaceutical company.

The question has been approved for November's ballot. If passed, it would have to garner voter approval in a second referendum in two years before becoming law.

The proposal entitles property owners to have juries determine that the land to be taken is for a public use, not for private development. Compensation would be 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 attorney fees.

Backers have said the proposal balances power between landowners and governments, the former of which is now put on the defensive in such cases, giving bureaucrats the upper hand in setting sales prices that could cheat homeowners.

But opponents say the measure's fine print would drive up public works project costs and extend timelines, weaken zoning rules and the ability of governments to control land use and give opportunistic landowners the chance to gouge taxpayers.

"This would be a radical overturning of existing law and create a whole new realm of unlimited lawsuits for any potential action that the state, a county or cities might take," Woodbury said.

On a technical point, Woodbury also said the referendum question should be tossed out because it is overly broad.

"I don't have any problem with the initiative process, but if you're going to do it, you need to limit it to one specific question," Woodbury said. "It's way overbroad and involves multiple subjects.

"It seeks to highlight the legitimate concern about the Kelo case and the use of eminent domain, and to exploit that concern to include all their other provisions that will line the pockets of trial lawyers and basically destroy property rights for 99.9 percent of Southern Nevadans who will no longer have the protection of zoning ordinances," Woodbury said.

Chairez denied the proposal would have any effect on existing zoning, adding that the proposal was properly written.

"It's not overly broad," Chairez said. "The argument we're getting from people is that we're too specific."

Earlier, backers also denied the measure would increase litigation, arguing that a fairer process up front would decrease the number of lawsuits against government.

And, backers say, any added cost to governments would result from property owners getting fair prices for seized land, rather than discount prices they now allege to be common.

Plaintiffs include a political action group called Nevadans for the Protection of Property Rights -- of which Woodbury is an honorary chairman -- along with Clark County, the Regional Flood Control District, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the Las Vegas Valley Water District, the Regional Transportation Commission and the Las Vegas and Henderson chambers of commerce.

Other plaintiffs include the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, the Nevada Contractors Association, the Associated General Contractors and Nevadans for Nevada.

Plaintiffs Woodbury and Sparks City Councilman John Mayor were also listed as private citizens, and not in their roles as elected officials.

The groups came together in recent weeks, sharing common concerns over PISTOL, according to Woodbury.

Defendants include Secretary of State Dean Heller, whose office oversees ballot questions; the PISTOL group; Chairez; Kermitt Waters, an eminent domain attorney who helped write the proposal; and Autumn Lee Waters.

Taxpayer money won't be used to campaign against PISTOL, but will likely be used to pay lawyer fees in the lawsuit, according to Woodbury.

"Government entities aren't allowed to spend money on a political campaign. They are allowed to spend monies on legal challenges," Woodbury said.

Chairez said he welcomes a political challenge.

"That's exactly what we want. We want a political fight," Chairez said. "We want to educate the public as to why PISTOL is necessary. They can argue against it.

"The whole purpose is to let the voters decide what they want," Chairez said.

A hearing on the lawsuit is scheduled for Aug. 14.