Voters seek eminent domain limits

By more than a 2-to-1 margin, Nevada voters polled by the Review-Journal said they will pass a constitutional amendment in Tuesday's election to prevent government from using the power of eminent domain to seize private property and then turn it over to developers.

Of 625 registered voters who responded in the statewide poll, 58 percent said they would back Question 2, the eminent domain ballot question, while 25 percent opposed it and 17 percent were undecided.

Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., of Washington, D.C., conducted the poll for the newspaper. Likely voters were interviewed by telephone Tuesday and Wednesday. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Brad Coker, the Mason-Dixon managing director, said there is no doubt the question will be approved overwhelmingly -- although the results are slightly tighter than a similar poll earlier this month.

"Property rights protection legislation is popular everywhere," Coker said. "Nevada is a strong property rights state."

Southern Nevada lawyer Kermitt Waters, who conducted the petition drive to put the question before voters, was pleased by the strong support for the question.

He expects a victory in part because there is no opposition. Some people, however, might not understand the question when they read it on the ballot and mistakenly vote no when a yes vote protects their property rights, Waters added.

"This will protect people in Nevada from having homes or property taken from them and given to politically powerful people and corporations," he said.

In addition, when government uses eminent domain to take a home for a legitimate purpose, such as for a school or road, Waters said people giving up their property will be properly compensated.

In the past, government would not show the property owners appraisals of their property's value and often would offer them 10 percent to 15 percent less than the appraised value, he said.

With the amendment, they must show appraisals and offer people enough money so that they can acquire a similar valued home in a neighborhood like the one they must vacate.

Already the proposal has produced benefits, according to Waters. The number of eminent domain lawsuits has dropped as governments now offer people fairer prices for their property.

Two years ago when the question was on the ballot, it received approval from 63 percent of voters. In Nevada, constitutional amendments must be approved twice.

Waters is concerned that if his proposal is not placed in the Nevada Constitution, legislators would repeal laws approved last year that restrict the use of eminent domain.

He sought to limit the use of eminent domain in Nevada after a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2005 allowed the city of New London, Conn., to take private homes and then sell the property to a developer so a shopping center could be built.

Waters said the same type of situation has occurred in Nevada when cities seized private property and gave it to casinos and developers.

Since he prepared his proposal, he said there have been no attempts by local government to take private property for anything other than for roads, schools and other public purposes.