59°F
weather icon Clear

Question 4 ensures eminent domain protection

To the editor:

In response to your Sept. 27 article, “Ballot Question 4 takes aim at PISTOL”:

Every word of Question 4 was agreed upon in the course of dozens of meetings among Kermitt Waters, Don Chairez, Jacob Snow (of the Regional Transportation Commission) and myself, with the assistance of other legal experts. Mr. Waters — the sponsor of the People’s Initiative to Stop Taking Our Land (PISTOL) ballot question — and I testified together in favor of the language of ballot Question 4 at the Nevada Legislature.

The starting points and ending points of our conversations were:

■ The prohibition against a government taking of property from one private owner and selling it to another private owner — as occurred in the Kelo and Pappas cases — must remain unmodified.

■ All of the protections for property owners provided by PISTOL must be preserved.

■ Potential unintended interpretations should be avoided through agreed upon clarifications and revisions to PISTOL.

Question 4 accomplishes all of those goals by preserving all of the property rights protections of PISTOL, while clarifying its intent in ways which will prevent unintended problems for the Nevada Department of Transportation and the RTC in their need to fast-track major road projects. Mr. Waters, Mr. Chairez and I would never agree to any language which did not prohibit another Pappas or Kelo use of eminent domain.

Question 4 allows eminent domain only for tightly defined public uses such as roads, airports, railroads and utility lines. Even for those public uses, the property owner is given the right to reacquire the property if it is not used for the intended public purpose.

On the other hand, necessary clarifications of PISTOL are embodied in Question 4 to prevent unintended delays and costs for taxpayer-funded highway projects.

Question 4 is a carefully crafted combination of PISTOL and PISTOFF (People’s Initiative to Stop the Taking of our Future Freeways). It deserves our support.

Bruce Woodbury

Las Vegas

The writer is a former Clark County commissioner.

Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
MORE STORIES
THE LATEST
LETTER: Guns in the home for protection

Most law-abiding American citizens do not know whether they or a family member will ever have to come face to face with an evil person.

LETTER: LA fires and linguistic precision

“Seeing is believing” would have been a more appropriate headline. When you see the extent of the devastation, you begin to believe how horrific it has been.

LETTER: Trump opposed steel merger, too

Incoming President Donald Trump is against the merger too. So both the present and incoming administrations agreed on no merger.

LETTER: Trump talks like his favorite dictator

America made a mistake voting Putin’s pal into power. Democrats are not as insane as Republicans. The future is not looking bright for our country.

LETTER: Dave Barry’s year-ender was a hoot

Looking back on 2024. I am saving it to reread when I need a real “pick me up” in the coming months.

LETTER: Victims of LA fires will face issues

The California government’s red tape bureaucracy will be mind-numbing and unimaginably frustrating for those who lost everything.

LETTER: Finger pointing over the California fires

Finger pointed and accusations just lead people to not trust anyone, even if they’re being helped. Why does this tragedy need to be a political issue?