The proposed amendment provides five exceptions to the prohibition against exercising eminent domain in order to transfer property from one private party to another. Under the following conditions, such a transfer would be considered a "public use" if: (1) the private party obtaining the property uses the property primarily to benefit a public service such as a utility, railroad, public transportation project, pipeline, road, bridge, airport, or facility that is owned by a public entity; (2) the property is leased to a private party that takes up a portion of an airport or facility that is owned by a public entity so long as the public entity notifies the original owner of its intention and allows the owner the opportunity to bid or propose on such a lease; (3) the property taken has been abandoned by the owner, is a threat to public safety, or contains hazardous waste that must be remediated, and the original owner is granted first right of refusal to reacquire the property on the same terms and conditions as anyone else; (4) the entity that obtains the property exchanges it for other property in order to relocate public or private structures or avoid excessive compensation or damages; or (5) the person from whom the property is taken consents to the taking.
Additionally, the proposed amendment defines the terms "fair market value" and "just compensation" and provides for the manner of computing these amounts. It also stipulates that neither party may be held liable for the other party's attorney's fees in eminent domain proceedings except in the circumstance of an inverse condemnation, wherein a property owner makes a request for attorney's fees in a legal action. The proposed amendment revises from 5 years to 15 years the amount of time within which the entity that took the property must put it to use before the property must be offered to, and will revert to, the original owner upon payment of the original purchase price.
Finally, the repeal of Article 1, Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution would rescind a property owner's right to disqualify one judge at the district court level and one judge at each appellate level in any eminent domain action.
A "Yes" vote would repeal Article 1, Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution and amend Article 1, Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution relating to eminent domain proceedings.
A "No" vote would retain Article 1, Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution and keep intact the current provisions of Article 1, Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution relating to eminent domain proceedings.
Shall Article 1, Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution be repealed and shall Article 1, Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to revise provisions relating to eminent domain proceedings?