Nevada Property Owners Bill of Rights, Question 2 (2006)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Property
Property.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

The Nevada Property Owners Bill of Rights Amendment, also known as Question 2 or PISTOL (People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land), was an initiated constitutional amendment on the November 7, 2006 ballot in Nevada, where it was approved.

The proposed amendment was again approved by voters in 2008, as required by Nevada law.

The proposal was one of 12 eminent domain-related ballot measures throughout the country on the 2006 ballot.

Election results

Question 2 (Property Owners Bill of Rights)
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 353,704 63.11%
No206,72436.89%

Official results via: Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau - Research Division

Text of measure

The question as it appeared on the ballot:

Shall Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution be amended in order: to provide that the transfer of property from one private party to another private party is not considered a public use; to provide that property taken for a public use must be valued at its highest and best use; to provide that fair market value in eminent domain proceedings be defined as the “highest price the property would bring on the open market;” and to make certain other changes related to eminent domain proceedings?[1]

The language that appeared in the voter's guide:

EXPLANATION
The proposed amendment, if passed, would create a new section within Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution. The amendment provides that the transfer of property taken in an eminent domain action from one private party to another private party would not be considered taken for a public use.
The State or its political subdivisions or agencies would not be allowed to occupy property taken in an eminent domain action until the government provides a property owner with all government property appraisals. The government would have the burden to prove that any property taken was taken for a public use.
If property is taken by the State or its political subdivisions or agencies for a public use, the property must be valued at its highest and best use. In an eminent domain action, just compensation would be considered a sum of money that puts a property owner in the same position as if the property had not been taken, and includes compounded interest and reasonable costs and expenses. Fair market value, for eminent domain purposes, would be defined as the "highest price the property would bring on the open market."
If property taken in an eminent domain proceeding is not used for the purpose the property was taken for within five years, the original property owner would be able to reclaim the property upon repayment of the original purchase price.[1]

See also

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

External links

References