State Passes Eminent Domain Law-Law Limits State, City Ability To Take Land[NV]

Fox 5 ^ | 04 Nov 2008 | Fox 5

[BGHater]

LAS VEGAS -- A record number of Nevada voters approved one of the most controversial ballot questions was approved Tuesday.

Question No. 2. dealt with the restriction of eminent domain. Under the new law, state and city governments can only take possession of private land for real public use, such as roads and schools -- not casinos.

If the government did gain control of someone's property, then the person losing his or her property must get the highest price that property would bring on the open market, the proposal said.

It would also allow landowners to go to court to reclaim their land if the government fails to use it in five years after taking the property under eminent domain.

Opponents to the question say eminent domain is a tool local and state governments need for tax purposes and to generate money.

As part of Nevada law, voters are required to pass a proposal twice before it becomes law. The eminent domain proposal was first on the ballot in 2006.

[BGHater]

Chin up. Good news is out there.

[KriegerGeist]

Don’t matter. Feds will over-ride all state laws soon when the’ve packed the Supreme Court. The SC judges will just rule: “take the land” and it’ll be law over-riding NV law.

[Navy Patriot]

The 0bama Supreme Court will take care of this as soon as it is installed.

[bamahead]

Under the new law, state and city governments can only take possession of private land for real public use, such as roads and schools -- not casinos



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or just reply to this post!

[Tired of Taxes]

I’ve been wondering, Why didn’t the McCain campaign hammer on the fact that Obama opposes two of the only Justices to write a dissenting opinion on Kelo? These are the issues on which the GOP campaign (and the pundits) should’ve been hammering.

[fortheDeclaration]

I am curious on the Libertarian take on the Obama election?

Do you see his foreign policy being less interventionist and therefore more in lines with Libertarian views?

[BGHater]

Obama?

He will be more in line with the Globalist visions of Bush I and Clinton.

Expect a force in the Congo by March.

[fortheDeclaration]

He will be more in line with the Globalist visions of Bush I and Clinton. Expect a force in the Congo by March.

How do you think that will play to his base which was expecting a less aggressive foreign policy?

[Navy Patriot]

Why didn’t the McCain campaign hammer on the fact that Obama opposes two of the only Justices to write a dissenting opinion on Kelo? These are the issues on which the GOP campaign (and the pundits) should’ve been hammering.

Short answer, "the Stupid party".

[Navy Patriot]

Expect a force in the Congo by March.

And a draft by next November.

[BGHater]

But it’s for the children!?

[ellery]

Nice!

[ladyvet]

Yep, I’m still in shock from Nevada going to Bambi. I have Bi*ched for weeks that they needed to get out the vote in Elko county like four years ago. It was Elko county that delivered Nevada to Bush then.

Went to local RNC and was told they know this county is safe. Signed up to knock on doors and they never even called for help.

[bamahead]

Figured we could use some good news today.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

I am curious on the Libertarian take on the Obama election?

Do you see his foreign policy being less interventionist and therefore more in lines with Libertarian views?

C'mon old friend, you already know better than that.

Our policy will merely change from supporting what is bad to supporting what is worse.

And nobody will ever consider supporting none of it.