Arguments Fierce Over Question 2
The Reno Gazette-Journal has an article on Nevada's ballot initiative to restrict the taking of pivate property. Excerpt:
A central thrust of the stripped-down initiative would stop governments from acquiring private land through eminent domain and then selling the land for private development such as was done in Connecticut.
Owners of property seized by eminent domain must be compensated at the "highest value." Current Nevada law requires compensation at the "most probable value."
Property seized through eminent domain must be used for the purpose for which it was taken within five years or be returned to the former owner.
Property owners would be absolved from liability for any attorney fees or costs to government from eminent domain litigation.
What to read next
Our friends at Institute for Justice have convinced the Supreme Court to soon decide in the case Timbs v. Indiana whether the Constitution restrains states (and not just the federal government) from … ›
This morning the Ninth Circuit released this opinion in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, a case about whether California can demand confidential donor forms from nonprofit organizations operating within … ›