Remember property rights?

"...[N]either shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

When former District Court Judge Don Chairez read those words -- the final clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- they seemed pretty clear.

He just didn't know how many times he'd be reading them.

Back in 1996, Chairez ruled, in part, that the city of Las Vegas had violated the Bill of Rights, because it had taken private property for private use, which is not contemplated in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere else in the Constitution. In most states, in fact, taking private property for private use without just compensation goes by a simpler title: Robbery.

Las Vegas officials, in the midst of executing a redevelopment plan, had condemned through the process of eminent domain the downtown gift store of the Pappas family, along with some other stores on a block bounded by Las Vegas Boulevard, Fourth Street, Carson Avenue and Fremont Street. The government wanted the land to build a $23 million parking garage for the Fremont Street Experience, which officials thought would be popular.

And so the parking garage was built, and painted red, prompting its immediate -- and not entirely appropriate -- nickname: "Red Square." (Later, in a bit of lameness common to government and business, the garage was literally whitewashed.) The Pappases, out in the cold with only the city's offer of payment, sued. That's where Chairez came in. In 1996, he ruled against the city, and for the Pappases, saying the city's taking was improper.

The case was appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, where it languished until 2003, when the Nevada Supreme Court ruled -- as other courts had -- that redevelopment in and of itself was the "public use" contemplated in the Fifth Amendment. Although that phrase had traditionally been understood to mean schools, fire or police stations, highway s or sewer projects, courts had gradually been redefining it to include things like eliminating blight and boosting a community's tax rolls.

The Pappases appealed their case, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear it in 2004.

Then this year, the court decided to rule on a very similar case that started in New London, Conn., where the city wanted to condemn long-standing homes to make way for an office and shopping complex along a riverfront, a project city officials said was key to the city's redevelopment. The U.S. Supreme Court did agree to hear that case, and in a 5-4 ruling, decided that the city could take the homes.

Reaction -- outrage mostly -- was swift. The case made headlines from the New York Times all the way through the blogosphere. "Nobody's property is safe under this kind of a ruling," was a common refrain.

But when the ruling was dissected, critics noted the majority had said that state laws putting stricter standards on eminent domain could trump the New London ruling.

And that's where Chairez comes in, again. He's part of a group of attorneys drafting an amendment to the Nevada constitution that would prohibit the use of eminent domain to transfer private property to another private owner, even in redevelopment cases.

"I feel that oftentimes, laws are vague and ambiguous," says Chairez, now in private practice after leaving the bench in 1998 to unsuccessfully challenge U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley for a seat in Congress. The initiative, dubbed the Nevada Property Owners Bill of Rights, is still in the drafting stages (and with several lawyers discussing the details, things occasionally get messy, Chairez says). But the initiative does have certain principles at its core:

* Private-to-private transfers using eminent domain would be expressly illegal.

* A property owner would have the right to an independent ruling that the taking is really for a "public use" before the government could take possession of the land.

* If a property is taken, the owner should get the purchase price for the "highest and best use." For example, if a T-shirt shop is intended to be used for a municipal sports stadium, the owner should get the sports stadium price, not the T-shirt shop price.

* If a property is taken by eminent domain but not put to any use within five years, it must be returned to the owner.

* Government cannot charge attorney's fees to a landowner who challenges an eminent domain action, which eliminates a subtle threat sometimes used against people such as the Pappases.

* A "taking" of property can also mean a change of zoning that reduces the property value, or the loss of access to the property by closing roads or alleys, for example.

"We need to draw a line in the sand," Chairez says.

Although he needs to collect 83,156 valid signatures to qualify the measure, which would then have to be approved by voters twice, Chairez says the lingering outrage over the New London ruling will propel people to sign.

"Most people feel government doesn't represent them. And I think this petition will take back that self-empowerment," he says.

Steve Sebelius is editor of CityLife. He can be reached at 871-6780 ext. 306 or by e-mail at SSebelius@lvcitylife.com.