Archive - June 2008 Ballot

Prop 98 - Failed!
Prop 98 rides on the wave of outrage after the 2005 US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the court ruled that the government can use eminent domain to take land from one private citizen and give it to another. In that case, a city took property from one private owner and turned it over to a corporation as part of a larger redevelopment plan. Their justification was that the economic benefits to the city that would result from the redevelopment qualified it as a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Eminent Domain had previously been invoked only to condemn blighted areas, or to make way for public roads or schools. Now, the Courts have declared, cities can transfer private property to another private owner if it “will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and tax revenue.” In other words, they can take your land if another owner will get them more money.

The threats imposed by the Kelo case are real, and proponents of Prop 98 are quick to play up the dangers inherent in its precedent. However, their initiative goes far beyond preventing a Kelo event in California. If approved, Prop 98 would drastically broaden the definition of eminent domain.

To start, it would allow a property owner to sue the state for any regulation that imposes costs on the owner, regardless of whether the regulated activity is a nuisance, a threat to public health or safety, or harmful to the environment. That means that any new consumer or environmental protection, however justified, would have to pass a test as to whether or not we can pay for all the lawsuits that would result in it's institution. In the case of endangered species, the question would not be, "how can we save this animal from extinction?", but would instead become, "can we afford the legal fees?" In the case of air quality, the state would have to pay polluters if it required them to pollute less.

Second, the initiative prohibits regulations that are enacted “in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.” In legal terms, one can argue that all regulation provides an economic benefit to some private person. Clean Air laws benefit businesses that make clean burning machines, and most zoning laws benefit certain property owners inside or outside the area. Depending on how the courts interpret the language, Prop 98 could prohibit regulations that protect our air, climate, coastal areas, and farms. It could also stymie efforts by city planners to create communities that encourage walking and public transit.

If this wasn’t enough, the proponents put in another provision that has become a lightning rod for its opponents. It would end rent control in California, and lower protections for existing renters in most counties. That means, if Prop 98 passes, we can expect to see a wave of evictions and increased rents throughout the state.

However you may feel about rent control, the fact is it has become vital to creating stable, diverse communities, and unrestrained increases in rent would cause serious hardship to our poor, elderly, and middle class. Some will argue that a tenant is free to simply move when the rent gets too high, but this attitude ignores the hardship of moving far from one's community and work, not to mention the expense of the move itself.

This measure was drafted by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and is supported by large property and agricultural interests. It is opposed by environmental organizations and unions.

It has become a tired metaphor, but this initiative is a Trojan Horse, rolling in on the promise of protecting us from greedy bureaucrats. Prop 98 conflates the issues, then offers a solution so intentionally vague that it will invite far worse problems than it solves. Your Political Friend strongly suggests that you vote NO.

Prop 99 - Passed
Prop 99 is a proposed Constitutional amendment that will do what Prop 98 does, but without all the hidden agendas. Here is how the amendment reads:

"The State and local governments are prohibited from acquiring by eminent domain an owner-occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person."

Still, the amendment allows the state to take property for the purposes of:
- protecting public health and safety
- preventing serious, repeated criminal activity
- responding to an emergency
- remedying environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety.
- acquiring private property for a Public work or improvement.

As with Prop 98, the full import of this amendment will be determined by the courts when, and if, the issue is challenged. Opponents argue that the initiative is meaningless, since it still allows for the exceptions listed above. Furthermore, it will only apply to "an owner occupied residence" and won't protect commercial properties, rented residences, or farms.

The fact is that this initiative is on the ballot to address one problem- that posed by the Kelo v. City of New London case. It does nothing more than that, which makes it one of the most honest, transparent initiatives in years. As the Legislative Analyst points out, "this measure would not change significantly current government land acquisition practices."

In fact, the Prop might result in a savings,"because government could not acquire a home that the owner did not wish to sell", and isn't that what the opponents say they want?

It is supported by the same people that oppose Prop 98. Likewise, it's opposed by the Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc., et al.

If both Props 98 and 99 pass, only the one with more votes will succeed. Your Political Friend feels pretty good about voting YES on this one.