Background for Prop 98 and 99

Both Propositions 98 and 99 are the result of a 2005 U.S Supreme Court decision, Kelo vs. City of New London, when the court ruled, in a 5-4 vote, that New London could invoke "eminent domain" to buy out 115 property owners and condemn their properties in favor of a redevelopment plan.

Fifteen owners, including ten who lived there, had refused the City's buy out offers arguing that their property was not being taken for public benefit, rather for the private benefit of a few owners, most notably Pfizer pharmaceuticals.

This decision sent shock waves around the country, invoking fear that eminent domain could be unjustly used by city governments for the sole purpose of increasing tax revenues. Until this decision, eminent domain could only be invoked to raze blighted or hazardous areas, or to make room for public works, like schools, waterways, or roads.

California Proposition 98

Prop 98 would prohibit the ability of local governments to convey property from one private owner to another. It would also abolish rent control, and potentially gut many zoning and environmental laws.

This measure is far reaching, and is described by many as a guise to get rid of rent control laws, and provides only a weak protection against eminent domain seizures.

The official group supporting Prop 98 is Californians for Property Rights Protection, which is a project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. It is opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, the League of California Cities, the League of Women Voters and the Nature Conservancy.

In a nutshell, this is a bad proposition put forth by folks who are trying to sell a sheep in wolves clothing. If the desire is to tame the potential abuse of eminent domain , then Prop 99 should receive your "yes" vote, NOT Prop 98.

VOTE: NO

California Proposition 99

Prop 99 is the competing measure to Prop 98, and its focus is solely on eminent domain reform. This constitutional amendment limits state and local governments use of eminent domain in certain circumstances, and specifically restricts government from using eminent domain to take away a single family residence for the singular purpose of transferring it to another private property.

In reality, Prop 99 simply provides another level of reassurance to California homeowners who fear eminent domain. Laws already in California state that eminent domain for redevelopment can be used only to remove blight. And, frankly, that provision has rarely been used.

According to the Sacramento Bee:

"The federal Government Accountability Office studied the use of eminent domain. For that study the California Redevelopment Association commissioned researchers from the University of California, Davis to survey all 386 of the active redevelopment agencies in California. The researchers looked at property acquisitions from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2004.

The findings: Out of 12.7 million land parcels on the tax rolls in California, these agencies reported that they acquired 2,798 parcels during the five-year period. Of those, 78 were acquired through eminent domain. The rest were negotiated purchases.

The researchers found that only three single-family, owner-occupied homes were taken through eminent domain. And two of those were due to clouded title problems in which a court needed to decide who rightfully owned the property.

Since that time, California has tightened the laws to increase state oversight and make it easier for people to challenge redevelopment decisions."

In reality, eminent domain abuse in California may be a non-issue. I always cringe at amendments that try to correct a non-problem. But because of my concern about the potential passage of the poorly conceived Prop 98, I will give Prop 99 my yes vote.


VOTE: YES