Politics: Prop 98 and 99 Eminent Domain Reform

A few years back the US Supreme Court in Kelo ruled that local governments could use eminent domain to obtain land for private purposes but its wording essentially invited governments to write in restrictions.

As a result of that ruling, many states have made efforts to pare back the reach on eminent domain.

Now, in California, we get to vote on this matter in Prop 98 and 99.

I have to say I have heard more supporters of prop 99 than for 98.

If both reforms are bad, I may vote against both. But the risk is that both will pass and the one with more votes will take effect in which case the voter might be stuck with voting for the one they think is less worse!

Today, I ran a search in the Los Angeles Times online and found the paper itself is against 98 and for 99 but to their credit they did run an item against 99 because the author feels it is strong enough. The author seems to support 98 but didn't say much about 98.

The author warms that 99 is too watered down ...

... protects only owner-occupied residences against condemnations with the purpose of transferring property to "private persons." That leaves renters -- 42% of Californian households -- unprotected. If the buildings they live in are condemned, renters can be forced out even if their leases haven't expired. Owners of farms, small businesses and homeowners who have lived in their residences for less than one year also would remain vulnerable.
... is likely to be ineffective, because the measure allows the condemnation of owner-occupied homes if they are "incidental" to a "public" project. This means that homes could still be taken for transfer to private developers if the proposed project allocated some space for a "public" facility such as a community center or library.

The LAT Op-Ed in favor of 99 and against 98 can be summed up as 98 sneaks in rent-control abolition with eminent domain reform while 99 doesn't go far enough but at least its a start. Excerpt:

Once Proposition 98 took its present form, backers of a less-sweeping initiative went to the ballot as well, leaving voters with two measures to deal with.

The problems with Proposition 99 are that it attempts to address a complex topic with the blunt instrument of the initiative process, and that it achieves too little.
....
Voters should take the opportunity to protect homeowners, but that only starts the job. Lawmakers have to do the rest, with legislation that allows eminent domain to move forward only for legitimate public purposes. This time, perhaps property rights advocates will proceed in good faith and avoid yet another bait-and-switch initiative.

In the meantime, The Times urges a no vote on Proposition 98 and a yes vote on Proposition 99.

I went to the SF Chronicle where I found a editorial in opposition to 98 and in favor of 99. The SF Chronicle is down on 98 for going too far. Here are some excerpts:

Supporters of 98 like to portray it as an attempt to defend our homes against the prospect of a hostile takeover through eminent domain. If that were the case, the measure would be carefully tailored to accomplish its stated purpose. It is not. It goes further. Much further.

Prop. 98 is disingenuous and dangerous. It threatens to wreak havoc on the ability to achieve collective goals throughout the state. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Gov. Pete Wilson and Sen. Dianne Feinstein all oppose 98 out of a concern that it could imperil this state's ability to assure an adequate water supply for the future. A Coastal Commission analysis warns that it could undermine efforts to protect the coast and keep it accessible to the public.
....
The ostensible purpose for Prop. 98 is the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision against Susette Kelo, a Connecticut homeowner who was trying to fight off government efforts to seize her house for a redevelopment project. That high court ruling, which upheld the ability of a government to shift private property from one owner to another for broadly defined public purposes, created widespread outrage, and for good reason. No one would want his or her home or farm to be seized against his or her will just so a local government can reap the sales and property-tax bounty of a Wal-Mart or Home Depot.

Prop. 98 clearly precludes that possibility. It expressly prohibits the use of eminent domain for the transfer of property for private use.

But that is just the start. It also prohibits any new rent-control laws - and begins the phaseout of such laws in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, Los Angeles and Santa Monica. It would wipe out rent-control laws on mobile-home parks in more than 100 cities and counties. Supporters of Prop. 98 - who have received the bulk of their financial support from landlords - suggest that abolition of rent control is a logical extension of eminent domain reform. We regard it as a stretch - an overreach, to be precise.

I went to the Sacramento Bee to see what they have come up with on Prop 98 and 99. I found this item about the old adage in politics: "follow the money." It would seem both sides are getting money from sources with a lot at stake in the outcome which is what you would expect! Here are some excerpts:

In the June 3 ballot showdown over governments' power to take private property, both sides agree on one thing: Their opponents rely on tainted money that reveals their true motives.

One side gets much of its money from landlords and mobile home park owners that stand to benefit from Proposition 98's ban on rent control.

The other side opposes Proposition 98 and supports a far less restrictive initiative, Proposition 99. Much of its campaign money comes from local government groups that resist major curbs on their use of eminent domain.

Both sides have made an issue of the other's campaign cash, using it to discredit their stated motives.
....
Proposition 98's campaign focuses on ending alleged abuses of eminent domain. But opponents say its money tells a different story. A detailed analysis commissioned by Proposition 98's opponents found that 37 percent of the $5.2 million in contributions came from apartment owners and their associations. Another 47 percent came from mobile home park owners and associations, according to the analysis, with the remaining 16 percent donated by the California Farm Bureau Federation and other supporters.

That means 84 percent of the money was ponied up by those who would benefit from the provision of Proposition 98 that bans rent control.
.....
The Jarvis organization and other Proposition 98 supporters likewise find hidden motives in the opposition's campaign funding.

Despite Proposition 99's claim to protect private property owners, they say, the measure is so riddled with loopholes that it does almost nothing. And that is the whole point, they say: cities, counties and redevelopment agencies don't want to be hamstrung by new rules restricting their power to take property.

They see another problem with the money behind Proposition 99: No one can tell exactly where it comes from.

Almost $3 million of the $6.7 million raised so far comes from something called the League of California Cities Non-Public Fund.

The league is a nonprofit association that collects dues from cities for lobbying. It also publishes a magazine geared toward city officials and raises money by charging for exhibition and booth space at conferences.

I'll keep looking into the issue and will blog. As of now, pencil me in as undecided on both prop 98 and 99.