The proponents of Propositions 98 and 99 would have you believe that voters must approve one of their measures. If you don’t like 98, then you must vote for 99, or vice versa. But Californians would be better off voting both down.
At first glance, the two propositions seem similar. Both ostensibly deal with eminent-domain reform, which has been a hot issue ever since the U.S. Supreme Court gave local governments permission to seize private property and turn it over to private developers in the 2005 case of Kelo v. City of New London.
Historically, governments have only been allowed to take private property – with appropriate compensation – for a public use, such as building a school or road. Post-Kelo, they can take your home, business or house of worship and turn it over to any deep-pocketed developer who wants it.
There can be little doubt that, in the wake of Kelo, eminent-domain reform is needed badly. But neither Proposition 98 nor Proposition 99 is the answer.
Proposition 98 is the fruit of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Its campaign is heavily funded by California landlords – and that’s the problem.
On the plus side, Proposition 98 effectively deals with the abuses inherent in Kelo. It would prohibit municipal governments from taking any private property for another private use.
But – as is often the case with California initiatives – Proposition 98 is a good idea tainted with political subterfuge.
That’s because even though proponents don’t talk about it much, Proposition 98 goes far beyond reining in eminent-domain abuse. The initiative also includes language to ban rent control – a wholly different issue in the minds of most Californians.
In California, rent control is as politically popular as eminent-domain abuse is unpopular. That’s why Proposition 98’s backers are cloaking their attack on rent control in a campaign that focuses exclusively on eminent domain.
To be sure, there’s an argument to be made that rent control doesn’t work, and California would be better off without it. But that’s an argument that ought to be made on its own merits, within the context of its own proposition – not snuck in, Trojan horse-style, via eminent-domain reform.
Meanwhile, if Proposition 98 goes too far, Proposition 99 doesn’t go far enough.
The measure was created by the League of Cities – which, as one of the main beneficiaries of the Kelo ruling, has a vested interest in preserving municipalities’ unjust eminent-domain powers.
Thus, Proposition 99 protects only homeowners from having their property taken for private purposes, while extending no protections to businesses, renters or houses of worship. And the homeowner protections are rather flimsy at that. They don’t extend to “blighted” property, a term that, under state law, can apply to just about anything.
Worse yet, Proposition 99 contains a political poison pill – a provision that would block Proposition 98, even if voters overwhelmingly approve it, should Proposition 99 get as little as a single vote more.
And that’s Proposition 99’s real purpose – killing Proposition 98 by any means possible.
The backers of Proposition 99 are insincere about reforming eminent domain. They just hope to block Proposition 98 and all future prospects for eminent-domain reform by giving voters a false sense that the issue has been resolved.
Unfortunately, both propositions are deceptive. Each is saddled with political baggage and its supporters’ ulterior motives.
Which is why both deserve a “no” vote.
Proponents of both propositions need to learn that dishonesty won’t be rewarded at the ballot box. And a defeat could force them to try to forge compromise reform in the Legislature – where such policy ought to be made in the first place.
Los Angeles Daily News
