No on Prop. 98, Yes on 99

Envision Bakersfield's long-anticipated downtown linear park, South Mill Creek, finally at completion -- except for a few spotty storefronts interrupting the scenic walking path every quarter-mile or so.

Imagine the long-awaited City Walk project, just south of Bakersfield's Rabobank Arena, finally coming to fruition -- except for the abandoned-looking warehouse situated squarely in the center.

Those are glimpses of city redevelopment in a post-Proposition 98 California.

Prop. 98, on the June 3 ballot, would severely restrict local governments' ability to acquire private property through the power of eminent domain. Government would still be able to use its constitutionally mandated right to acquire property for roads, parks, schools and certain other public uses, but government would generally lose the power to condemn private property if the land is to ultimately end up in the hands of another private owner.

The impetus for the initiative is the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision against Susette Kelo, a Connecticut woman who tried to prevent the city of New London from seizing 15 occupied houses, including her own, for a private development. She lost, leading to justifiable and widespread outrage.

Prop. 98 would ban transactions like that. But Prop. 98, as written, could also hamstring an assortment of laws that restrict land use or protect air and water resources.

Prop. 98 would unquestionably lead to an avalanche of lawsuits involving government, developers and landowners, with taxpayers signing the checks. Opponents -- who include Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Gov. Pete Wilson and Sen. Dianne Feinstein -- fear it could also stall state water projects and limit public access to the coastline.

Oddly, Prop. 98 also ends rent-control law across the state. That fight is not relevant in Kern County, where rent control is not an issue, but it would seem more appropriate and logical for opponents of rent control (landlord associations in the case of Prop. 98) to draw up a separate initiative addressing that issue exclusively.

Restriction of eminent domain is a subject best addressed by the state Legislature, which can study, develop, debate and refine property-condemnation laws that are fair to both property owners (because, yes, eminent domain has been abused by a few cities) and taxpayers (who are generally well-served by government-facilitated development, including blight-eradication efforts).

In the absence of legislative initiative, however, there is Proposition 99, an alternative sponsored by the League of California Cities. It, too, would bar governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence in order to transfer it to another private party. But it allows reasonable exceptions.

Prop. 99 also has a poison-pill provision that, assuming both propositions pass, nullifies Prop. 98 if it gets fewer votes than Prop. 99. Prop. 98 sponsors consider the provision underhanded, but the fact is, it spares a judge the chore of deciding how to combine the two into a single, comprehensible law.