Props 98 and 99

Both of these measures are ostensibly about reforming eminent domain, the constitutional power that enables local governments to take private property for public use, with fair recompense to the property owners. They’re responses to a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision (in Kelo v. New London) that upheld the right of the city of New London, Conn., to claim the plaintiff’s home in order to use the land for a privately financed redevelopment project that would supposedly improve the city and generate increased taxes. 

Private-property advocates have been trying ever since to get state governments to pass laws forbidding such uses of eminent domain, with considerable success. However, a 2006 measure in California, Proposition 90, failed, largely because voters understood that it contained an unreasonable “sleeper provision” that would have required local governments to pay landowners for any loss of value due to rezoning decisions. 

Proposition 98 is similar in that it would outlaw any governmental appropriation of private property for use in a privately financed redevelopment project. Opponents accuse it, too, of having a “hidden agenda.” They note that it also would phase out rent-control laws and give landlords more power, something that has nothing to do with eminent domain. And they point out, correctly, that 85 percent of the funding for the measure comes from landlord- and mobile-home-park groups. 

Some of those opponents, notably the League of California Cities, qualified Proposition 99 for the ballot as an alternative eminent-domain measure. It would prohibit government appropriation of single-family homes for use in a redevelopment project, but not apartments or business buildings. It contains no other provisions. 

✓ Endorsement: No on both. Eminent domain is rarely used in California, and the system now in place works well. It doesn’t need to be changed.