At least California voters don't have to deal with a dozen ballot initiatives this June 3. But there are two that claim to be about “eminent domain” reform, and both deserve to be rejected.  

If there is a sense of deja vu about these propositions, it's because voters rightly rejected a similar one in 2006, Prop. 90. It was drafted in a knee-jerk reaction to a Supreme Court ruling allowing governments to take property from one private owner and turn it over to another.  

California voters figured out in 2006 that California already had adequate means to deal with that -- even if it were a problem, which it isn't. They understood that Prop. 90 would have handcuffed local governments and prevented them from taking private property for critical purposes like road-building, public schools and nuisance abatement.  

But another version, Prop. 98, is back, trying to scare voters again. This time, hidden behind the “eminent domain” bogeyman, is an effort to amend the California Constitution to prevent local governments from enacting rent-control or affordable housing ordinances, requiring developer fees to help pay build new schools, or even setting rules for things like liquor store hours.  

Of course, the campaign for Prop. 98 is mostly funded by owners of mobile home park chains and landlords of large apartment complexes. They want to kick millions of this state's renters to the curb at a time of soaring housing costs. They don't tell you that state law already allows them to raise rents when occupants move.  

Even more worrisome for rural Californians, Prop. 98 would ban governments from using eminent domain for “consumption of natural resources.” That means water storage facilities and energy projects.  

We have consistently said that using the ballot box to amend California's Constitution for special interests is a dumb way to govern. These issues should be left up to local residents and their elected representatives to decide.  

As for the other ballot measure, Prop. 99, it's an effort an effort to head off Prop. 98's fear-mongering by amending the Constitution to forbid the transfer of owner-occupied private properties, instead of any property.  

But as we've noted, this is a non-issue. If a rare abuse of eminent domain should arise, lawmakers can act.  

We've seen the havoc to our state that ill-considered propositions can create. Both propositions should be marked “no.”