Sign Up for Updates
| Fresno Bee, May 11: No on 98, Yes on 99 |
|
|
|
|
Vote no on Proposition 98, yes on 99 Dueling eminent domain measures have very different approaches. Eminent domain is one of the hottest of buttons in California and across the nation. So it's no wonder that voters face two ballot propositions that purport to address the issue. And it's no surprise that both have flaws. In one case -- Proposition 98 -- those flaws are fatal. It deserves to go down in flames. Proposition 99 covers ground that should have been handled by the Legislature but wasn't. It also has a number of loopholes; it applies only to homeowners who have occupied their homes for a year or more, but leaves out apartments, churches and businesses. Despite those misgivings -- and because we've come to expect nothing of substance from the Legislature on substantive issues -- we recommend passage of Proposition 99. It addresses at least part of the real problem. Proposition 98 is a poster child for all that's wrong with California's initiative system. It ostensibly addresses a question that's important to voters -- eminent domain -- but is so larded up with special interest goodies and poorly written language that it could take years, and millions of taxpayer dollars, for the courts to sort it all out. Both propositions arise out of public outrage over a Supreme Court ruling (Kelo v. City of New London) that said there is no constitutional obstacle to prevent a government from taking private property and giving it to another private interest for development, so long as that serves the public interest. In the Kelo case, the "public interest" was expected to be new revenues from a commercial development. That shouldn't happen. Proposition 99 would give the state a clear rule protecting those who've been in their homes at least a year against such seizures. But there is a very great deal more about Proposition 98 that's troubling. It would prohibit the use of eminent domain for purposes of something called "consumption of natural resources." There are very real concerns that such a prohibition could interfere with desperately needed statewide water projects. The California Farm Bureau Federation supports Proposition 98, but other farm groups -- including the Nisei Farmers League and Western Growers Association -- fear it could spike water projects. That kind of uncertainty is one reason Proposition 98 is a full-employment act for lawyers -- its ambiguity will mean round after round of court battles. There is also a very real concern that Proposition 98 would severely curtail the ability of cities and counties to use zoning and land use regulations to achieve desirable goals, such as keeping certain types of business out of neighborhoods where they are inappropriate. There is also the question of whether requirements for low-income housing in new developments would be allowed, which would exacerbate an already difficult situation for hundreds of thousands of Californians with limited means. Another element of Proposition 98 is an end to rent control, which would devastate many of the 1.2 million people who are now able to afford housing because of such controls. Particularly hard hit would be mobile home park tenants, who typically own their home but lease the land on which it sits. It should be no surprise that a substantial portion of the funding for Proposition 98 has come from mobile home park owners -- who have yet to explain what jacking up their rents has to do with eminent domain. The seizure of one person's home so that it can be given to another private party is exceedingly rare in California. The state already limits the uses for which property can be taken, and when it is taken, the owner is typically given the higher of two independent appraisals, along with relocation costs. The use of eminent domain is unpleasant at best, even when it serves indisputable public interests. But it is an important tool that governments must have. The limits Proposition 99 would place on eminent domain are useful. The scorched-earth solutions of Proposition 98 -- and its hidden agendas -- are not. Vote "no" on Proposition 98, and "yes" on Proposition 99 on June 3. |