Our View: An eminent domain split

'No' on Proposition 98 because it has a hidden agenda;

'Yes' on Proposition 99 that actually fixes a problem.

Eminent domain is one of the hottest of hot buttons in California and across the nation.

So it's no wonder that voters face two ballot propositions that purport to address the issue.

Both have flaws, but one contains the fatal flaw of political subterfuge -- Proposition 98 is not what it purports to be.

Proposition 98 deserves to go down in flames. It is a poster child for all that's wrong with California's initiative system. It is so larded 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.

Proposition 99 covers ground that should have been handled by the Legislature but wasn't (no surprise in that). While it has a number of loopholes, it at least addresses part of the problem posed by unrestrained eminent domain and fixes it.But back to Proposition 98, a "Trojan horse" that tries to tap political outrage to pass a hidden agenda.

Backers of Proposition 98 want to end all types of rent control -- even when used to curtail the efforts of companies to gouge senior citizens living in mobile home parks. It has happened across the state. If passed, Proposition 98 would devastate many of the 1.2 million people who are able to afford housing only because such controls exist. It could create a new class of elderly homeless.

Sound farfetched? Why else, then, would so much of the money being spent to pass Proposition 98 come from mobile home park owners? Ask them what jacking up their rents has to do with eminent domain.

There's more. Proposition 98 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 last thing we need is another stumbling block put before those who want to secure our water future, leaving us to wonder why the California Farm Bureau Federation supports Proposition 98. Fortunately, other farm groups are against it.

Proposition 98 also could 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 businesses -- like strip clubs -- out of neighborhoods where they are inappropriate.

With Prop 98 in place, it would be harder to widen roads or build needed infrastructure.

Such appropriate uses were utterly obscured by the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, which said a government agency can take private property from one owner and give it to another private interest so long as the new owner is serving the public interest.

Clearly, that shouldn't happen. And Proposition 99 would provide a clear rule protecting those who've been in their homes at least a year against such seizures.

But property seizures that are then turned over to another private party are exceedingly rare in California.

The state already limits the uses for which property can be taken; and when property is taken, the owner is typically given the higher of two independent appraisals, along with relocation costs.The use of eminent domain is unpleasant 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 destructive and would greatly increase costs for governments forced either to meet exorbitant prices or abandon needed projects.

Vote "no" on Proposition 98, and "yes" on Proposition 99.