By Staff

Surprised to hear there even is an election in June? You're probably not alone. California's new February primary made us feel all warm and relevant inside, but it also drained voter enthusiasm away from the June 3 primary election, which will effectively decide who will serve us in Sacramento. It will also determine the makeup of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. With absentee ballots becoming increasingly popular (about half of all ballots are now cast by mail), we offer up our endorsements of the most critical races earlier than ever. And we remind readers that the last day to register to vote is May 19.  

Proposition 98

Metro Santa Cruz Recommends: No

The relationship most people have to their local and state governments is a lot like the relationship they have to lawyers. On one day vitriolic hate is spewed on the overbearing institution; on the next, the cry goes up that it should be doing more to solve a particular problem. The proponents of Proposition 98 are hoping to seize voters who happen to be in the "vitriolic hate" stage of their relationship to government and do away with much of local government's eminent domain powers, all affordable housing requirements, all rent control, many eviction rules and even some future publicly owned water systems. This Hydra is all wrapped up in the guise of preventing powerful and corrupt politicians from seizing private homes, businesses, farmlands and churches and handing them over to "well-connected" private developers. In this story, told by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Mobilehome Park Owners Alliance, the politicians and private developers conspire to destroy entire neighborhoods for the profit of an elite few. This must be stopped, hence Prop. 98.  

The reality is that the elite few attacking the common good are actually the proponents of Prop. 98. If reforming the practice described above was all Prop. 98. did, it might have some merits. Maybe. Unfortunately, Prop. 98 goes much further. It would prohibit "limiting the price a private owner may charge to occupy or use his or her property"--in other words, rent control ordinances, such as those used to keep mobile home parks affordable to tenants, would be illegal. Inclusionary housing requirements, like the Santa Cruz County rule stipulating that 15 percent of new developments be affordable, could also be caught up in this dragnet.  

Prop. 98 would also prohibit "transfer of ownership ... to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources." In other words, communities like Felton that are attempting to reclaim their water from foreign private firms, such as Cal-Am, could not use eminent domain powers to do so, even if it were for the public good. Please vote No on 98 and put this malodorous measure in the garbage where it belongs.  

Proposition 99

Metro Santa Cruz Recommends: Yes

Proposition 99 was introduced in direct response to Prop. 98; as written, it would override its rival measure as long as it gets more votes. That alone makes it worthwhile.  But it has another crucial merit. In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that a Connecticut town was acting legally when it transferred an owner-occupied home to a private developer by eminent domain (the argument was that the new development would add to the tax base and thus serve the "public good"). The case effectively extended the reach of eminent domain beyond public works (freeways, libraries) to economic development (stadiums, strip malls).  

Many states have since passed laws assuring their citizens that they're not going to start engaging in this sketchy practice. With this fairly straightforward measure, California would join them. Vote yes on Prop. 99.