Opponents of eminent domain might someday get it right and come up with a ballot measure that reforms the government condemnation process without creating worse problems. Proposition 98 on the June ballot isn't it.  

While posing as a way to stop local governments from forcing the sale of private property for the benefit of private development, Proposition 98 also would phase out rent control ordinances covering many mobile home parks and scores of California cities. It also, depending on legal interpretations, could eliminate important ordinances requiring developers to include affordable units in new housing developments.  

It was just two years ago that Californians alertly voted down an eminent-domain reform measure because it also carried a second agenda, virtual elimination of zoning and environmental protection laws. Let's not fall for the same trick this time either.  

Those wanting to scale back eminent domain apparently are willing to add whatever ballot language is necessary to attract hefty campaign contributions. The current effort in the form of Proposition 98 is being backed principally by landlords and owners of mobile home parks. It is significant to note that while landlord groups support 98, most chambers of commerce do not.  

While rent control ordinances certainly are worthy of serious debate, hiding a rent-control ban inside a ballot measure intended to accomplish something altogether different is just the latest example of how California's initiative process has been hijacked by special interests.  

There may, of course, be adequate reason to create new limits on government condemnation powers. In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a city's right to require the sale of private property for use in a commercial project. Since then, property rights groups and others have been on a nationwide campaign to undo the ruling.  

While government agencies obviously need the ability to condemn properties for public purposes such as schools and highways, support is not nearly as widespread for the use of such power to accommodate private development. Many redevelopment projects would never have happened if government couldn't have required property owners to sell for essentially private ventures, but resistance to such projects is growing. Locally, taxpayer groups and libertarians have seized on a proposed Seaside hotel project to try to whip up opposition to eminent domain. They have gone so far as to threaten recall efforts against city officials supporting the use of eminent domain, failing to consider the potential benefits of the hotel venture and failing to clearly distinguish between condemnation for public benefit and condemnation for private purposes.  

While affected property owners are assured of receiving market value—no matter what the upcoming Proposition 98 advertising will imply—eminent domain can be an unpleasant process that generally should be a last resort. The competing Proposition 99 on the June 3 ballot would eliminate some of the most onerous cases, preventing forced acquisition of homes for the benefit of private development. It would not, however, protect businesses.  

Despite that failing, Proposition 99 deserves at least mild support because if voters approve both 98 and 99, the one with more votes prevails. So, in a large sense, voting for Proposition 99 is another way of voting against devious Proposition 98.