Proposition 98 was the first of the two, the one that rose most directly from reaction to Kelo v. New London. In that case, the Supreme Court allowed a Connecticut city to declare eminent domain to acquire a large and disused site encompassing part of its downtown and waterfront for economic redevelopment. The court, divided 5-4, allowed the conversion and stated specifically that economic redevelopment is a legitimate reason for the government’s use of eminent domain.

Proposition 98 would heavily restrict when government can use eminent domain. Yet it goes further, with language that might render rent-control laws — used in all major Bay Area cities and several others around the state — an illegal taking of private property. Given how vital rent control has been to keeping California cities affordable, this is misguided. Further, the measure might jeopardize rent control laws affecting mobile home parks, and those residents need strong legal protections.

Land use advocates see 99 as a cynical ploy, a watered-down measure to confuse voters and undermine the cause.

Frankly, we are not convinced that California needs an overhaul of land use protections. But if it does, neither of these measures fits the bill. Proposition 98 goes too far, undermining laws that have successfully preserved affordability for working families in expensive cities including San Francisco and Santa Monica, as well as assisting the many fixed-income seniors living in mobile home parks around the state.