Two propositions, Prop. 98 and Prop. 99, on California’s June 2 ballot deal with government’s ability to use eminent domain to acquire private property and transfer it from one private owner to another. 

We urge readers to vote no on both propositions. 

The issue of eminent domain made headlines nationwide in 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court sided 5-to-4 with the city of New London, Conn. in a lawsuit brought by nine property owners in an older neighborhood who objected to the city’s plan to condemn their houses to make way for a business park development. 

Incidentally, Novato doesn’t have to worry about that type of eminent domain controversy in its redevelopment plans for North Redwood Boulevard , because Novato’s redevelopment agency forbids the use of eminent domain. 

Of the two ballot propositions, Prop. 98 has the strongest restrictions on the use of eminent domain. 

But our problem with Prop. 98 is that it also would phase out rent control around the state, including in mobile home parks. Statewide, an estimated 1.2 million people live in rent-controlled housing. 

The city of Novato instituted rent control at two of its mobile home parks because city council members long ago recognized rent control was needed to maintain that valuable type of affordable housing. Without those mobile home park units, the cash-strapped city of Novato would be under greater pressure to build more affordable housing. So we don’t like eliminating rent control at mobile home parks. 

Prop. 99 has been called a “Trojan Horse” by its opponents, who say it’s presented as a measure that would prevent eminent domain, but actually is toothless in that regard. 

One interesting feature of Prop. 99 is a “poison pill” provision. If it gets more than 50 percent support, then it goes into effect and takes precedence over Prop. 98—even if Prop. 98 gets more votes. 

In fact, Prop. 99 does seem to be a Trojan Horse proposition. It would protect homeowners who live in the property they own from some kinds of eminent domain, but doesn’t cover small business owners. 

With complexities like that, we think the eminent domain question is better handled by our elected representatives in the legislature—not through a ballot proposition.