On two statewide measures focused on eminent domain, The Desert Sun urges a no vote on Proposition 98 and a yes vote on 99.

Proposition 98 is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It purports to protect private property owners from reckless eminent domain grabs. But it is really a measure backed by apartment and mobile home park landlords, who paid millions to get the measure on the ballot in hopes of dismantling rent-control laws.  

There's no doubt that rent control is an issue that deserves to be reviewed and perhaps addressed in the California cities that have such laws. However, using this particular measure to target these controls under the guise of providing needed protections against eminent domain is a disservice to voters. 

The way it is written, Proposition 98 says it bars government from taking or damaging private property for private uses. But it also prohibits rent control. 

Proposition 98 also is being viewed as a litigious measure that would increase lawsuits associated with eminent domain. Its fine print holds provisions that could reverse laws that protect the environment and ensure growth. 

Eminent domain, when used properly, is not a bad thing, and California hasn't provided any spotlight cases of it being abused, for the most part. It is a tool of last resort, but it's a necessary one that can pave the way for economic development, road improvements and schools. 

Government does not just seize property; it must compensate property owners. It is to be used to stimulate positive economic growth and transform blighted areas with "just compensation." In most cases, it works that way. In the desert, for example, eminent domain was critical for construction of The River in Rancho Mirage. 

But a statewide measure to address eminent domain is needed in light of the 2005 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo vs. the city of New London. The high court upheld the Connecticut city's decision to give a homeowner's property to the developer of a commercial project. The case has caused much concern about private property rights - and rightly so. No one should be able to hand private property over to a developer, who, let's say, contributed to council members' campaigns. But Proposition 98 is not the "protection" we need. 

That is why Proposition 99 was created. It truly addresses eminent domain and would amend a section of the California Constitution to protect homeowners from eminent domain abuse, or the transferring of owner-occupied homes to another private owner or developer. Proposition 99 imposes reasonable restrictions on eminent domain. Specifically, government agencies could not condemn a single-family home and hand it over to a private developers unless it was for a public works project or an environmental hazard. 

The measure has broad-based, bipartisan support. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sen. Dianne Feinstein support it, for instance. 

Does it stop government from using eminent domain? Certainly not. If a case can me made that private property should be taken for the overall public good, it can and likely will happen. But like many other states that have already responded to Kelo vs. New London, California's Proposition 99 does give some direction and some monetary protections to homeowners. 

What's more important is that 99 can quash Proposition 98. The measure that gets the most votes will become law. Let's ensure it is 99. 

Vote no 98 and yes on 99.