Here we go again. Another pair of initiatives that will confuse the voter and like their predecessor, Proposition 90 (2006), they fail to get the job done. Both Propositions 98 and 99 are aimed at providing some assurance that local government will use its eminent domain powers justly. However, Prop 98 confuses the issue by throwing in changes to another controversial local government power - rent control; and Prop 99 is a knee-jerk reaction to the inclusion of rent control in Prop 98 and offers a "watered-down" attempt at addressing the potential abuse of local eminent domain powers.  

The impetus for the initiatives is the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision - Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S.469. This decision involved the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another under the finding that the action furthered economic development. A redevelopment area (RDA) and plan within New London, Connecticut was designated by the City Council-RDA Board. A private corporation proposed a development plan that included a conference center, resort hotel, new state park, residences, office, and retail space.  

The City approved the development plan, authorizing the corporation to acquire several specified properties. The development corporation offered to buy all the properties; however, 15 property owners (some owner-occupied and some investors) did not wish to sell to the corporation.  

The City directed the development corporation, a private entity acting as the City's legally appointed agent, to proceed with condemnation of these properties under eminent domain powers.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that economic growth provided general benefits to the public and therefore, qualified as permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This decision was widely criticized by politicians and citizens throughout the country who viewed the action as a violation of property rights and as misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment.  

In writing the minority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor objected that an unelected private nonprofit corporation was the primary beneficiary of the government's action. Her dissenting opinion stated: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."  

This is major stuff people. Both eminent domain and rent control powers are delegated to local government. The presumption is that local control of land use should be closest to the people it affects. This is good publc policy as it provides us citizens with a direct line to our decision makers.  

Can you imagine the State government directing land use with a "one-size fits all" manner for Paradise and Los Angeles? Don't get us wrong. We believe there can be a clearer definition for finding public benefit in eminent domain procedures. But it needs to be carefully written, focused on the single issue, have bipartisan support, and represent the best interests of local government and the private property owner. These bills don't fit that criterion; send them back to the drawing board with your vote of No.