The real villain here is Proposition 98, one of the most flagrantly self-destructive measures ever put before California voters. And that’s saying something. Prop. 98 is a classic Trojan horse, purporting to solve one problem — the government use of eminent domain to condemn privately owned residential property to benefit private commercial developers — while creating many others, each one considerably worse than the one allegedly targeted. 

In reality, Prop. 98 was hatched by a cabal of statewide real estate lobbyists whose tactical and ideological extremes do disservice to sincere-minded property rights advocates everywhere. First and foremost, Prop. 98 would abolish rent control throughout California. In Santa Barbara County, mobile home park rent control ordinances are all that stand between hundreds, if not thousands, of tenants and the streets. The vast majority of these tenants are elderly or of limited means or both. We recognize that rent control is an imperfect solution to an insoluble problem; however, we feel the appropriate place to address such laws are the cities in which such ordinances originate, not the state constitution as Prop. 98 dictates. Beyond that, Prop. 98 is written so broadly that simple zoning changes could construe “government takings” that required compensation. If the Santa Barbara City Council required increased set-backs for commercially zoned properties, for example, Prop. 98 would construe that as a taking. And City Hall would be forced to compensate the owners. The law encourages litigation by offering the lucrative promise of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party. That’s nothing short of a full employment act for attorneys. 

If you think we’re exaggerating for political effect, look what happened just two years ago when Oregon voters passed something similar with Measure 37. No less than 7,000 lawsuits were filed by irate property owners, and many of the basic government functions were paralyzed. Prop. 98 also changes the legal threshold by which such taking disputes are resolved. Under existing law, the courts recognize the discretionary power of the local government so long as those local governments can cite some reasonable evidence justifying their actions. If Prop. 98 passes, local judges would be charged with making the call on a case-by-case basis. Under this scenario, judges will soon be electioneering on their land-use philosophy rather than their judicial temperament. Prop. 98 claims to address the arbitrary and capricious powers of the state to condemn property in response to government actions that occurred in New London, Connecticut. California law provides property owners far more protections against involuntary takings and condemnation than does Connecticut law. 

At best, Prop. 98 is a solution in search of a problem. At worst, it’s a calculated act of political vandalism on local government hatched by a small, reckless group of real estate operators seeking unfettered development rights for their property. That’s why its opponents include the likes of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, State Senator Dianne Feinstein, and former governor Pete Wilson. 

Proposition 99: Yes

By contrast, Proposition 99 would ban local governments, pursuing various redevelopment schemes, from forcing the sale of owner-occupied homes to private developers. As such, Prop. 99 is a narrowly crafted response to the New London scenario. Rent control ordinances would stand; zoning changes would not be affected. Sponsored by the California League of Cities, as well as a coalition of environmental and tenants’ rights organizations, Prop. 99 was designed to provide an antidote to Prop. 98. If more people vote for Prop. 99 than 98, then Prop. 98 is effectively killed even if a majority of voters endorse it. If you think you can keep the two measures straight when you go to vote, by all means support Prop. 99. But if you think you might get confused, vote no on both.