Last November we published essentially the same opinion expressed below. Since then, nothing has changed to make Proposition 98 any less dangerous. 

Like a political vampire refusing to die, the campaign to eliminate government control over private property has risen again, this time in the guise of another ballot measure attacking the purported evils of eminent domain. The latest incarnation is Proposition 98, and it proposes to solve a problem that, in large part, doesn't exist, while also eliminating rent control. It would be a huge mistake. 

To understand this proposal, we first have to define our terms. 

Eminent domain is a firmly established principle of common law used to acquire private property to benefit the public good. Without eminent domain we would not have railroads, an interstate highway system, major water projects, many of our schools and hospitals, public utilities, the Golden Gate Bridge or AT&T Park.  Through its history, eminent domain has been a positive force that is occasionally abused, as is true of most tools of government. But it is not inherently abusive, it requires just compensation, and it does infinitely more public good than harm. 

In 2005, however, the United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision on a case from New London, Conn., where city leaders decided to revive a depressed neighborhood by supporting a private development requiring the exercise of eminent domain over 15 properties whose owners did not want to sell. 

The issue, in what became known as the "Kelo case" after the lead plaintiff, was whether taking property from one private owner and giving it to another private owner was constitutional, even if the resulting redevelopment benefited the common good. In a bitterly divided opinion, the court said it was. 

That decision triggered a national backlash as property-rights proponents imagined eminent domain monsters under every bed. Numerous state initiatives and some new laws resulted, while property rights zealots who don't want government interference of any kind found a poster child for their cause.  In 2006 they floated Proposition 90 in California, hoping not only to outlaw taking of private land for private purposes, but also to make government pay for the financial impact of any action limiting land use. That would have crippled government authority to adopt regulations governing housing, environmental and consumer protection and workplace safety. 

Prop 90 lost, but its proponents wouldn't admit defeat, so they concocted Prop 98. 

With a few notable exceptions, eminent domain has not been widely abused in California. But if Prop 98 were to pass, it would not only severely restrict eminent domain, it would also mandate the phaseout of rent control, impacting more than one million people while dislodging thousands of elderly and low-income residents. It could also have the effect of inhibiting or prohibiting the acquisition of land to build new water projects that benefit private landowners and which may be necessary to sustain the California economy.A better solution, Proposition 99, the Home-owners Protection Act, also set for the June ballot, proposes a simple prohibition on the taking of private property for transfer to a private developer, thus addressing the issue raised in the Kelo decision.

That's all it does. Remember the different ballot measures. One - 99 - is a reasonable proposal, the other - 98 - is a disaster. 

-          David Bolling