There are only two statewide propositions on the June 3 ballot. Both address the topic of eminent domain, a government’s right to “seize” private property for specific uses after reimbursing the owner. 

With just two ballot questions, one wouldn’t think there could be too much confusion — but there is — thanks mostly to a well-funded misinformation campaign by supporters of the first proposition, Prop. 98. 

Proposition 98 is a dangerous proposal that is so poorly written that the objective analysis by the state’s Legislative Analyst says “the fiscal effect on state and local governments ... is not possible to determine.” The Analysts suggests that some governments “might choose to change their policies” regarding affordable housing, rent controls and some land use regulations. 

Prop. 98 would also eliminate all rent control laws in California after a phase out period. In fact, some opponents of Prop 98 are saying eliminating rent control is the secret purpose of Prop. 98, supported by a group called Californians for Property Rights Protection. 

The genesis for Prop. 98 came out of the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision against a Connecticut homeowner who was trying to fight off government efforts to seize her house for a redevelopment project. That high court ruling, which upheld the ability of a government to shift private property from one owner to another for broadly defined public purposes, created a national backlash. 

Since then, many states have revised their eminent domain laws to be more restrictive in taking private property for “economic beneficial” causes. 

California has not updated its eminent domain laws, hence the twin Props 98 and 99 on next month’s ballot. 

Proposition 99 would not eliminate rent controls and would continue to allow for eminent domain in a limited number of cases and would prohibit the government from taking a single-family home. 

Prop. 99 is a more sensible approach to narrowing the government powers over the taking of private property.

We believe it is worthy of voters’ support since the State Legislature has thus far refused to act on the issue of eminent  domain. We caution voters to carefully read and understand the differences of the two like-sounding propositions. As mentioned the current media campaign supporting Prop 98 is fear-based and employs crying children, trembling seniors and, at one point, says communities could lose their schools, roads and churches unless Prop. 98 is passed to change current eminent domain laws. 

Prop. 98 is opposed by the California League of Women Voters, AARP, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and others. 

The California Costal Commission warns that Prop. 98 could impede efforts to protect the coast and keep it accessible to the public. 

Affordable housing advocates say the proposed law could strip local governments of their ability to require low-income housing as part of new developments. Local governments now use eminent domain powers to protect the seashore, wetlands, fragile or endangered habitats and natural resources including fresh water and air. 

Because Prop. 98 is so poorly written, its impact on these conservation powers is unknown. The State Analyst says “given the wording of the measure ... the range of government laws and programs that would be affected is not clear and would be determined by the courts.” 

Written into Prop. 99 is a “poison pill” provision which states that if both measures are passed by the voters, but Prop. 99 receives the most votes, then Prop 98 would not be implemented. 

For that reason alone, we again urge voters to vote “Yes” on Prop. 99 and vote “No” on Prop. 98. 

If both measures fail, the State Legislature should move eminent domain reform onto next year’s agenda. A series of open hearings and legislative reports could be brought forward, adding to everyone’s better understanding of the government power over private property. 

—      Rollie Atkinson