By The Record

California voters face two eminent domain ballot propositions Tuesday. Both should be rejected.

That there can be abuses when government uses its power of eminent domain to seize private property goes without question. But eminent domain remains a necessary power, especially for obtaining property for schools, parks, roads and the like.

Neither Proposition 98 nor Proposition 99 would change that. What these competing measures aim to curb is the seizure of private property for use in private development. That power was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005, when the court ruled 5-4 that local governments may force property owners to sell to make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed. Used this way, eminent domain is applied most often as method of urban renewal.

Eminent domain must be exercised with extreme care. And in the case of government seizure for private development, it must be exercised only when a there is a demonstrated guarantee of success and only after all other methods of obtaining the property have failed. Consider, for example, the need to obtain land to expand a private hospital.

But Proposition 98 deserves a no vote because it mixes in the issue of rent control rather than focusing solely on eminent domain. This is the equivalent of Congress slipping "earmarks" into an unrelated bill.

It's slimy when done by Congress. When it's done as part of the initiative process, it is unfair to voters.

Proposition 99, supporters of 98 argue, was put on the ballot only as a way to defeat 98. Proposition 99, which would cover far fewer eminent domain cases and is backed by government and environmental groups, is better than 98 but not by much.

In polling released late last week, neither proposition enjoyed majority approval. That reluctance deserves to manifest itself at the ballot box with two no votes.