Forgive yourself if you’re confused by the two state propositions making an appearance on the June 3 ballot. They both deal with the complex issue of eminent domain, the ability of government to take private property for public benefit, similar to a proposition that narrowly failed in 2006.  

First of all, eminent domain is an unpleasant but necessary tool that can help governments serve the public interest. In Tracy, eminent domain is being used for the acquisition of land on Lammers Road for the new John C. Kimball campus, with the price to be determined in court.  

But a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision shows that we’re in desperate need of eminent domain reform in this country. In Kelo vs. New London, the court upheld the right of governments to take the home of a Connecticut woman in a land grab for private, commercial development.  

Could that happen in California, where the law states that a property must be found to be blighted before it can be condemned for economic development? That’s up to interpretation, which is exactly why we need reform to defend us from eminent domain abuses.  

So far, attempts to change state law to limit the interpretation in eminent domain have failed in the Legislature. We’re not sure why our lawmakers have been unable to hold hearings, conduct debates and create a reform package to solve these property-rights issues. But they haven’t done the job.  

So where does that leave us? Voters have between now and June 3 to sort through these two can-of-worm propositions involving land seizures.  

The first is the worst (or if this helps you remember, in the words of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, We Hate 98). Proposition 98 is advertised as a way to protect our homes, but it would so broadly prohibit the taking of private property that it could also end up undermining regulations that sustain our property values and give us quality of life.  

Opponents of Proposition 98 say it would prohibit the use of eminent domain for statewide water projects and curtail the ability of cities and counties to use zoning and land use regulations, create open space, require low-income housing or protect water quality. It’s also so poorly written it would take years of court battles to sort it out.  

But that’s not even the worst thing about Proposition 98. Under the guise of reforming eminent domain, it would abolish government-imposed rent control.  

We haven’t a clue what connects rent control and eminent domain, but we’re pretty sure that statewide abolition of rent control doesn’t need to sneak its way onto the books this way. Rent control is a matter for those cities that provide it, and our position on that subject is another issue.  

We’re pretty sure the other initiative, Proposition 99, was put on the ballot to keep us from voting for 98. It bars state and local governments from seizing residential property to turn over to private developers.  

But 99 doesn’t go far enough in providing reform. It does nothing to protect apartments, churches, private businesses or homes with owners who have lived in them for less than a year.  

Moreover, the small print in the initiative might actually eliminate any protection it purports to offer by allowing government to acquire private property for "public work or improvement," which is widely defined.  

The Pacific Legal Foundation’s Timothy Sandefur sets up a hypothetical example of a commercial shopping complex that includes a library branch.  

"If a city decided to construct such a mall and to seize owner-occupied homes to do so, Proposition 99 would not apply, and the homeowners would not be protected," he writes. "It would therefore be extremely easy for government officials to organize projects to avoid even the small protections provided by this initiative."  

So that leaves us with this simple advice: Say NO to both Propositions 98 and 99, and yes to real reform by demanding that our Legislature get something done for a change.