Sign Up for Updates
| Riverside Press Enterprise, May 1, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
No on 98, 99
Prop. 98 on the June 3 ballot is a disingenuous measure that would abolish rent control under the guise of curbing eminent domain. And Prop. 99, born of no greater need than to undermine Prop. 98, is simply unnecessary. Voters would do well to reject both proposals. Prop. 98 taps voter angst over a 2005 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed a Connecticut city's use of eminent domain to transfer private homes to a developer to spark economic growth. Such property seizures are rare in California. And the state limits the uses for which property can be taken, and requires a government body taking a property to pay owners just compensation -- generally meaning fair market value -- plus relocation costs. In fact, billing Prop. 98 as eminent domain reform conceals its true agenda. The measure's property-investor sponsors want to eliminate rent control laws. But the proposal's broad language could do more than raise rents. According to the state's legislative analyst, the rent provision "appears to limit" government authority to transfer an "economic benefit" from a property owner to other private parties. The legislative analyst says this could affect not only rent laws, but programs such as those requiring builders to include affordable housing in new developments. The proposition's opponents make more far-reaching claims, saying Prop. 98 could invalidate environmental laws, make school expansions difficult to arrange, and make it "illegal" to use eminent domain to build water projects. It is impossible to say whether those claims are valid, because they would likely be decided in court. Prop. 98 is a potential lawsuit factory, and its full effects might not be felt for years. Besides, eminent domain, when used judiciously, is a vital tool for state and local governments. Typically, governments negotiate a deal with willing sellers to acquire private land for public projects. But occasionally, public officials need to take property to build a road, revitalize a public area or eliminate crime and blight. And if California were to face widespread abuse of eminent domain, it could pass legislation to curb any excesses. Unlike its ballot mate, Prop. 99 would end a rare practice. It would prohibit governments from taking an owner-occupied home, except to protect public health and safety, or to use the property for a public works project. And if Prop. 99 passes with more votes, it would invalidate Prop. 98. Eminent domain is a seldom-used power, and there has been no abuse in the Inland region or elsewhere in the state that warrants the extreme restrictions in Prop. 98. Prop. 99's only value is to supersede Prop. 98. The voters' best choice is to preserve the general custom of California governments, which is to use eminent domain rarely and wisely. That would require a "no" vote on both propositions. |