Instead of simply trying to reform eminent domain, the proponents of Proposition 98 - dubbed the "Hidden Agendas Scheme" - have once again over-reached in a way that could harm California businesses and local economies.  This measure on the June 2008 ballot contains poorly-drafted provisions unrelated to eminent domain that could stop much needed water projects, destroy local land-use planning, hurt new housing and commercial development, and lead to frivolous lawsuits and project delays. That's why leading business groups like the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Black Chamber of Commerce and other local business associations oppose Prop. 98.

If passed, Proposition 98 would:

• Threaten California's Water Quality and Supply. No Water = No Growth. Drafting errors in Prop. 98 could prohibit the acquisition of land and water through eminent domain to develop public water projects, threatening many future public water projects needed to ensure we have an adequate water supply to support new housing and new businesses. The Association of California Water Agencies says Prop. 98 "could derail needed groundwater and surface water storage projects around the state" and calls this flaw a "cause for alarm." California faces a water crisis that threatens our economy and growth. No Water = No Growth.

• Lead To Thousands of Frivolous Lawsuits And Paralyze Approval of New Homes, Businesses and Other Projects. In the definitions section of Prop. 98 is a clause that would prohibit laws and regulations that "transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner." Because the courts have ruled that virtually all land-use decisions transfer economic benefit from one party to another, Prop. 98 would lead to countless lawsuits that will tie up project approvals for years. Those opposed to development would use this provision as a "hook" to block new residential or commercial development. Residents or NIMBYs opposed to a new housing development could sue, claiming the approval of a proposed project "transfers economic benefit" to the developer, at their expense. It's easy to see how this measure is a slippery slope, and an invitation to frivolous, anti-growth lawsuits. At a minimum, cities and counties will likely be paralyzed for years while this measure gets litigated to the highest levels of the courts - stalling approval of needed economic growth and development.