This June 3rd, Californians voting in the statewide primary will face two initiative constitutional amendments concerning eminent domain – continued fallout from 2005’s US Supreme Court decision on Kelo v. City of New London.
Proposition 98, besides prohibiting the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another, also phases out rent control on a unit-by-unit basis (unless enacted since the beginning of 2007, in which case it is is eliminated entirely) and adds some new legal empowerments for owners who’s property is taken by eminent domain.
Proposition 99 also prohibits the use of eminent domain towards private ends, but includes exceptions (“for public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention”) and does not eliminate rent control or include the other provisions of 98.
It probably comes as no surprise that the Libertarian Party of California, who’s platform calls for “the abolition of all rent control laws” and “The repeal of eminent domain and all forms of condemnation of property,” supports Prop 98 and opposes 99:
In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States in a bitter 5-4 decision, upheld the authority of municipalities to seize private property for the purposes of commercial redevelopment.
This election you have a chance to reverse the effect of that decision in the State of California by voting YES on Prop. 98 and NO on Prop. 99.
The Peace and Freedom Party, which advocates “Rent and eviction control laws and collective bargaining for tenants,” predictably has the opposite take:
[Prop 98] pretends that it is addressing a bad U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed a Connecticut city to take away a family’s home for the “public purpose” of turning the land over to a private developer in order to increase the tax base. What it actually does is to redefine as “takings” practically all regulation of the use of property (such as zoning, building height limits and rent control) and bans any such “takings” that economically benefit people other than the property owner. The Peace and Freedom Party urges that you save rent control by voting NO on 98.
[Prop 99], placed on the ballot by opponents of Proposition 98, would prevent governments from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home and turn it over to a private developer. More importantly, it will stop Proposition 98 from taking effect if both pass but Proposition 99 has more votes. The Peace and Freedom Party urges you to vote YES on 99.
CALP member Gene Berkman and PFP member Ron Holladay sound off on the pending measures in their party newsletters, respectively the California Freedom and The Partisan.
Additional reference:
For 98/Against 99
For 99/Against 98.
Disclosure: The author of this article lives in a rent control city.
Off topic, but since CT Weber’s here (cool!), maybe next time you guys should try getting a few more competitors on the ballot. Splitting the “don’t vote for me” vote might have made the goal a bit easier, and I think “I beat all the candidates on the ballot” might have made a stronger case for your planned lawsuit.
I think it was more the rent control provisions than anything else. People won’t vote for something they think will directly cost them money. 99’s exceptions for “for public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention” effectively leave the status quo on eminent domain in place.
It looks like Peace and Freedom Party won this round. The voters wanted to protect the home owner from eminent domain but not businesses.