Yes on 99, if you want more governmental control and property confiscation
Original post made by Kevin on May 27, 2008
The US Supreme Court, in Kelo vs. City of New London, held that government may use eminent domain to take property from its owner for the purpose of transferring it to a private developer. This decision skewed the Constitution's original wording of "public use" to one of public benefit. "Public use" originally meant the direct use of property by a government agency for the purpose of transportation, utilities, or facilities. Now, it has been redefined as public benefit, where the government benefits if it can realize increased tax receipts by taking property and transferring it to an entity that can generate greater tax income. The supposed intent of each Proposition is to protect private property owners from this glaring redefinition of the US Constitution.
However, Prop 99 does not provide this protection. Prop 99 is worded to ONLY prohibit government from taking "owner occupied" homes. No mention of business property, rental property of any type (including detached homes, apartments, condos, or trailer homes), or even farm and ranch property. It doesn't even protect those "owner occupied" homes if the owner has occupied it for less than 12 months. An analysis by the Institute for Justice, (a non-profit public interest law firm out of Arlington, VA that litigated against expanding eminent domain in the Kelo case) states Prop 99 would provide insubstantial protection against abuse of eminent domain for private commercial development. The State of California's non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office says that Prop 99 "is not likely to significantly alter current government land acquisition practices."
Opponents of Prop 98 state it is a deceptive plan to force people out of their rent controlled apartments or trailer homes. This is a distraction based on emotional fear. In fact, Prop 98 states that any statute or ordinance that limits the price an owner may charge a tenant may remain in effect as long as at least one of the tenants continues to occupy the space as his or her principal place of residence. Would it be ironic, or just plain sad, for those in rent controlled apartments or trailer homes to vote against Prop 98 then have their residence taken because it was not "owner occupied" and thus not protected by Prop 99? Only Prop 98 addresses the main issue of taking private property, of any type, unlike the narrowly defined conditions for property found in Prop 99.
So who stands to benefit, given the passage of one over the other. Opponents of Prop 98 lump supporters into the categories of either Apartment Owner Interests or Mobile Home Park Interests, all otherwise known as Wealthy Landlords (how the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association can be labeled an "Apartment Owner Interest" is bewildering). These "Interests" are portrayed as greedy and evil. I don't think I can completely attribute nefarious motivations to someone who wants to protect his or her property from being taken by the government.
Backers of Prop 99 include elected government officials (Feinstein, Pelosi, Schwarzenegger), government agencies, environmental groups, labor and development groups. It was authored by the League of California Cities. These groups benefit immensely with greater ease in taking private property. The Livermore City council endorsed the Kilo decision after it came out. They now back Prop 99. Don't you think they are in favor of making it easier to take private property?
So if you fall for sappy, emotional advertising and are in favor of greater governmental control and confiscation of property, then it looks like Prop 99 is for you.
If you are for stopping governmental encroachment on your private property rights then vote Yes on Prop 98.
on May 27, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Pacific Sun endorsements: Proposition positions
There are only two initiatives on the statewide June primary ballot. Both are constitutional amendments that restrict the power of eminent domainthe ability of governments to take private property for a public purpose in return for fair compensation. Proposition 98, sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, prohibits state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property for private uses and prohibits rent control as well. The latter provision would override local rent control ordinances, including controls on rents in mobile home parks in dozens of California cities. It might also eliminate the type of inclusionary affordable housing provisions that have been used in Marin to require developers to build some affordable units along with high-priced homes. The land use/eminent domain restrictions attempt to accomplish what a similar initiative, Proposition 90, proposed, and the voters rejected, in 2006.
We opposed Proposition 90 in 2006 because we believed it had the potential to effectively prevent the state and local governments from enacting laws to protect the environment and open space and would have undermined the authority of locally elected leaders to do what they think is best in their communities. Prop 98 appears to have even broader application than Prop 90 did. Prop 98 is opposed by the state's major environmental groups and a diverse coalition including the Consumer Federation of California, the League of Women Voters, the California Chamber of Commerce, California Teachers Association, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, tenants' groups, labor organizations and others. Proponents, in addition to the Jarvis group, include major mobile home and apartment owners' organizations.
Opponents argue that the measure's language could void many existing environmental protections, prohibit new ones and restrict actions needed for water projects, schools and infrastructure, and lead to lawsuits and project delays. Most opponents of this initiative are supporting a competing measure, Proposition 99.
Prop 99 says it addresses the core issue that Prop 98 proponents say they are addressing, without all the collateral damage. It prohibits state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence for conveyance to a private person or business entity with exceptions for public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention. This provision deals with the core fear triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision. It is drafted to nullify Prop 98 if it receives more votes.
It's clear to us that Proposition 98 is a dangerous initiative that deserves to be rejected. The sleazy ads being run by its proponents, with the voices of children talking about their fears, complete the picture. You can vote against 98 a second time by voting for 99.
We recommend No on Proposition 98 and Yes on Proposition 99.