Two Calif. propositions deal with limiting eminent domain

At first blush, it would seem that California voters have a relatively simple menu of ballot measures before them June 3: two propositions, each dealing with the same subject.

But there's more than meets the eye.

Propositions 98 and 99 each ostensibly deal with limiting government's use of eminent domain power to purchase private property, but advocates for each measure are skeptical of the other.

Critics of Proposition 98 say that while the measure would prohibit government agencies from forcing owners to sell property except to accommodate public facilities such as schools and roads, its biggest impact would be to eliminate rent control in California.

"We would have voted for 98 if it had not included the elimination of rent control," said Merle Pittman of Ojai, an officer of a mobile home owners group that is fighting the measure. "If Proposition 98 passes, it's going to be devastating to anyone who rents."

Critics of Proposition 99 say that its restrictions on eminent domain are so limited as to be almost meaningless, and that it is on the ballot only as a means to prevent real reform from passing.

"Proposition 99 is a watered-down version of Proposition 98," said Don Facciano, president of the Ventura County Taxpayers Association, which supports Proposition 98. "Opposing 99 is a no-brainer."

The association endorsed Proposition 98 on a split vote.

Public concern over abuse of eminent domain power was ignited by a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision. It upheld a Connecticut city's action to force a homeowner to sell her house in order to accommodate a private conference center. That decision sparked a nationwide outcry among property rights advocates and led many states to bar the use of eminent domain to facilitate so-called "private-to-private" transfers.

In California, voters rejected Proposition 90, a 2006 ballot measure that would have not only barred private-to-private transfers but also forced government to compensate property owners for a variety of regulatory actions.

Subsequent negotiations between local government officials and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association failed to produce an agreement on legislation to ban the use of eminent domain for private-to-private projects, and both sides took to the streets in 2007 with separate initiatives.

Proposition 99, sponsored by the League of California Cities, would prohibit government agencies from forcing the owner of a single-family residence from selling his or her house to accommodate a private development.

Proposition 98, sponsored by the Jarvis group, would prohibit the use of eminent domain to purchase homes, farms, businesses or churches to accommodate private economic development projects.

Both measures include exceptions that allow the use of eminent domain for private projects designed to prevent criminal activity and those that might be required in response to an emergency.

Proposition 98, however, goes well beyond the eminent domain issue with language that would classify as a government "taking" any action that limits "the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property."

That provision, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, would invalidate rent control laws in the more than 100 California cities and counties that regulate rents in mobile home parks and in about a dozen cities with apartment rent control ordinances. In all, the office estimates, about 1 million Californians live in rent-controlled mobile home parks or apartments.

Proposition 98 would allow rent control to continue for current residents, but would lift those restrictions as soon as a vacancy occurs.

That provision creates a unique problem for the owners of mobile homes because their home's value is directly tied to the rent a new owner would have to pay for the space on which it sits. Thus, if rents could rise without limit, a buyer would pay less for the mobile home.

In addition to the rent control issue, the Analyst's Office says the language of Proposition 98 would invalidate "inclusionary housing" laws on the books in about a third of California's cities and counties that require developers to devote a certain percentage of new housing units to affordable housing.

The California Chamber of Commerce, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Gov. Pete Wilson are also opposed to the measure based on its potential restraints on water projects.

(Timm Herdt blogs on politics and Ventura County in a presidential election year.)

(Contact Tim Herdt the Ventura County Star in California at therdt(at)venturacountystar.com.)