Believe it or not, it's nearly time to vote again in California.  On June 3rd, there will be a Statewide Direct Primary Election.  Bless the folks at the Secretary of State office for limiting us to two Propositions this time around.

Both propositions aim at restricting the State's right of "eminent domain"--the process whereby the State takes possession of private property for its own purposes.  Without going into extreme detail, these propositions were made necessary by a Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that found it legitimate for government to take possession of property in order to sell it to developers.  Most states have enacted legistlation restricting the right of eminent domain to instances where the "public good" is a public facility rather than a new shopping mall.

The two propositions on the ballot both call themselves Eminent Domain legislation.  And there are a number of fairly deceptive radio ads playing right now in favor of Proposition 98.  So it's important to understand that they are not equal at all.

Proposition 98 is broader in terms of the types of property owners protected.  It includes churches, small businesses and rental properties along with homeowners.  Unfortunately, it also has a section that eliminates rent control (and could allow all rent controls to immediately be lifted).  In general, I'm in favor of the limited use of rent controls although I'd welcome a well-written measure limiting rent control some time in the future.

But in this proposition, a particular sub-group of rent control--mobile home space rents--is included.  Since many mobile homes are individually owned  but placed on rental land, and because they're costly to move, they are a particularly good example of why some rent control is necessary.

There's also the potential that the measure will eliminate one of the most effective tools of city governments in promoting affordable housing, something called "mandatory inclusionary housing."  This is the process whereby cities require developers to include a certain number of down-market homes in their project.  Without this, there would be very little affordable housing in California--housing recession or not.

Finally, the money behind proposition 98 comes primarily from the real estate owners, property managers and mobile home park owners who would benefit from the lifting of rent controls.

For all of these reasons, I urge you to vote no on 98.

As for Proposition 99--it's a straightforward limit to eminent domain for the primary residence of homeowners.  I'd like to see additional protections for small businesses and churches in the future.  But it's a good start.  Vote yes on 99.

League of Women Voters agrees with me.  Yaay!

Leave a Reply