Proposition 98: No, no, no, a thousant times, NO! This is just a re-hash of the awful Proposition 90 which failed in November 2006. But it was dangerously close (only 52.4% rejected), so the backers figured they'd try again. As in many states, most Californians very reasonably want to close off the loophole in eminent domain laws which made the news in 2005. Eminent domain has traditionally been understood to allow government to forcibly purchase property (at "fair market value") to serve public needs, the classic example being transportation. However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided (Kelo v City of New London) that there was nothing in the law preventing government from using it for broader "public needs", including transferring property to private developers. There has thus been a flurry of constitutional and legislative activity across the country to block that possibility.
But as invariably happens, some people see an issue like this as an opportunity to trick the voters into giving much more than they probably intended. Thus, Prop 90 included various provisions which would have prevented the government from doing pretty much anything which affects the "economic value" of the private property. In other words, it would have wiped out local zoning laws, environmental regulation, and rent control. Prop 98 isn't as much of a rabid libertarian's wet dream, but it still includes an explicit prohibition on rent control, the pet peeve of the landlord associations backing it. Whether or not you like rent control, a blanket constitutional ban with tons of other side effects is certainly not the way to fix it.
Proposition 99: Yes. This is the last-minute alternative to Proposition 98 pushed by the governor and legislature. They've been working for a few years to craft an eminent domain amendment, but in true California legislative tradition the process got tied up by special interests. When the atrocious Prop 98 made it onto the ballot, this was the best they could come up with on short notice as an alternative. It protects only owner-occupied property, and even that's defined pretty restrictively. As such it's pretty weak, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.
About the only real downside I can see is that this might be just enough of a half-assed fix that it forestalls any further eminent domain reform. Normally I'm all for incremental change and think the "it doesn't go far enough" argument is bullshit. Which is one of the reasons I think most laws are best handled in the legislature, where compromise can happen and tinkering with the law is feasible. But the initiative process is so "all or nothing" that it's one of the few places I think that argument can (unfortunately) hold water. Given how weak this amendment is, I'd be tempted to recommend a "maybe" on this one. But since it has a proviso that it will trump any related measure if it gets more votes (a standard caveat added when there are competing measures to prevent the possibility of contradictory laws being passed), I urge people to vote for it specifically to forestall the possibility of Prop 98 passing. I'd rather have a good weak law which we can hopefully build upon later than a bad strong law that's going to cause untold damage.
General note: One of the arguments being used by opponents of Prop 99 (who are the supporters of Prop 98) is based on the Legislative Analyst's statement that Prop 99 "is not likely to significantly alter current government land acquisition practices." What they fail to note is that the whole point of eminent domain reform is not to stop abuse of the process but to forestall the possibility of future abuse. No one in California even thought there was a problem until the Kelo case brought it to everyone's attention and realized that what happened in Connecticut could happen here. We're not trying to change California government land acquisition practices, we're trying to prevent them from changing.
Page Summary
- (Anonymous) : Proposition 98s Achille's Heel [+2]
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
jimkeller : (no subject) [+0] - jedifreac : (no subject) [+1]
- rcjames14 : (no subject) [+1]
Comments
http://tinyurl.com/3jfofo
Hmm, this is very much a layperson's analysis, and unfortunately quite specious. Contract law has nothing to do with rent control. Only leases can be considered a contract. Rent control is nothing more than free-market price controls, and those historically can be lifted at any time.
I cannot find any way to support the notion that Prop 98 is bad for landlords. They clearly come out the net winner. The real issue is whether or not you think the playing field is tilted against them (as the folks who wrote this proposition do) and, if so, if you believe in a level playing field.
In general I believe in a level playing field, but rental housing is one area where I think government intervention is specifically required to level the field. Landlords have a number of inherent advantages over renters that allow them to play dirty. First there are all the standard "divide and conquer" opportunities which exist in any economic relationship between small, organized groups and large, unorganized groups. But more specifically there's a huge imbalance in the nature of the relationship once a renter has moved in. From that point on the rental property remains just that for the landlord, but for the renter it beomces his HOME, the thing that stands between him and sleeping on the streets. (Yes, the income generated from one renter may be the thing that stands between the landlord and going hungry, but that's certainly not the norm.) It's a mild form of the same tendency that warps economic decisions regarding medical care.
Still, that's all just broad theory. I'm willing to accept that rent control as implemented in some cities may need fixing, but that's an issue that should be hashed out in the municipal governments where those laws are made.
Yeah, that's the reason I'm personally recommending "no" on 99. Something that protects all property owners from eminent domain abuse without tacking on the unrelated stuff is what we need, and I'm worried that if people think we've solved the problem, we'll never get a real fix passed.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/l
Don't vote for Bill Johnson!!!!!
I have been tracking Eminent Domain law for a few months now after I had heard about HAWAII HOUSING AUTHORITY v. MIDKIFF, 467 U.S. 229 (1984). The case raised my ire because it involved the massive sell-off of native land in Hawaii so as to avoid monopolistic and oligarchical real estate practices that were having significant impacts across the islands' economy. However, it also represented a windfall for the subsequent purchasers (who no doubt pushed the law through the legislature). It was a clear case of redistribution of land without it having anything to do with direct public use.
The court liberally interpreted eminent domain and public use to mean anything that would suit the public welfare. Even though, in this particular case, the absence of such reform actually posed a greater threat to democratic practices in Hawaii, the far-reaching consequences of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court for the entire country were fairly clear. The Supreme Court now had established precedent to allow other legislatures to confiscate land without any intent to actually develop public infrastructure upon it.
It's good (but, really sad) to see that I was right about the slippery slope of such a decision.
It's good (but, really sad) to see that I was right about the slippery slope of such a decision.
Slippery slope indeed! And completely unprecedented in our nation's history. Next thing you know, they'll be using eminent domain to confiscate land and hand it over to private industries to, I don't know, build railroads or something.