Two ballot initiatives that deal with the government’s right to
seize private property and put it to their own use, as well as laws
that limit the price that landlords can charge to tenants, are on
the June 3 statewide ballot.
Two ballot initiatives that deal with the government’s right to seize private property and put it to their own use, as well as laws that limit the price that landlords can charge to tenants, are on the June 3 statewide ballot.
Proposition 98 deals with the government’s ability to acquire property from private owners in order to build projects such as freeways, parks and shopping centers. The law, if passed, would make it illegal for government entities to seize private property in order to build non-public projects such as shopping centers and industrial parks.
It would also gradually phase out rent control laws that set a price “ceiling” for tenants in some California cities and towns.
Locally, the San Benito County Board of Supervisors has officially opposed the proposition and supported its counterpart – Prop. 99 – which stands to cancel out Prop. 98. The San Benito County Farm Bureau, meanwhile, has endorsed Prop. 98 because, the organization’s leaders say, it carries importance for maintaining property rights.
The Hollister City Council on Monday, as supervisors had, agreed to oppose this initiative because it is a “confusing” and “misleading” proposition that has a range of implications far too broad, City Manager Clint Quilter said.
“It was presented as an eminent domain issue, but in reality it’s about rent control,” Quilter said. “We believe it would make it so you can’t use eminent domain for water projects, and for almost any type of land use issue you’d have to compensate everyone if there’s any type of affect on their property.”
State Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Merced, said he supports Prop. 98 because of its strong stance for property rights. He told the Free Lance he would have rather seen issues of eminent domain and rent control on separate ballots but that the combination was inherently related.
“It’s all about property owners’ rights,” Denham said. “Prop. 98 is the only proposition that safeguards all private property against being taken for private use. It stops the land grab.”
Tom Tobias, a Farm Bureau director, said his organization has endorsed the initiative because of it’s “strong stance for homeowners in general.”
“It all comes down to property rights,” he said. “The Farm Bureau has no problem with using eminent domain to acquire property for public use. But allowing the government to take someone’s property and give it to a contractor to build a shopping center or some other private project – we don’t think that’s fair.”
Proposition 99 is essentially the antithesis of proposition 98. If passed, 99 would make illegal the proposed changes to rent control in proposition 98 illegal. The initiative would provide some protection against eminent domain to certain property owners – mainly residences currently occupied by the owner for one year or longer.
Most supporters of the proposition agree the law does little to change eminent domain law but that it assures the changes in rent control described in Prop. 99 will not happen.
Prop. 99 has been endorsed by the League of California Cities, the California League of Conservative voters and the Service Employees International Union.
Locally, Prop. 99 was endorsed by council members and the supervisors.
Hollister Mayor Doug Emerson said he supports the initiative as a way of opposing Prop. 98 – which he calls “deceiving” and said it threatens to put communities in “lose-lose” situations by forcing local governments to provide compensation to homeowners for any change in a homes value resulting from a change in local zoning, or lack there of.
Denham told the Free Lance the measure will not protect homeowners from government seizures.
“Someone who owns a bed and breakfast can lose it so a big Marriot can move in,” he said.
