No on 98, Yes on 99
California voters face just two statewide ballot measures June
3, both addressing public agencies’ power to buy property even when
its owner does not wish to sell.
No on 98, Yes on 99
California voters face just two statewide ballot measures June 3, both addressing public agencies’ power to buy property even when its owner does not wish to sell.
It’s called the power of eminent domain, and it’s used so seldom in San Benito County that one might wonder why the only ballot measures before voters next month address the same issue. Once you unerstand why, it should be obvious why we recommend a “No” vote on Proposition 98 and a “Yes” vote on Proposition 99.
Proposition 98 is the darling of landlords, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau and the California Association of Realtors. A single mobile home park owner in Santa Cruz County has contributed $110,000 in support of Proposition 98.
Follow the money.
Proposition 98 would bar government from taking any private land for another private use, but it also would prohibit any further rent control agreements in California – forever.
As San Benito County’s population burgeoned in the 1990s and beyond, only a handful of new apartment units went up locally. Vacancy rates are near zero, and still the county has no rent control on apartments. Were a future crisis to arise, local agencies’ hands would be tied.
Further, the Association of California Water Agencies says Prop. 98 “could derail needed groundwater and surface water storage projects around the state.”
Locally, eminent domain has been exercised with appropriate restraint. The Hwy. 25 bypass around downtown Hollister might have been stymied by a handful of property owners had the mechanism not been available. The taking of an individual’s property – with just compensation – is certainly a smaller evil than hijacking the welfare of an entire community.
Proposition 99 sets a more reasonable limitation. It dictates that government may not use eminent domain to take a home and transfer it to another private developer. It would still allow conversion of private property to public facilities, but it extends reasonable protection to property owners and deserves Californians’ support.
