Editorial Opinion of The Tribune

Too many flaws in Props. 98, 99

Measures to curtail eminent domain raise red flags; leave it to Legislature

After their string of 3-2 decisions on land-use issues, we’re glad to see that county supervisors are on the same page when it comes to Proposition 98 — one of two eminent domain measures on the June 3 ballot.

All five supervisors voted Tuesday to oppose Proposition 98.

Good for them.

It speaks volumes when all five members of the board — conservative and liberal alike — take a united stand on important public policy matters.

Proposition 98 ostensibly seeks to reform eminent domain law by prohibiting governments from taking private property for private uses, such as shopping centers or industrial parks.

Sounds good on the surface. But because of its vague wording, Proposition 98 would create many more problems than it solves. Officials predict that it would lead to endless and expensive litigation. They also fear that a prohibition on the taking of land for “consumption of natural resources” would interfere with water projects, and they believe other provisions in the measure could jeopardize programs such as inclusionary housing, which requires developers to include some lower-cost homes in their projects.

Beyond those weaknesses, Proposition 98 is much too broad in scope.

In addition to its eminent domain restrictions, it prohibits new rent control laws and phases out existing rent control as property changes hands.

Why lump the two issues together?

Are apartment owners and mobile-home park owners so desperate to undermine rent control that they have to prey on public fears about eminent domain?

We agree that it’s time to reform the state’s eminent domain regulations to better protect private property owners.

However, we’re not convinced that the initiative process is the best way to go about achieving the necessary reforms.

For that reason, we cannot support Proposition 99 either.

That measure would limit government seizures of owner-occupied homes, but it has too many loopholes. For example, it would apply only to homeowners who have occupied their homes for a year or more. Also, apartments would not be included.

While it would not have the same dire consequences as Proposition 98, we don’t think voters should settle for a flawed, ineffective measure.

It makes far much more sense to demand that our state legislators do their jobs and pass meaningful reform of our eminent domain laws.

We urge a “no” vote on both Propositions 98 and 99.