Jun 1, 2008

Reject 2 eminent domain measures

Editorial

California's Proposition 98 is being sold as a reform to limit government agencies' ability to seize private property, but, more important, it's also a sneak attack on rent control laws that deserves to be rejected.

And while they're at it, voters ought to nix a less restrictive rival measure, Proposition 99, as well, since it just complicates an already complicated situation.

The city of East Palo Alto and other communities across the state rely on rent control measures to help provide residents with affordable housing.

Proposition 98 would phase out all such restrictions as residents in existing rent control units move out. Mobile home park residents also would be affected. About 1 million California households live under rent control protections.

The harm from Proposition 98 would not stop there. It may even prevent communities from requiring that new developments set aside some units for low-income residents, another popular means of creating affordable housing.

The initiative was launched to take advantage of fears raised by the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial 2005 Kelo decision, which allowed New London, Conn., to acquire private property and deed it to another private owner.

Proposition 98 would, as advertised, sharply curtail government agencies' ability to seize private lands.

In light of worries raised by the Kelo case, critics of Proposition 98 are touting a rival measure, Proposition 99, which is far less restrictive. It limits government agencies' ability to seize owner-occupied homes and transfer that land to another private party or business. Given the confusion that the rival measure might create at the polls, however, we recommend voters reject Proposition 99 as well. Voters shouldn't have to sort out the differences between the two proposals when they can just as easily solve the problem by rejecting both.