Measure could lead to lawsuits and negatively effect urban
planning
San Jose – The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors has unanimously come out against Proposition 90, joining a chorus of cities and counties throughout the state that are afraid the anti-eminent-domain initiative would lead to excessive lawsuits and have chilling effects on urban planning.
Proposition 90, if it passes, would require “just compensation” for eminent domain seizures and lost property value due to new land-use regulations.
The board took its position at its meeting Tuesday after hearing an advisory committee’s report on possible losses for Santa Clara County taxpayers should Proposition 90 and Measure A both pass Nov. 7.
The report noted the county’s Measure A would limit development while Proposition 90 would force governments to compensate private owners.
But regardless of that potential conflict between the two initiatives, Santa Clara County Counsel Ann Ravel said Proposition 90 would likely lead to widespread litigation anyway throughout the county – and state – if approved by voters.
The proposition would also require “just compensation” for eminent domain seizures, ostensibly blocking cities from condemning properties.
Government groups such as the League of California Cities and the California State Associations of Counties have argued Proposition 90 is so vaguely written that judges would be needed to hash out potential conflicts as they arise.
Opponents – spanning the political spectrum from left to right – say that scenario might have a chilling effect on planning commissions all over the state.
“I think the Supreme Court opened the door too wide,” said Supervisor Jim Beall, chair of the board. “The concept of ‘just compensation’ was left hanging in the Supreme Court decision. Proposition 90 is an overreaction. There are still problems with eminent domain that would be addressed if 90 fails.”
Doug McNea, former president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Association who authored an alternative proposition on limiting eminent domain that failed to qualify, said he opposes Proposition 90 because it’s been bankrolled by New York multimillionaire developer Howard Rich, who’s also president of the activist organization U.S. Term Limits.
