Two initiatives on Tuesday’s statewide ballot address the
government’s right to seize private property, and one includes
language that would phase out rent control.
Two initiatives on Tuesday’s statewide ballot address the government’s right to seize private property, and one includes language that would phase out rent control.
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. Mainly for this reason, the Gilroy City Council voted unanimously last month to oppose the measure.
“Proposition 98 proponents want voters to believe the initiative is about eminent domain, but in fact the measure contains hidden agendas and flawed language which will eliminate rent control and other renter protections, threaten development of public water projects, stymie local land use planning and impair our ability to protect the environment,” reads the city resolution passed April 21.
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.
Mayor Al Pinheiro said 98 “affects our ability to do our business as a city.” Aside from the issue of land seizure, 98 could affect the city’s coffers because in lieu of rent control, municipalities may need to provide subsidies for rent if they want to keep rent down.
While the council did not vote to support or oppose 99, Councilman Craig Gartman has lambasted both measures.
“They’re both ridiculous because they’re contrived by people who just want to manipulate the market. They’re using fear to promote their particular agendas,” Gartman said. “There’s nothing wrong with the current eminent domain process.”
In its opposition to 98, the council joins the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, League of California Homeowners, California League of Conservation Voters and the California Alliance for Retired Americans, according to April resolution.
The five-member Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, with one member absent, also voted 4-0 to officially oppose 98 and support 99.
In Sacramento, Gilroy’s State Assembly representatives have taken the same line: Assemblymembers Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) and John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) also oppose Proposition 98 and support 99, according to spokespersons.
Main Points
Prop. 98
â– Would limit the instances which the government could use eminent domain to seize private property
â– Government could only seize property to be used for public use such as for freeways, parks and schools
â– Would gradually eliminate rent control laws statewide
â– Tenants currently living in rent-controlled housing would not lose benefits until they moved out
â– Would force government entities to pay homeowners for any change in their homes’ values caused by the local government’s zoning decisions
Prop. 99
â– Would guarantee statewide rent control laws would stay in effect
â– Would offer protections against eminent domain seizures to homes currently lived in by the owner for one or more years.
