The National Community Reinvestment Coalition has finished an initial analysis of President Obama’s new foreclosure plan, the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan.  In an email sent to members, John Taylor, President of NCRC, acknowledged that while the plan advances “the cause”, that it still “falls short of what we hoped to see.”

Specifically, Taylor indicates that his organization, and others, had been hoping for a better carrot.  They propose a $4,500 incentive for lenders that agree to modify loans.   The incentive would be paid out over a period of three years.

NCRC has a larger explication of its foreclosure relief plan, entitled the Homeowners Emergency Loan Program (HELP!).  It (more…)

Yesterday, voters in California said that they support curbs on the authority of public entities to use eminent domain, but that they want to keep rent control rules in place.

The decision is a blow to landlords and others who supported Proposition 98. The ballot measure would have phased out rent control not just in apartments, but also in mobile home parks across the state. Prop 98 wasn’t just defeated — it only got a “yes” from 39 percent of voters.

Proposition 99 passed with 62.5 percent of ballots cast. Moreover, only Colusa County voters rejected the measure.

There were some trends in turnout against 98. In Yolo County, where Woodland has passed a strong set of protections for renters in mobile home parks, 98 got 30.7 percent of votes while 99 got 57.1 percent.

In large urban areas, it was much the same story. Alameda (30.4 for 98, 66.7 for 99), Los Angeles (31.5 for 98, 63.6 for 99), and most notably San Francisco (25.3 for 98, 71.3 for 99) all split heavily against dropping rent control while still supporting eminent domain restrictions.

Just as we live in a country of blue and red states, California’s counties diverged on the measures in ways that show great geographic linkages. Inland counties were much more likely to support 98.

The only county with a coast that voted in favor of 98 was Del Norte, and by a slim 51 percent margin.

If both measures had earned more than half of all votes, as was possible, then the measure with more votes would have been enacted.

If Proposition 98 does not pass, then the strategists who decided to pair eminent domain reform with the gradual abolition of rent control will have a lot of questions to answer.

In the year after the 2005 Kelo v. New London decision, twelve state ballots initiatives set to limit the potential expansion of eminent domain set out under Kelo. In ten of those states, the referenda passed.

In the nine states where eminent domain was the sole issue within the ballot initiative, all nine passed. However, when eminent domain was linked with another issue, voters reacted differently. In those three states, eminent domain was successfully curbed only once.

This would suggest that eminent domain reform, by itself, is very viable with voters.

Why pair the two?  A number of theories are plausible.  One is that this is not a case of rent control reform coming along to supplement eminent domain, but just the opposite.  Perhaps the gradual phase out of rent control is really the dog wagging this tail.  Funding patterns hint at this.  Most of the big money for 98 comes from landlords.

A subsequent conclusion from such an analysis would then be that Proposition 99 is less about providing an alternative to Prop 98 for eminent domain reform, than it is about neutralizing rent control.

Rent control initiatives can be successful with voters. Massachusetts, hardly a conservative state, passed an initiative against rent control in the 90s. This study, by a conservative think tank, seems to suggest that getting rid of rent control did increase both the quantity and quality of available housing in Cambridge.

Eminent domain, in the era after Kelo, seems to get a lot of people worked up. Transferring property to the government for a public purpose is one thing, but transferring to a private company in the wisdom that some public benefit will disseminate indirectly, appears to hold less satisfaction. Kelo did include language that said that “nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.”

California’s Proposition 90, which added regulatory takings powers to its eminent domain reform, failed by a small margin in 2006. Regulatory takings are ones that limit the economic viability of a property as a result of a government regulation. This would have great impact in environmental protections, for example.

Proposition 98 represents another mixed proposal. Its perhaps even more complicated, though, because rent control is also very provocative and attracts some support among groups that might otherwise not be energized to even participate in a referendum on a non-general election day.

It appears to be the issue that is holding up the success of Proposition 98. Many renters, as well as female voters, are identifying themselves against 98 in polling.

Environmentalists have added to the list of groups with a critique against California’s June 3rd initiative on eminent domain, Proposition 98.

Proposition 98 is one of two ballot referenda which would curb eminent domain. It has been a focus of MHR because it would also gradually phase out rent control, a protection that governs lot rents in many municipalities in California.

The California chapter of the American Planning Association believes that provisions in 98 could pave the way for a rewriting of many laws that protect the environment in the state. Included are laws protecting air, water, and wetlands. Cal APA also believes 98 could affect smart growth provisions.

The reason is that 98 prohibits the transfer of property where economic benefit is transferred from one group to another. This changes the rules around “takings.”

Environmentalists concede that almost any protection would have the affect of shifting value from one group to another.

• Constrain development in historic neighborhoods, take potential equity from land owners in those locations.
• Protect Mono Lake, harm thirsty people downstream.

The language in Proposition 98 goes even further to provoke questions about how well communities would be able to enforce rules in their own neighborhoods. Would a town be able to enforce a blue law against liquor sales on Sunday if liquor store owners could demonstrate that they would experience a taking?

APA is actually supporting Proposition 99.

Opponents of Proposition 98 — the ballot initiative up in California on June 3rd that would restrain the use of eminent domain and eliminate rent control, simultaneously — have found another reason to be against the proposal.

A group led by the Association of California Water Agencies are pushing back against 98.  These groups believe that eminent domain might be a necessary tool to help communities satisfy their needs for water in the near future.

Other voices have emerged to support the often pilloried notion of eminent domain, on the grounds that some uses for land meet a higher civic need.  Los Angeles, for example, might never get another NFL team without the ability to capture land for a new football stadium.  This was the case in the event of the Staple Center.

The water group, which issued an editorial last fall, write that a number of important water projects could be imperiled by 98.  The believe that eminent domain will be needed to gain access to land for reservoirs, groundwater and surface water storage projects.  As well,

• it might prevent a new Delta conveyance system (More than 25 million Californians and 2.5 million acres of farmland receive water conveyed through the Delta)
• Right-of-way for pipelines and canals to deliver water to new homes and businesses.

It appears that their opposition is not against eminent domain in general, but to how it is written in Prop 98.  In fact, ACWA supports Proposition 99.

Then again, critics such as the Pacific Legal Foundation have pointed out the constraints against eminent domain contained with Prop 99 are very limited.