The day after votes rejected Proposition 98 but approved Proposition 99, it is time to ask what larger lessons can be drawn from this exercise. Four million voters cast ballots on these issues, a substantial number for a primary election.

First, when representatives of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association denounce the passage of 99 as “offering no protections whatsoever,” you have to ask question their strategy in 98. Prop 98, with broader eminent domain restrictions, didn’t pass. Without a doubt, a portion of the voters who could agree with 99 but not 98 were ones who wanted some rent control protection.

Another interesting development is the emergence of Prop G over Prop F in San Francisco. These measures responded to a massive development of the Hunters Point and Candlestick Point areas in the Bay Area. The latter would have required broad set asides for affordable housing. In fact, under the rules of “F,” half of all new homes built would need to be for either low or moderate income residents. Lennar, the developer behind Hunters Point and a supporter of G, indicated that passage of F might have made the project untenable.

Let’s also mention that eminent domain restrictions might have something to say about the ability of cities to provide land for public sports stadiums, like the one that could potentially become a part of the Hunters Point redevelopment.  The City has been talking with the 49ers and Lennar about that, apparently.

This means that voters in one of the areas that came out most strongly against Prop 98 and for Prop 99 were simultaneously guarded in their desire to see new rules on more affordable housing. That is an apparent contradiction.

So, while yesterday did witness the California voting public making a strong statement that it wants affordable housing, the odd result of that expression is to revitalize an old-fashioned and perhaps left-for-dead idea in the field of affordable housing – rent control.

Scholars on the left and the right must be scratching their collective “heads.”

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.

Voters in California will go to the polls today to decide a number of legislative primaries, as well as several statewide ballot initiatives and a few local measures.

Voter turnout is expected to be very low. The Presidential primaries in California polled in February. Without them, energy and attention dissipate.

Proposition 98, a statewide measure that would gradually phase rent control in all of the states mobile home parks (as well as in any other apartment or rental unit), could swing heavily depending upon which cross-section of the public decides to vote.

Although polling suggests that Proposition 98 is lagging its sister measure, Proposition 99, it is possible that this is the kind of election that could favor an initiative like 98. That is because its just the kind of issue that draws strong support from some (property owners, libertarians, farmers) while perhaps eliciting only casual concern among the majority. And while Proposition 98 is not appealing to large constituentcies such as women or renters, its likely that this is not the election that draws out everyone.

Indeed, the lowest turnout rate in California was in June 2006 (less than 34 percent), and this election may exceed that. Its even possible that mail-in votes will exceed election day votes.

Other local measures might also matter. San Francisco, which has a large liberal base and a lot of renters, also has two local measures that would affect development (Prop G and Prop F.) These are high-profile issues with lots of linkage to the Mayor.

Orinda has a proposal for higher taxes on libraries. That might bring out a few Republicans and property rights groups that might also then vote for 98.

The biggest block of voters with a concern in this issue, of course, are residents in mobile home parks. Hundreds of thousands of people live in rent control in California mobile home parks. This is a tough group to organize because it includes many people on the margins of civic institutions.

Then again, it also includes some notoriously regular voters (parents, seniors).

When polls close this evening, a significant shift in affordable housing in California may occur. If 98 passes, rent control will fade away.  Some could argue that since no new rent control provisions have been passed in a decade, that reflects a new political will.

But other community development practitioners outside of manufactured housing programs should also be weary. The controls in 98 could also threaten the ability of any local government to enforce a set aside for new affordable housing in a new development.

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.

Although the League of California Cities is one of the groups behind “No on 98, Yes on 99,” the City of Mission Viejo has broken from that position.

The vote was 4-0, with one council member abstaining.

The Council affirmed a statement that 98 “provides absolute private property rights for all property, including small businesses, houses of worship, family farms and investment properties from eminent domain seizer to give to another private party when owner does not wish to sell.”

Mission Viejo is a planned community in Orange County. It has a population of approximately 100,000. Most of the land is either single family residential or else light retail.

At one point, developers proclaimed that Mission Viejo was “a safe place, for you and your money!” It was ranked the safest city in 2007.