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.

On June 3rd, voters in California will go to the ballot box to decide upon two initiatives on eminent domain.  One, Proposition 98, would also establish provisions to gradually phase out rent control in California.

There are many counties and municipalities in California that have utilized some kind of rent control in the mobile home communities.  One list, from 2005,  attempts to catalog those communities here. (pdf)

This list is interesting for a number of reasons:

• In most places, rents are not fixed, but instead controlled in the speed of increases.   Many tie rent increases to changes in the consumer price index.
• Rent control is an idea that has lost some of its ability to draw new converts.  While Alameda County led the way with its 1965 ordinance, the last community to adopt a rent control ordinance on mobile homes was Pleasanton in 1993.
• Most were adopted as a city ordinance.
• Some allow rent increases upon a vacancy already.  This is one of the issues in Proposition 98.

Proposition 98 and 99 might appear very similar to the casual voter.  Since this is not a general election, turn out may be light.

One question that is worth asking is what would happen if both initiatives passed?  Since they both govern some of the same situations, it would not be possible to use both.  The answer is that only one can become law.  If both pass, the one with the most votes will be enacted.

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.

The upcoming Propositions on eminent domain, scheduled for the June ballot in California, would redirect property rights. Proposition 98 and 99 both put constraints on eminent domain, but 98 also throws out a number of other housing rules.

Most of the financial support for Proposition 98 comes from apartment owners and mobile home park operators. Support for Proposition 99 is led by California’s municipalities and Counties.

The largest difference is a stipulation to throw out rent control. The proposal would grandfather the rent protections afforded to existing tenants under rent control. However, upon moving out, a unit would be freed from rent constraints. There are other rules. For (more…)