California is holding a primary election tomorrow (Tuesday, June 3). Among the initiatives on the ballot are two amendments to the state constitution which would provide protection against Kelo-style takings (where Eminent Domain is used to force the sale of property to another private entity, nominally to foster economic development). If you’re registered to vote in California, I urge you to vote for Prop 98 and against Prop 99. If both propositions get a majority, only the one with the larger majority will go into effect, and Prop 98 offers much better protections than Prop 99.
he key differences are:
- Prop 98 protects all private property against Kelo-style takings, including farms, small businesses, and rental property. Prop 99 protects only owner-occupied primary residences.
- Prop 98 guarantees strong procedural protections for people whose property is taken for public use (a jury trial to settle contested claims as to the proper level of compensation, and prompt payment of compensation). Prop 99 does not.
- Prop 98 would abolish rent control, which is a textbook example of a government program which just plain doesn’t work. Rent control was intended to guarantee affordable housing, and instead it causes the supply of rental housing to dry up, and it degrades the quality of what rental property remains. It says a lot when Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman agree that a program is a terrible economic idea.
Anti-Prop 98 groups have been spreading FUD that Prop 98 includes language which would require compensation for regulatory takings (i.e. require the state to compensate people who are unable to fully use their property due to environmental or land-use regulations). I’ve read the full text of the proposition and see nothing of the sort there. Neither did the judge who heard the case when Prop 98 opponents argued that the ballot summary was misleading. If Prop 98 restricts regulatory takings, then so does the Fifth Amendment.
More on the need for Prop 98’s protections in this LA Times editorial by Ilya Somin.
Conflict-of-interests disclosure: I will be moving back to California later this month, albeit too late to vote on these initiatives. I plan on renting.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 5 comments }
"Anti-Prop 98 groups have been spreading FUD that Prop 98 includes language which would require compensation for regulatory takings (i.e. require the state to compensate people who are unable to fully use their property due to environmental or land-use regulations). I’ve read the full text of the proposition and see nothing of the sort there."
It bloody well ought to.
Ken Hall’s last blog post..Meditation on Olofson…
I’m in favor of regulatory takings protections (provided they’re properly constructed, which is a complex subject which deserves a seperate post), but for strategic reasons it really belongs in a seperate initiative because of the danger that we’d wind up with neither regulatory takings protections nor anti-Kelo protections.
For similar reasons, I suspect that bundling anti-Kelo protections and the abolition of rent control was a bad strategic move, even though I want both to pass.
I would not support an initiative that said they couldn’t take land for commercial development purposes. They should be able to do that. That’s part of the reason we have a 5th Amendment. I would support an initiative to make sure that compensation is fair, though, and, I would support one that protected landowners who have their land basically rendered unusable due to environmental regulation.
Fortunately I don’t live in California, so I don’t have to worry about whether or which of these initiatives to vote for or against.
The American Association of Retired People (AARP) strongly opposes Prop 98.
Let’s look closer:
" Proposition 98 is an ill-conceived ballot initiative with far-reaching and negative consequences for all Californians.
If passed, Proposition 98 would threaten the state’s ability to promote and ensure protections for affordable housing, hurt efforts to ensure a reliable supply of clean, safe drinking water, threaten land-use planning and jeopardize laws that protect the environment and our communities—all critical elements needed to develop and sustain livable communities. Landlords, mobile home park owners and property management companies have donated 4.5 million dollars to a measure that puts them at a decided advantage over renters and municipalities At first glance it’s easy to be fooled by Prop. 98, and its proponents are hoping voters don’t look further than their claims about eminent domain reform. But, hidden in the definitions of the measure are harmful, far-reaching provisions that would amend our state Constitution for the worse.One of these provisions would eliminate all future rent control laws in California, so as soon as a renter moves out, that home is gone from the affordable housing supply forever.
With more than 1 million California renters living in rent-controlled units, the impacts of this measure could be devastating. Prop. 98 would also gut renter protections for all of California’s 14 million renters, like those requiring the fair return of deposits or proper notice before evicting renters from their homes. "
"AARP California has joined a broad coalition opposing Prop. 98, including the League of California Homeowners, League of Woman Voters of California, California Chamber of Commerce, California Police Chiefs Association, California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Teachers Association, National Wildlife Federation, California Black Chamber of Commerce, Coalition to Protect California Renters, and many others. These groups will be working hard to ensure that voters understand the hidden provisions in Prop. 98 and the adverse consequences for our communities."
Page Two: Prop 99 isn’t the answer either:
California Proposition 98 & Proposition 99- (VOTE) NO on both !
Prop 98 and Prop 99 are both equally deceptive in different ways. They end up giving ammo to those who argue that California ought to do away with its public initiative system since it can be too easily manipulated.
Proposition 98 is the fruit of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Its campaign is heavily funded by California landlords – and that’s the problem. On the plus side, Proposition 98 effectively deals with the abuses inherent in Kelo. It would prohibit municipal governments from taking any private property for another private use.
But – as is often the case with California initiatives – Proposition 98 is a good idea tainted with political subterfuge.That’s because even though proponents don’t talk about it much, Proposition 98 goes far beyond reining in eminent-domain abuse. The initiative also includes language to ban rent control – a wholly different issue in the minds of most Californians.
Thus, Proposition 99 protects only homeowners from having their property taken for private purposes, while extending no protections to businesses, renters or houses of worship. And the homeowner protections are rather flimsy at that. They don’t extend to "blighted" property, a term that, under state law, can apply to just about anything.
Worse yet, Proposition 99 contains a political poison pill – a provision that would block Proposition 98, even if voters overwhelmingly approve it, should Proposition 99 get as little as a single vote more. And that’s Proposition 99’s real purpose – killing Proposition 98 by any means possible. The backers of Proposition 99 are insincere about reforming eminent domain.
They just hope to block Proposition 98 and all future prospects for eminent-domain reform by giving voters a false sense that the issue has been resolved.
McK is voting NO on both 98 and 99.
It looks like AARP’s grounds for opposing Prop 98 are:
1. Rent control. I feel rent control is indefensible, although if I were writting the resolutions I would have split rent control into a different resolution.
2. A possible reduction of anti-landlord regulations. I suspect most of these regulations are only necessary because of the tendancy of landlords to chissle on terms and conditions when rent control forces them to charge below-equilibrium rents.
3. The regulatory takings claim, which I am convinced is nonsense.
Comments on this entry are closed.