Don’t Count on Prop. 99 by Ilya Somin This article appeared in the Los Angeles Times on May 19, 2008.
On June 3, Californians will vote on Proposition 99, a ballot initiative sponsored by groups representing cities, counties, redevelopment agencies and other pro-condemnation interests. It purports to protect property rights against eminent domain, but it actually provides almost no protection.
Two San Gabriel Valley cities illustrate the dangers of unbridled condemnation authority. Baldwin Park plans to use eminent domain to demolish more than 500 homes and businesses and transfer the land to a politically influential developer who plans to build a mall. La Puente is trying to use eminent domain to take over a small shopping center, displacing 13 small businesses. The city claims that the area is “blighted″ — making it eligible for or condemnation under state law — even though there is no evidence of dilapidation.
Both of these “takings” of private property would probably be
permitted under Prop 99, since it protects only owner-occupied houses against condemnations with the purpose of transferring property to “private persons.” That leaves renters — 42% of Californian households — unprotected. … renters can be forced out even if their leases haven’t expired
… protection for homeowners covered under Prop 99 is likely ineffective… homes can still be taken for private developers if the proposed project allocated some space for a library, etc. Government can say the purpose is promoting “development,” circumventing the ban.
Economic development takings often transfer property from the poor to the politically powerful.
[On] California’s June ballot is Prop 98, it really would forbid “economic development″ condemnations and other abuses. Absent Prop 99, Prop 98 would likely pass … Prop 99 invalidates any other eminent domain referendum passed the same day so long as 99 receives a greater vote than Prop 98. Many voters are unlikely to realize this.
permitted under Prop 99, since it protects only owner-occupied houses against condemnations with the purpose of transferring property to “private persons.” That leaves renters — 42% of Californian households — unprotected. … renters can be forced out even if their leases haven’t expired
… protection for homeowners covered under Prop 99 is likely ineffective… homes can still be taken for private developers if the proposed project allocated some space for a library, etc. Government can say the purpose is promoting “development,” circumventing the ban.
Economic development takings often transfer property from the poor to the politically powerful.
[On] California’s June ballot is Prop 98, it really would forbid “economic development″ condemnations and other abuses. Absent Prop 99, Prop 98 would likely pass … Prop 99 invalidates any other eminent domain referendum passed the same day so long as 99 receives a greater vote than Prop 98. Many voters are unlikely to realize this.
Expired Domain Secret
