Our View: Prop. 99 phony in its claims

The campaigns for Propositions 98 and 99 on the June 3 ballot are getting heated, and it would be no surprise if most California voters are confused by the two eminent domain-related measures.

As often occurs in political campaigns, activists for one side or the other misrepresent the purpose of their initiative. For instance, Proposition 99's supporters claim that the measure will stop eminent domain abuses that have become well known following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision allowing cities to take property from individual owners and hand it over to developers who promise to enhance a city's tax base. Prop. 99 is backed by the government groups who abuse eminent domain and want to continue the practice, including taxpayer-backed organizations such as the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association.

How can they claim to be protecting property rights when their initiative — Prop. 99 — is designed to protect the anti-property-rights status quo?

These groups know voters are angry that cities can take their property — not for public uses such as the construction of highways, but to enrich developers who want the land for cheap. Local residents have seen entire neighborhoods, churches and small businesses targeted by this practice. The supporters of eminent domain abuse don't dare put a pro-eminent domain measure on the ballot. Instead they put on the ballot a measure that pretends to reform eminent domain laws but is so loophole-filled that it offers few protections. Some homeowners would be protected, but churches, farms, apartment owners and business owners would still be subject to these unfair takings.

They hope that this phony initiative lures more votes than Prop. 98, which is the real deal — a ban on the use of eminent domain for private projects. These enemies of property rights also are targeting, through a deceptive campaign, provisions in Prop. 98 that would restrict another form of government taking, rent control. Rent control not only steals the value of property from owners, but it reduces incentives for the construction of new rental housing and leads to housing shortages and overall higher rents. But despite their ad campaign, Prop. 98 would not throw people out on the streets. Renters would still enjoy rent-control protections, but rent control would be phased out after they move.

If both measures pass, the one with the higher number of votes goes into effect. So we urge support for real eminent-domain reform, Prop. 98, and opposition to phony reform, Prop. 99.