I just received the following position paper on Propositions 98/99:
“Proposition 98: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property, Constitutional Amendment.
OC Tax Position: SUPPORT
Proposition 98 would:
Bar governments from condemning or damaging all types of private property for private uses;
Prohibit rent control for new renters, but allow existing renters to enjoy rent control until they move;
Prohibit deference to government in private property rights cases;
Award attorneys’ fees and costs if a property owner obtains a judgement form ore than the amount offered by the government;
Require government to allow original owner to repurchase property at condemned price when property is put to substantially different use than was publicly stated.
Fiscal impact: no significant impact on state or local government
OC Tax’s Analysis
The Fifth Amendment makes property rights a brick in the foundation of our liberty, but property rights have been under attack since–oh, about December 15, 1791–by people who feel governments, not owners, should determine the best use of property. In 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Kelo” decision upheld governments’ rights to take private property for “economic development.” (Translation: “condemn homes and small businesses in order to build shopping centers and auto malls to increase property tax revenue.”) The Supremes did one thing right in Kelo: they allowed state and local governments to restrict the exercise of eminent domain. In 2006, OC Tax successfully supported Orange County Measure A, which banned the County of Orange from using eminent domain to take property from a private owner, without the owner’s consent, to convey the property to another Private owner.
A competing measure is Proposition 99, which would protect owner-occupied single-family homes (including condominiums) against eminent domain but would not protect churches, farms, businesses, apartment owners and tenants. Proposition 99 would not ban rent control. Even the Legislative Analyst says Proposition 99…would not change significantly current government land acquisition practices.”Both propositions would allow eminent domain for purposes of public works, health and safety.
If Proposition 99 passes by more votes than Proposition 98, Proposition 98 would not take effect.”
Gilbert comment: Check the bottom line of the OC Tax announcement.
Think about the “poison pill” in Prop 99 that should they prevail would void the protections of Prop 98. They do not want to lose their eminent domain powers to take churches, small businesses or family farms for private use with their bogus initiative.
Simply stated. Vote YES on Proposition 98. Vote NO on Proposition 99.
Larry Gilbert, OC chairman, Proposition 98 campaign
Another constraint on local control of government – OC Tax is opposed to big government except when a big government initiative can tie the hands of local government. No surprise here that this developer controlled organization would take this stance.
Interesting post. I’ve been wondering about these too. Regarding Government power I have another question.
What are the laws are in Orange County regarding RV storage in front of homes and in driveways?? My neighbor has a HUGE fishing boat on a trailer in his driveway. He’s a pretty cool guy but seems like a boat like that should be in a slip somewhere. Do I have any rights to not have to look at my neighbors boat? Keep up the good work O.J.! If they can take away my house why can’t they make my neighbor take his boat to a lake?
Great to hear everyone’s against the completion of the 241 toll road (public/private partnership), east/west water projects (public/private partnership, central state resevoir projects (public/private partnership), and high speed rail (public/private partnership).
Oh and were all against rent control for affordable living qualifing apartments and affordable senior housing mobile home parks.
Great initiative this 98 fiasco!
just… asking-
Please elaborate on that. What does support for Prop 88 have to do with funding for transportation projects?
SMS
Prop 98 would have been ok if they had restricted themselves to Eminent Domain. But, alas, as with many such propositions (like Santa Ana’s Measure D), they had to pile up on it, hoping that the public won’t notice…
The elimination of rent control in Prop 98 is what kills it for me.
Rent Control is a huge issue in 98,and it also affects many environmentl regulations.
All you have to do is look at the pamphlet on ballot measures to see who supports 98. And I highly doubt that “OC Taxpayers” actually represents families but large businesses.
Anon 9:15 pm
No, this is not another constraint on local government. We do not oppose any legitimate public use nor alleviation of any health or safety issue.
Anon 10:08 p.m.
RV and boat storage.
for starters do you live in an area controlled by a hOA. If so you need to read the CC&R’s to see what is permitted on your propoerty.
The Aegean Hills area of Mission Viejo was annexed a long time ago. Many owners in that smaller community had RV’s and boats in front of their homes and were granted a fixed amount of time to move them to a storage facility.
In my opinion they should have been grandfathered in for as long as they owned or lived in those homes.
Just askin.
I expected to hear from you. Thanks for checking in.
In spite of the oppositions scare tactics “Proposition 98 does not limit governments ability to use eminent domain for public projects like roads, parks and water storage projects…”
SMS.
In time you will see that we have individuals who simply cannot stay on point. Prop 98 has nothing to do with transportation. We do not block public uses as stated above.
Anon 7:53 a.m.
What makes you think the governor knows what’s best for those less fortunate than himself who are trying to protect their private property. Sadly he has bought into the deception of the opposition on water projects.
As to OC Tax. Not that long ago we were on opposite sides of a local tax called Measure M extension where I was one of the co-authors of the opposition. This time they got it right and I thank them for that support.
Anon 8:39 a.m.
Do you want your local city council to decide how much you can ask for your house when you wish to sell it?
Prop 98 does not eliminate rent control for anyone currently living in a rent controlled unit as their primary residence. As such they will not be impacted.
Larry:
The key phrase is “for anyone CURRENTLY living in a rent controlled unit”…
What Prop 98 will result in is people being “encouraged” to move out, e.g., by neglecting repairs, etc.
This is a well-known tactic. So, contrary to your assertion, people currently living in rent controlled units WILL be impacted.
Do you really think people are stupid??? Anybody reading this blog has enough brains to see through such a cheap ploy.
Rent control is not the only issue, 98 will also jeopardize water deliverability and storage projects. This issue alone has gotten the California Chamber of Commerce, the Cal. Building Industry Association, the Association of Cal. Water Agencies, and even Western Growers to oppose 98.
The Sierra Club has already said if 98 were to pass, they would sue and put a halt to all major water projects across the state. Just this past week, Governor S and former Governor Pete Wilson have also jumped ship on 98 and announced their opposition.
Howard Jarvis and the Farm B should have stuck to the real ED reform that we need, and have not allowed the Apartment Association and Mobile Home park owners to drive the bus and include the piece to remove rent control and renters protects.
Rent control is for new ordinances, but with the elimination of renters’ rights (justifiable cause for eviction, 30/60 days notice, fair return of deposit), they can boot people out on June 4 and jack up the rent.
HJ and the FB are totally isolated now. Sad to say, but 98 is finished…
Anon 12:45 PM
Rather than buying into what the opposition is claiming let me suggest you do your own homework.
Is this a debate on which side has the most endorsements? Go to our web site that also includes those impacted by the availability of water. http://www.yesprop98.com
All I have to do is see that the California Chamber of Commerce opposes it. It’s got my NO vote.
Pardon my ignorance, but I haven’t gotten my voter guide yet. Could someone tell me if this proposition is about eminent domain, rent control, transportation, or water management?
If they really crammed all of that into one referendum, then I for one, can’t vote for it. It’s no better than legislative riders being attached to controversial bills or the opposite.
Will someone tell us more about 99?
SMS
Taxpayer.
You point out the Chamber of Commerce yet fail to acknowledge support of Proposition 98 from the NFIB who represents 22,000 small businesses in CA. NFIB being the National Federation of Independent Businesses or as they call themselves “the voice of small business.” It’s the small business owners who need protection not the big box and auto dealer members of the Chamber. Each side has a long list of supporters. The real issue is the text of both measures.
As analyzed by multiple legal experts Prop 99 basically offers no property rights protection.
It’s what one high profile blogger labelled a “Trojan Horse.”
Sarah.
We did not introduce all of the scare tactics you read from the opposition. Unlike the other side, we threw away the artist brush and use a broad brush to protect “everyone’s” private property. That’s what the Founders of our Country had in mind when drafting the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution. It does not limit protection to “owner occupied homes with a minimum occupancy of 12 months.” You will not find that text anywhere but in the Proposition 99 measure.
Larry-
Could you please try that again from the perspective of someone who doesn’t know much about the issue other than what you’ve written, like me? I told you I’m ignorant!
I know you’re for Prop 98, and if it’s as simple as you say, I’ll completely back you, but what is the basis for criticisms against it alleging utility and transportation provisions in the measure? If they’re unequivocally false, you can count one more voter to your tally.
SMS
Sarah.
Don’t beat yourself up. You are not ignorant. We have just picked up our mail from a vacation hold and have yet to read all of the Ballot Measure text.
Yes, I do support Prop 98 and have made no secret about it having been deeply involved in this fight for around 15 years.
While I am not an attorney I do interface with attorneys around the country on this topic to get a variety of opinions on related measures and nationwide legislative efforts.
As I am leaving for a Board meeting in a few minutes and have a Kiwanis meeting in the morning give me some time to read the sample ballot and add comments as questions arise. Thank you.
It is looking to me like both 98 and 99 will be defeated at least in part because, just like earmarks by Congress in budget bills, the initiatives have been loaded up with goodies that go beyond the basic issue of condemnation procedings. Greedy special interests have probably dealt both a death blow by adding goodies that cloud the basic issue of public agencies condeming property on behalf of public-private partnerships that develop revenue generating (as in sales tax)operations. I thought it pretty well known that voters will pay attention to a one topic initiative, but when they become multi-faceted and contentious regarding several aspects, people quickly grow weary of it and just vote no to be done with it. Guess not.
Larry –
“we threw away the artist brush and use a broad brush to protect “everyone’s” private property.”
That may be true, *except* for the actual title of the proposition.
Why not call it “Protect everyone’s private property”???
The way it actually *is* called is deceptive. Eminent Domain is only a small part of it. It could also be called “abolish rent control,” or “get rid of affordable housing,” which covers it as much as the actual name. But obviously, the politicians who came up with it know that they can’t win with such descriptions, so they resorted to deception.
On a blog that uncovers a lot of the deceptive stuff dreamed up in Santa Ana’s City Hall I would not have expected a plug for such a deceptive proposition.
At first I thought that the opposition was just making up the whole water argument, but when Western Growers opposed 98, I mean, they are practically joined at the hip with the Farm Bureau. And the fact that the tree hugging people at the Sierra Club said they will use 98 to sue, well the last thing they need is another weapon in their arsenal.
There is a piece in 98 that says it prohibits projects for the consumption of natural resources, something like that. Being that water is a natural resource, I can’t imagine how water projects wouldn’t be impacted.
Who cares about rent control, bad for business if you ask me, but with people like Congressman Randanovich, Senator Cogdill, and Governor Wilson opposing, those aren’t folks that lean to the left. And Pete sits on the Irvine Company’s Board.
I don’t know, it may have been a drafting error and I am still doing my homework, but it seems like 98 tried to take too big of a bite. What are the chances of coming back next year and taking another shot at this if it fails in June?
Joe.
While each side submits a suggested title with our request we have no control of the final initiative/ballot measure “Title and Summary.”
From Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State: “The Attorney General prepares the legal title and summary that is required to appear on initiative petitions. When the official language is complete, the Attorney General forwards it to the proponents and to the Secretary of State.”
As such our proposed text did not appear.
Therefore if you have issue with same your grievance should be directed to our Attorney General in SAC, not the Prop 98 team.
Anon 11:53 pm
Agriculture is a major industry in CA. As such farmers depend on access to water for their survival.
If you check our web site you will see a partial listing of sponsors that support the Prop 98 initiative.
A partial list includes:
CA Canning Peach Assoc., CA Bean Shippers Assn., CA Dairies, Inc., CA Farm Bureau Federation, Kern County Farm Bureau, Sacramento County Farm Bureau, San Diego County Farm Bureau and Siskiyou County Farm Bureau.
Do you truly believe that they would endorse Prop 98 if access to water was denied.
Larry – “As such our proposed text did not appear.”
So, what was the proposed text?
And as far as the access to water is concerned, a quote from the Voter Information Guide:
“government could not take property to use if for (1) a purpose substantially similar to how the private owner used it (such as public operation of a water or electricity delivery system formerly owned by a private company)”
Joe. 7:08 PM
If you read the table of contents in your sample ballot booklet it reads:
“98 Eminent domain. Limits on Government Authority. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.”
Our May 1, 2007 application, date stamped by the Attorney General’s office on May 3rd 2007, read:
“California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act”
As to your second comment.
Let me repeat myself. Our ballot measure is to privde protection for ALL forms of private property.
A private , for profit water utility is just that. According to an entry on the LAO web site dated May 14, 2004 “there are about 170 privately owned, for profit, CPUC regulated water utilities in the state.” They deserve the same protection as any other form of private property. The LAO web site points out that “practically every county in the state is served in part by a private water utility.”
Are you suggesting that big brother can simply take away ownership whenever they want to?
I think I;m going to vote NO on both Larry. It seems like they’re both loaded up with ‘rider’ type provisions.
That said, who else wants to put together an initiative strictly for eminent domain protection on the next possible ballot?
SMS