NO on 98 & 99

California TV viewers are being bombarded with ads for and against Proposition 98, a ballot initiative that purports to stop government abuses of eminent domain laws. Unfortunately, it is a flawed initiative, as is Proposition 99, a rival measure that was created to kill 98.

The Daily News in Los Angeles gives the pros and cons of both measures:

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.

In California, rent control is as politically popular as eminent-domain abuse is unpopular. That's why Proposition 98's backers are cloaking their attack on rent control in a campaign that focuses exclusively on eminent domain.

To be sure, there's an argument to be made that rent control doesn't work, and California would be better off without it. But that's an argument that ought to be made on its own merits, within the context of its own proposition - not snuck in, Trojan horse-style, via eminent-domain reform.

Meanwhile, if Proposition 98 goes too far, Proposition 99 doesn't go far enough.

The measure was created by the League of Cities - which, as one of the main beneficiaries of the Kelo ruling, has a vested interest in preserving municipalities' unjust eminent-domain powers.

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.

Unfortunately, both propositions are deceptive. Each is saddled with political baggage and its supporters' ulterior motives.

The California Ballot Initiative process has fixed a lot of bad problems (Proposition 13 being the best example which saved a lot of homes of people on fixed incomes from skyrocketing property taxes). However, the process has also been used by politicians and political groups alike to try and manipulate the system. Political leaders in California tried to overrule term limits with a deceptive proposition that was soundly defeated in February, and are planning to try again in November.

At the same time other groups have passed significant ballot propositions like the gay marriage ban or bans on public services for illegal immigrants, only to have those measures tossed out by judges. It's a flawed system, but given the radical nature of the California legislature, it's better to have the ability to stop abuses with the initiative process than to do away with it (which political leaders would like to do and thus keep all the legislative authority in their hands).

UPDATE: A couple of my regular readers are taking me to task for not supporting Prop 98 because of the rent control component. Here's why (as I stated in the comment section):

I don't like rent control either, but my problem with 98 is that it hides the rent control issue while running sob stories of people who have had eminent domain problems. If you want to get rid of rent control, fine, put an initiative on the ballot for that express purpose and put it to the voters. However, don't use deceptive ads and ballot language to try and sneak something past the voters. I wouldn't tolerate that from my political opposition and we shouldn't tolerate it from people whose positions we support.

The major funding from landlords makes me suspicious that eminent domain reform was used as a Trojan horse to get the rent control elimination passed.