Chamber Takes Position on February 2008 Ballot Measures

June 2008 Ballot Recommendations

Propositions 98 and 99 on the June 3 ballot both deal with the same topic: Eminent domain as it pertains to the California constitution.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If both ballot measures pass, the one with the MOST votes takes effect.

Proposition 98: “California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act” Eminent domain. Limits on Government Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Full text: http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/06/03/ca/state/prop/98/#text
Summary: Proposition 98 would amend the State Constitution in several ways. It:

• Bars state and local governments from taking or damaging private property for private uses. (NOTE: it does not change government authority to take private property for public works such as schools, roads, parks, and public facilities).
• Prohibits rent control and similar measures (although rent protections in place prior to Jan. 2007 would still be protected until the tenant moves out.)
• Expands “just compensation.”
• Requires an award of attorney’s fees and costs if a property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount of money offered by the government.
• Restricts government authority to take private property and use it in the same way as the previous owner, or change its intended public use, or resell it without first offering it back to the previous owner at the paid price.
• In the event of a legal challenge by a property owner, Prop 98 requires courts to exercise independent judgment and not defer to government findings.

Fiscal Impact by State of California independent Legislative Analyst: Increased costs to many governments due to the measure’s restrictions. The net statewide fiscal impact, however, probably would not be significant.

GA Recommendation: Oppose Prop 98. The language of Prop 98 and the limitations it will place on government for publicly beneficial projects is unacceptable. The language in Prop 98 related to transfer of ownership, transfer of economic benefit, and transfer for the consumption of natural resources negatively impacts local land use planning and development by restricting government’s ability to plan transportation and water infrastructure, affordable housing and other public benefit projects.

The even-handed Legislative Analyst says, “The range of government laws and provisions that would be affected by these provisions is not clear and would be determined by the courts.” She goes on to write that “the reduced ability to take property could apply to many government plans for redevelopment, affordable housing and public ownership of water or electricity utility services.” (From the ballot pamphlet).

Additionally, costs for publicly beneficial projects could very easily skyrocket, reducing the number of projects that would benefit the business community and public overall. The impact of land acquisition for government projects is already a factor in today’s world. For example, project cost overruns for the SFO BART extension were attributable to land acquisition costs along the proposed line.

The Chamber understands the desire to protect business and private property owner rights, but feels that Proposition 98 is too far-reaching in the limitations it places on eminent domain. It constrains the potential uses of property obtained through eminent domain to the detriment of projects that could promote economic development, create local jobs, and improve infrastructure. Additionally, the board believes that the provisions of Prop 98 related to rent control do not belong in this measure.

Major Supporters: California Association of Realtors; California Republican Party; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; California Farm Bureau Federation; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce <partial list>

Major Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce; California Building Industry Association; Silicon Valley Leadership Group; Governor Schwarzenegger; California Transportation Commission; California League of Cities; California Professional Firefighters; California Police Chiefs Association; California League of Women Voters; Association of California Water Agencies; AARP; former Governor Pete Wilson, California Democratic Party; Western Growers Assn; California Chapter of the American Planning Association; California Redevelopment Association; California School Boards Assn; long list of local Chambers <partial list>

back to top

Proposition 99: “Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act”
Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Full text: http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/06/03/ca/state/prop/99/#text
Summary: Proposition 99 is an amendment to the state constitution that would prohibit the use of eminent domain to take a single family owner-occupied dwelling (as long as the owner has resided there for a year or more) for the purpose of transferring it to another private party. However, this restriction would not apply if the government was taking the home to:

• Protect public health and safety
• Prevent serious, repeated criminal activity
• Respond to an emergency
• Remedy environmental contamination posing a threat to public safety
• Use the property for a public work, such as a toll road.

Fiscal Impact by State of California independent Legislative Analyst: No significant fiscal impact on state or local governments.

GA Recommendation: Support Prop 99. While we agree with the Legislative Analyst that this measure would not significantly change current government land acquisition practices because the taking of single family homes is rare, the Chamber Board believes that Proposition 99 does add protection for single family home owners who reside in their homes. It offers limited and reasonable eminent domain reform while protecting the ability of cities to plan land acquisition in support of economic expansion, redevelopment, and infrastructure needs to promote economic prosperity and local quality of life.

Given that if both measures pass, the one with the most votes takes effect, we urge support for Proposition 99.

Major Supporters: Silicon Valley Leadership Group; League of California Cities; California League of Women Voters; League of California Homeowners; California Alliance for Retired Americans; California Chapter of the American Planning Association; California Redevelopment Association; California Democratic Party, Ca. Police Chiefs Assn; quite a few local Chambers <partial list>

Major Opponents: California Association of Realtors; California Republican Party; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; California Farm Bureau Federation; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce <partial list>

Additional Sources of information on Propositions 98 and 99:
o No on 98/Yes on 99 campaign: http://www.no98yes99.com/go/get-the-facts/
o Yes on Prop 98 campaign: http://www.yesprop98.com/facts
o No on Prop 99 campaign: http://thetruthaboutprop99.com/
o Ca. Chamber of Commerce: http://www.calchamber.com/alert/4-25-08ballot.pdf

Read more about eminent domain.

back to top

The Fremont Chamber of Commerce
39488 Stevenson Place, Suite 100, Fremont, California 94539
www.fremontbusiness.com  ::   fmtcc@fremontbusiness.com
510/795.2244  ::  fax 510/795.2240