No on 98, Yes on 99

Monday, May 12, 2008
Los Angeles Times

Eminent domain has become big business -- for the ballot measure
industry. Californians rejected an initiative two years ago that
purported to protect property owners from government land grabs, but on
closer inspection turned out to be an attempt to sweep away the state's
environmental protection and zoning laws. Now we have another
initiative that masquerades as a simple correction to the notorious
Kelo ruling, but really carries the long-standing agenda of interests
that want to extinguish rent control and block water and air quality

With the ill-considered Proposition 98, property rights advocates once
again have undermined themselves and poorly served homeowners,
businesspeople and real estate investors by overreaching. It would have
been so easy to give Californians what they need: assurance that no
city, county, other local government or the state can condemn property,
evict the owner and turn the land over to a developer who donated to
elected officials and then convinced them that he could make the plot
prettier and more productive.

That kind of assurance is needed in the wake of the U.S. Supreme
Court's 2005 decision in Kelo vs. New London, upholding a Connecticut
city's decision to give the plaintiff's property to the developer of a
commercial project. Such takings of private homes are rare in
California, but owners should not have to fear them.

There was, in fact, a real opportunity to craft a good law in the
Capitol, exactly where that sort of work is supposed to get done.
Lawmakers were negotiating a constitutional amendment that would have
blocked forced private-to-private transfer of homes. It didn't go far
enough, but it was a start, and talks with property rights advocates
were proceeding.

But landlords detected a chance to use the fear of eminent domain abuse
for their own purposes. They poured several million dollars into
getting advocates to drop the legislative approach and go to the ballot
with an initiative that quietly targets the rent control laws in about
100 California cities, including Los Angeles, Santa Monica and West

You wouldn't know from reading the ballot title and summary that
Proposition 98 is an anti-rent-control measure, but that's become the
primary focus of its financial backers, the vast majority of whom are
landlords and rental property management companies. One of them is
connected to The Times. Sam Zell is chairman and CEO of Tribune Co.,
which owns The Times; he also chairs Equity Lifestyle Properties Inc.,
which donated $50,000 to Proposition 98. The company owns 27 mobile
home parks in California, many of them subject to rent control.

If Proposition 98 becomes law, rent controlled units would become
permanently market rate when the current tenants leave. In Los Angeles,
that would affect 626,600 apartments and other rental units.

Serious debate is due on rent control. Does it in fact keep housing
affordable, or does it drive up the price by restricting the supply? Is
it the renter's version of Proposition 13, keeping residential
neighborhoods stable and housing costs predictable by limiting annual
increases? Or does it unfairly transfer to private landowners the
public responsibility to provide affordable housing?

But these questions are best answered by voters in each city that
currently has rent control laws. Statewide abolition of rent control
must not sneak its way onto the books as a hidden addendum to an
ostensible eminent domain reform. Including it in Proposition 98 is
cynical and devious -- and reason enough to reject the measure.

Even without the rent control component, the initiative reaches
beyond public taking of private land for private gain. By barring the
transfer of any economic benefit "to one or more private persons at the
expense of the private owner," Proposition 98 crosses into the
territory rejected by voters in 2006. It could open the door to
lawsuits whenever a government agency zones in such a way that it
raises the value of some properties and reduces the potential for
others. That could jeopardize efforts to create open space or protect
water quality.

Once Proposition 98 took its present form, backers of a less-sweeping
initiative went to the ballot as well, leaving voters with two measures
to deal with.

The problems with Proposition 99 are that it attempts to address a
complex topic with the blunt instrument of the initiative process, and
that it achieves too little. Homeowners who live in the property they
own would be protected, and that's a step forward. Despite assertions
to the contrary by opponents, cities couldn't wipe away a home's
coverage simply by rezoning the area. But small-business owners are
even more vulnerable to a city council's confiscatory redevelopment
schemes than are homeowners. They too deserve protection, and
Proposition 99 doesn't provide it.

Voters should take the opportunity to protect homeowners, but that only
starts the job. Lawmakers have to do the rest, with legislation that
allows eminent domain to move forward only for legitimate public
purposes. This time, perhaps property rights advocates will proceed in
good faith and avoid yet another bait-and-switch initiative.

In the meantime, The Times urges a no vote on Proposition 98 and a yes vote on Proposition 99.


FAIR USE NOTICE. This document
may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not have been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Tenants Together is
making this article available on our website in an effort to advance
the understanding of tenant rights issues in California. We believe
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to
use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond
'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Help build power for renters' rights: