Voters face competing propositions on Tuesday's ballot concerning the eminent-domain process in California: Proposition 98, sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Proposition 99, sponsored by the League of California Cities.

The Star urges an emphatic no vote on Proposition 98 and a qualified yes vote on Proposition 99.

Background

Both propositions follow Proposition 90, a failed 2006 ballot measure that sought to tighten state law governing eminent domain, or "taking." A year earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New London, ruled a community could take a home by eminent domain for the benefit of another private entity. That ruling sparked a nationwide outcry. Many states quickly enacted measures to prohibit using eminent domain for "private-to-private" transfers of property.

Proposition 90 went far beyond barring such transfers, however, including regulatory takings restrictions, which would have led to an avalanche of lawsuits throughout the state. After it failed, the Jarvis group, the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association sought to create legislation to ban private-to-private transfers. Negotiations fell apart in March 2007 and each side developed separate initiatives.

Proposition 98

The Jarvis group initiative, called the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, would prohibit using eminent domain for purchasing homes, farms, businesses or churches to accommodate private economic development projects.

Jon Coupal, president of the Jarvis group, told The Star Editorial Board that Proposition 98 is an initiative about protecting property rights by getting "rid of regulatory control." Critics argue that doing so could hinder water projects and threaten environmetal protection efforts.

The true thrust of Proposition 98, which is mostly financed by landlords and mobile-home-park owners, lies in the provision that would end rent control in California. The initiative defines the "taking" of property as any action limiting "the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property."

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that would nullify rent-control laws in more than 100 cities and counties in the state, affecting about 1 million Californians, many on fixed or low incomes, living in rent-controlled mobile-home parks or apartments. The Analyst's Office also says Proposition 98's language would invalidate laws about "inclusionary housing." About a third of the states' cities and counties have such laws, which require developers to set aside a certain percentage of new housing units for affordable housing.

The Star finds Proposition 98 draconian and particularly onerous concerning rent control and inclusionary housing. For these reasons, The Star recommends voters reject Proposition 98.

Proposition 99

The League of California Cities' initiative, called the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act, would bar government agencies from using eminent domain to force owners of single-family residences — detached home, condominium or townhouse — from selling property to benefit a private development.

The problem with Proposition 99 is that it is weak. Representatives of the League of California Cities told The Star Editorial Board that the initiative was initially a place holder on the ballot, as it worked on a constitutional amendment on the use of eminent domain. When the Legislature failed to pass the proposed amendment, proponents were left with the weaker, place-holder initiative.

Proposition 99 doesn't offer much change on the use of eminent domain. In fact, proponents of the measure could only say it is a good first step. Once Proposition 99 passed, the issue would likely go back to the Legislature.

Although Proposition 99 is not ideal, there is one good reason to vote for it. It includes a "poison-pill" provision. If both propositions pass and Proposition 99 gains more yes votes, then no part of Proposition 98 takes effect.

For that reason alone, The Star recommends a yes vote on Proposition 99.