Eminent domain, the power of government to take private property, is under attack by two ballot measures in California’s June 3 election. The laws governing this hot-button topic need to be strengthened, but a side issue — the phasing-out of rent control — has crept into the ballot language, with a potentially devastating effect for many Calistoga homeowners.

Voters face two initiatives — Proposition 98 and Proposition 99 — that are competing, conflicting and confusing. Each would impose new restrictions on eminent domain powers — one much more severely than the other — but Proposition 98 also would incrementally eliminate rent control as apartments and mobile homes subject to the controls are vacated.

Local residents have a vested interest in the June propositions because of Calistoga’s four mobile home parks, which constitute the city’s largest block of low-income housing. Three of the parks are exclusively for people 55 and older. The city’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance, as it is called, is designed to protect residents of the parks from unreasonable increases in the rent they pay for space, while seeing that the park owners are not denied a fair return on their investments.

It’s unclear how rent control got mixed up with a statewide debate over eminent domain. We fail to see the connection between the two, and we wonder whether abolishing rent control is Measure 98’s overarching issue, masquerading as a campaign to protect property rights.

State and local government agencies frequently buy property from private owners for public projects such as roads and schools, for private projects such as new businesses, and for nonprofit projects such as affordable housing. The government may resort to taking properties by eminent domain when the property owners don’t want to sell or don’t agree with the government’s proposed sales price.

Eminent domain is a useful tool for public benefit, but the government must respect people’s rights with regard to how the tool is used. A balance of power is necessary, and we long have believed that current laws give property owners insufficient protection. However, Proposition 98’s restrictions are overly severe, broadly prohibiting the taking of property for private development. They threaten legitimate government programs and functions such as sorely needed water projects, reasonable land-use planning, and government’s efforts to require developers to build affordable housing — in addition to casting a pall over the lives of low-income tenants who need rent control.

Proposition 99 is much less restrictive, prohibiting only the taking of owner-occupied homes for private development. Even Proposition 99 has its flaws, such as the fact that it applies only to homeowners who have occupied their homes for a year or more, and the fact that it leaves out other property that should be included, such as apartments and churches. But it at least offers some improvement over the status quo, and it doesn’t come with damaging side effects.

Among the numerous conflicts between Proposition 98 and Proposition 99 is the question of what happens if voters pass both measures. An analysis by the legislative analyst in the official voter information guide hedges on the question, but the Secretary of State’s office told The Weekly Calistogan that only the measure with the most votes would take effect.

For Calistoga, with its substantial senior citizen population living in mobile homes, the choice on June 3 is clear: “No” on Measure 98 and “Yes” on 99.

Print this story   |   Email this story | Browse today's articles in this category: |