Prop 99 deserves a ‘yes' vote

You may have noticed that the Voter Information Guide for California's June 3 election is pretty thin.

But it could have been even thinner.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision upholding New London, Conn.'s right to force families out of their homes to make way for a privately-owned redevelopment project, lawmakers across the country began working on constitutional amendments that would protect homeowners in their own states from such government excess.

California was no exception. A broad coalition of legislators and citizens' groups began working on an amendment that would free homeowners from the fear their properties could be condemned to make way for shopping centers or factories.

The high court ruling had sent shivers down the spines of homeowners across the country.

Condemning property for a school, a highway or a water treatment plant was understandable. But seizing homes and turning their lots over to developers in the name of economic development, to most, was unconscionable. So chances for consensus among concerned Californians seemed good.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the ballot. What was once a single constitutional amendment became two conflicting initiatives, both nobly including the words "Eminent Domain. Limits on Government."

Trouble is, only one of the two, Proposition 99, has much nobility to it. It deserves a Yes vote as certainly as 98 deserves a No.

Sure, Proposition 98 would greatly curb government's right to condemn property. But, and its authors don't talk much about this in the Voter Guide, it would also eliminate scores of city and county rent-control ordinances throughout California.

Among the casualties would be Tuolumne County's own mobile home rent control ordinance, in force on nearly 1,000 spaces in numerous mobile home parks. The ordinance has been on the books here for 13 years and in 1996 voters overwhelmingly defeated a well-financed mobile home park owners' measure which would have overturned the rent ceilings.

Yet Proposition 98, largely financed by landlords, mandates that rent controls disappear as soon as current tenants leave their houses or mobile home park spaces.

Rent control is certainly a controversial issue worthy of debate during challenging economic times and a tight housing market. But such debate should be conducted in our city halls and county courthouses, not in Sacramento offices where lobbyists cobble together propositions to benefit clients.

When it comes to rent control, Proposition 98 trumps local control. In eliminating scores of rent control ordinances, it effectively preempts local voters and boards across the state.

What's this have to do with eminent domain? The answer is nothing.

Instead 98 is a shadow proposition, a stalking horse with a hidden agenda. It richly deserves your No vote.

Proposition 99, on the other hand, is by no means perfect.

Although it protects those who live in homes they own from government seizure and sale to shopping center or apartment complex developers, 99 leaves rental homes, small business and farmland unprotected.

But the proposition is clean, without hidden policies and is a good start in closing the door opened by the Supreme Court in the infamous New London case.

That 99 has won endorsements from the California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities, the American Association of Retired People, the League of Women Voters, the Sierra Club, the California Teachers Association and a broad coalition of organizations statewide is testimony to its value.

Proposition 99 deserves a yes vote on June 3.

Proposition 98 deserves a no vote.