Limits on eminent domain up to voters

When voters go to the polls June 3, they'll have the chance to limit state and local government's eminent domain powers, essentially their ability to take private property.

But they'll have to choose how far those limits should go, if at all.

Dueling propositions 98 and 99 would each restrict eminent domain, but to varying degrees.

Proposition 98 would rule it out in all cases where government seeks to take private property for the benefit of "any private person or entity."

Governments could only seize private property for public uses, like roads, parks or water or sewer plant expansions.

Proposition 99, on the other hand, would allow governments to still use eminent domain to take businesses and rental properties. It would, like 98, ban the seizure of owner-occupied homes to turn them over to private entities.

City leaders in Lodi and Galt say the noisy debate over the initiatives is lost on them.

Both cities already have self-imposed bans on eminent domain

Whichever gets passed won't matter locally, said Jeff hood, city spokesman for Lodi.

"It would really have no affect on the city and redevelopment agency," Hood said. "We don't have (the authority to use) eminent domain."

Indeed, the Lodi City Council banned such use in 2006 prior to the city's push for a redevelopment district.

Propositions at a glance

Proposition 98

Places strict limits on government's use of eminent domain. It would prevent governments from seizing private property for private uses. Governments could only take property for public uses, like roads, parks or water or sewer plant expansions.

The proposition would also eliminate rent control, a requirement in some areas to keep rents below market value.

It is backed by groups including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights and the California Farm Bureau.

Source: Yes on Prop 98

Proposition 99

It places limits on eminent domain, but not as strictly as Proposition 98.

It would still allow governments to take businesses and rental properties and turn them over to private groups. It would, like 98, ban the seizure of owner-occupied homes to convey to private groups.

It is backed by groups including the American Association of Retired Persons, the League of Women Voters of California and the Sierra Club of California.

Source: Vote No on Prop 98, Yes on 99

Galt Assistant City Manager Jason Behrmann noted his city has a similar ban.

Neither city has taken a formal stance on the propositions. But because both are a part of the League of California Cities — which has spearheaded Proposition 99 — Lodi and Galt are at least aligned with 99.

Behrmann noted he sees 99 as "a fair compromise" to eminent domain.

Proposition 98 was organized by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Jane Lea, a local activist and critic of Lodi's redevelopment plans, said she'd like to see 98 become law.

"If 98 gets passed, that would certainly relieve my concerns about eminent domain," Lea said.

She noted that future city councils could easily remove Lodi's self-imposed ban on eminent domain.

Lea said she wasn't surprised the League of California Cities backed Proposition 99.

"Of course, they don't want anything to impede their ability to take your property away," she added.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chrisn@lodinews.com.

Reader Feedback

sam wrote on May 16, 2008 10:01 PM:

" Scrutiny, so it is the landlords responsibility to provide cheap rent for those who lost their homes? I am not sure what you are upset about?

Owning rentals is a business. The owner wants to make money. If rent is too high, the place will not rent. If the rent is too low, there is no profit for the owner. "

Report Abuse

Scrutiny wrote on May 16, 2008 9:40 PM:

" and somehow make do with a minimum of TP! Save the trees and riase the price of that as high as you want Ms. Obama! "

Report Abuse

Scrutiny wrote on May 16, 2008 9:36 PM:

" Yes Senorita Veritas, price controls on gas I believe would be VERY popular right now! Oh, and I drink tap water.... "

Report Abuse

veritas wrote on May 16, 2008 8:11 PM:

" for those that are intellectually challenged... should we have price controls on celery, onions, gasoline, lawn fertilizer, toilet paper, [unused] and any article you can think of. rent control is a perverted control over things that should be driven by the market place. Oh, I forgot bottled water, free at the tap, $ 1.00 in a flimsy plastic bottle. yes on 98 "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on May 16, 2008 5:42 PM:

" Science8c, I agree. Prop 99 reads weird. Too many loop holes. Being a home owner and a property owner, I am voting 98.

"

Report Abuse

Scrutiny wrote on May 16, 2008 5:35 PM:

" The slumlords of Sac., SF and LA love 98 too! No more rent control. People can`t afford to own their own home now and they may not be able to afford the rent either! "

Report Abuse

Science8c wrote on May 16, 2008 2:34 PM:

" If you agree with Pop. 99, then you think it's OK to seize farms, businesses and churches to give the land to a more influential person for their , for profit, use. Don't be fooled by the Prop. 99 diversion by the politicians. They wouldn't even bother to offer this amendment if they were not worried that the public has awakened. "

Report Abuse

OTH wrote on May 16, 2008 2:22 PM:

" Haven't we voted om this before? I agree no one should be allowed to take your home or your property away. "

Report Abuse

wtf wrote on May 16, 2008 2:06 PM:

" I agree with you, T&C and sam. I also agree with Jane Lea's comment. It's right on the money. "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on May 16, 2008 11:16 AM:

" T&C, you are so correct. Vote yes on Prop 98. "

Report Abuse

T & C wrote on May 16, 2008 8:35 AM:

" No one should have the right to TAKE your property for the convenience of someone else! "