As Daniel Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee notes in an October 24 article on Proposition 90, “This is a constitutional amendment that could change the face of California government forever. It deserves far more attention than it has received to date.”

The television ads on both sides of the proposition have probably done less to illuminate what the effects of the measure would be than the ads for and against any other issue on the ballot. The No on 90 ads ominously call it “a taxpayer trap,” which is a perfect way to stir up voter fear without providing any information (or even misinformation) as to why you should be scared — especially if you’re a California property owner.

As the League of Women Voters summarizes it, Proposition 90 would:

• require additional compensation to property owners if new laws or rules result in substantial economic losses to the owner, such as limiting the number of homes that can be developed on a parcel, limiting the height of buildings, eliminating road access to the parcel, or requiring endangered species protection or historical preservation
• limit the purposes for which a government could take private property for building a government-owned public facility, correcting a public nuisance on a parcel, or responding to a declared state of emergency
• require that the government own and occupy the acquired property
• prohibit governments from using eminent domain for economic development purposes
• require governments to pay more than fair market value if a greater sum were necessary to place the property owner “in the same position monetarily” as if the property had never been taken

The eminent domain provisions of Proposition 90 are controversial. But less-publicized are the provision that property owners be compensated by governments for any use that results in a “substantial loss of value” to their property. The language in this part of the proposition is vague. The state legislative analyst’s office notes that:

… the broad language of the measure suggests that its provisions could apply to a variety of future governmental requirements that impose economic losses on property owners. These laws and rules could include requirements relating, for example, to employment conditions, apartment prices, endangered species, historical preservation, and consumer financial protection.

One significant note: the provisions of Proposition 90 would not apply retroactively.

Trackback this post