Election Results Update [3 June 2008]

For updated results on all propositions, see the Secretary of State website.

Proposition 98 has two chief components which would amend the state constitution. The first component would place new limitations on state and local governments right to seize private property. The 2nd component would eliminate rent control in California. In addition, the measure contains language which could restrain the government from housing and tenant benefits laws.

Eminent Domain
Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution allows the state government and local government the power of "eminent domain" for public use. Eminent domain is the right of the federal, state and local governments to take private property provided it is for the benefit of the public as a whole. California law states that the government must pay "just compensation." If the owner does not wish to sell his or her property, the government can still exercise its right to seize the property. Traditionally, the government's right of eminent domain has been used for projects such as highways, schools, libraries and public utilities. More recently, critics have accused state governments of using eminent domain to develop or revitalize specific areas as a means to bring in additional property and sales tax revenues. Governments are also required to compensate land owners if new laws are passed which affect parcels and create economic losses for that owner. Eminent domain is an issue which has previously surfaced on California ballots. Most recently, Proposition 90 was placed on the 2006 general election ballot. It would have established new guidelines when the government seized land, compensated property owners or made laws that affected the economic stability of land owners. Prop. 90 was defeated 52.4% to 47.6%.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 19. Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.

The federal suit of the Kelo family against the City of New London, CT became a landmark eminent domain case in 2005. The U.S. supreme court ruled the power of eminent domain included the authority to take private-land for the purpose of reselling that land to another private party, without consent of the owner. The Kelo's had to leave their home after the city of New London used their property for a privately sponsored development plan. The court said the development would add to the city's tax base, therefore making the seizure justified. With many other states enacting eminent domain reform in the wake of the Kelo decision, concerns have arisen that similar suits could be launched in California. State property rights and homeowners groups have led eminent domain measures Proposition 98 and Proposition 99 to the June 3, 2008 direct primary election ballot to reform what they see as dangerous lack of land seizure restrictions in California law.

New Eminent Domain Restrictions
Prop. 98 would prohibit state and local government from seizing property and transferring it to an individual, a business or a non-profit agency. Government would also be barred from using the property in a similar way as the original owner. These restrictions would be null and void in cases where the government is engaged in stopping a crime or preventing a public nuisance. The government would be permitted to use seized properties for public facilities such as public schools, roads and parks. However, the government is barred from seizing the land for one purpose and then using it for another unless it first offers to sell the property back to the original owner. Prop. 98 would bar the government from placing restrictions on property if the intent of the government is to transfer property to a private person or entity for that person or entity's economic benefit.

Compensation to property owners would increase under Prop. 98. All business relocation costs would be reimbursed to the original owner, exceeding current limits in state law. The owner would also be entitled to reimbursement for attorney costs if they mounted a successful challenge to the government in an eminent domain dispute. In the case of a legal challenge, the court is directed to use it's own legal judgment rather than defer to government findings.

Rent Control
Around 1 million Californians live in rent controlled living situations. California has over a dozen cities that have some form of rent control and many cities and counties in California also place restrictions on the rent mobile home park owners can charge their tenants. Currently, vacancy decontrol is a part of the state law. This allows for unregulated rent increases when a tenant moves out. Individual cities have passed laws to strengthen or weaken rent control

Banning Rent Control
Prop.98 would bar the government from placing price limitations on what an owner can charge to buy or rent their property. Both state and local government would be affected under the measure. Rent control measures enacted after Jan. 1, 2007 would end. Measures enacted before this point would be phased out once a unit or house has been vacated and the owner could now charge market rates. Prop. 98 would also bar any new rent control measures from being enacted.

Proposition 98 - Key Provisions:

• Prohibits state or local government from seizing property and transferring it to a private person or entity.
• Property owners would receive more compensation for eminent domain seizures.
• Rent control would be abolished in California.
• Previous rent control measures would either end or be phased out.
• No new rent control measures could be enacted

Proposition 98 is sharing the ballot with Proposition 99, a eminent domain measure which carries a provision that if it is approved by more votes than Prop. 98, Prop.98's provisions would not go into law. If both measures pass, but Proposition 98 receives more votes, both measures would be in effect. Prop. 99 was created as a challenge to Prop. 98, which has more extensive property rights provisions. Prop. 99 supporters believe that the inclusion of rent control in Prop. 98's provisions in un-related to eminent domain and would have a harmful effect on the state's population. Proposition 98 carries no provision about other measures passed but supporters have claimed that they believe Prop. 99 is a flawed measure which does not adequately champion landowner rights.

Brown, Warner and Portman, The California Landlord's Law Book, Vol. I: Rights & Responsibilities, Appendix C (NOLO Press 2005)

California Practice Guide, Landlord-Tenant, Chapter 5 (Rutter Group 2005).

More than meets the eye: What would Proposition 90 mean for California? Sacramento:The California Budget Project, Sept. 2006.

Rent Control In The New Millennium By Dennis Keating and Mitch Kahn, National Housing Institute, 2001.

"Twenty Years Later: A History of Rent Control in California," Steve Carlson, Sacramento: California Housing Council, Winter 1995-96.

Prop. 98 supporters believe that illegitimate property seizures are taking place throughout the state and that their measure will create common-sense restrictions. They say that the measure's provisions to limit government seizure power, will provide "full compensation" to landowners and protect California farmland from urban sprawl. They believe that the measure's removal of government price control restrictions, will free landowners to charge the appropriate market value for selling or leasing their land.

Opposition groups claim that Prop. 98 provisions to eliminate rent control around the state could have disastrous consequences on poor, working class and aged citizens. They also believe that the language of the measure would could potentially bar important environmental projects, such as local land-use development. Critics also say that Prop. 98 is drafted in such a way, as to potentially prohibit the acquisition of property to develop public water projects that would help maintain California's water resources and supply.

Proposition 98 and 99 are both eminent domain measures on the June ballot. They have different effects however, and supporters of both initiatives believe that their proposals better address the eminent domain issues.

Prop. 98's supporters largely come from taxpayer groups, property associations, and business groups. It is sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. Proposition 99's supporters come from a coalition of environmental groups, homeowner's associations and city and county governments. It is sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California League of Conservation Voters.

Title and Summary

Analysis by Legislative Analyst's Office

Arguments For and Against

Individual Campaign Committees
Committees formed to support or oppose the ballot measure.

No on 98 / Yes on 99

California Proposition 98 (2008)
Information site from Ballotpedia.org

California Proposition 98 versus Proposition 99 (2008)
Information and analysis site from Ballotpedia.org

Easy Voter Guide: Prop. 98

Pros and Cons: Prop. 98
Analysis from League of Women Voters

Rent Control
Information page on rent control in the U.S. on Wikipedia.

Eminent domain initiatives: voter sentiment favoring passage of Prop. 99 but not Prop. 98, Field Poll #2269, May 29, 2008.

Californians and their Government, Public Policy Institute of California, May 2008.
Californians opinions on Prop. 98 and Prop. 99.

Californians and their Government, Public Policy Institute of California, March 2008.
The poll tested the conflicting eminent domain measures on the June ballot.

June 5, 2008.
Prop. 99 likely to have little effect, Matthew Yi, San Francisco Chronicle.

June 4, 2008.
Prop. 98 loses, Prop. 99 wins, Matthew Yi, San Francisco Chronicle.

June 4, 2008.
Split Vote Seen on State Eminent Domain Measures, Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times.

June 1, 2008.
[Editorial] Property measures misleading, Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee.

May 29, 2008.
Prop. 98 failing, 99 a toss-up - Field Poll, Charles Burress, San Francisco Chronicle.

May 22, 2008.
Governor garners little support for plan to use lottery to fix budget, 56% of residents say they don't like proposal, poll finds, Matthew Yi, San Francisco Chronicle.

May 21, 2008.
[Editorial] Prop. 98 is real protection, Reporter, The (Vacaville, CA) - May 21, 2008

May 19, 2008.
Ballot battle is all about the money - Both sides allege tainted funds in duel over Propositions 98 , 99, John Hill, Sacramento Bee.

May 19, 2008.
Eminent domain: Ballot is a battlefield - Two propositions take different approaches, E.J. Schultz and Brad Branan, The Fresno Bee.

May 13, 2008.
[Editorial] What Props. 98 and 99 mean, Daily Breeze (Torrance, CA).

May 9, 2008.
Two viewpoints: Proposition 98, San Francisco Chronicle.

May 7, 2008.
Differing views on measure to end rent control, James Temple, San Francisco Chronicle.

May 4, 2008.
[Editorial] Defend our cities - vote no on Prop. 98, San Francisco Chronicle.

May 3, 2008.
[Editorial] Reform eminent domain in Legislature, not by initiative, Oakland Tribune.

April 27, 2008.
Proposition 98 supporters run radio ad, John Hill, Sacramento Bee.

April 26, 2008.
Governor to oppose eminent domain initiative, John Hill, Sacramento Bee.

April 26, 2008.
Governor opposeseminentdomain initiative, Redding Record Searchlight.

April 25, 2008.
Water projects could be thwarted by ballot measure, state memo says, Michael Gardner, San Diego Union Tribune.

April 21, 2008.
Initiative divides farmers - Groups split over effects that eminent domain would have, E.J. Schultz Bee, Fresno Bee.

April 24, 2008.
Groups battle on rent control - STATE: Eminent domain ballot measure cloaks a wider issue, Dana Bartholomew, Long Beach Press-Telegram (CA).

March 27, 2008.
[Editorial] Dueling eminentdomain measures, Daily Breeze (Torrance, CA).

March 19, 2008.
[Editorial] We Hate 98: Prop 99 would trump anti-rent control measure, Amanda Witherell, San Francisco Bay Guardian.

March 16, 2008.
Protesters in Oakland, S.F., gather to protect rent control: Prop. 98 would phase out limit that favors tenants, Heather Knight,
San Francisco Chronicle.

March 13, 2008.
[Editorial] A slipperypractice Government groups must drop political role, San Diego Union-Tribune.

March 10, 2008.
Eminent domain measures on ballot, Tom Chorneau, San Francisco Chronicle.

[Opinion].
"No on Prop. 90: Radical plan goes beyond eminent domain," San Diego Union-Tribune, August 22, 2006
Access World News (UCB)

Fricker, Mary.
"Inside property rights, eminent domain," Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA), Aug. 21, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Burgarino, Paul.
"Proposal worries business owners," Tri-Valley Herald, August 21, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Ray Ring
"California's stealth initiative on land use Prop. 90 purports to protect property owners, but it could also do much harm,"
San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 20, 2006.
San Francisco Chronicle

Two taxes top the November initiatives
Porterville Recorder, The (CA)
August 9, 2006
Access World News (UCB)

Burger, David.
"Property initiative debated," Bakersfield Californian, July 17, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

[Opinion].
"Scare tactic: inflated fears of eminent domain threaten vital community projects," Press Democrat, (Santa Rosa, CA)
July 16, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Goldmacher, Shane.
"New York developer's eminent-domain crusade comes to California," Capitol Weekly, July 13, 2006.
Capitol Weekly

Sheppard, Harrison.
"California voters may find new measures too taxing," Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, July 8, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)