State Prop 98

[Jeff_W]

Proposition 98: Governmental Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Constitutional Amendment

WHAT: Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property for private uses. Prohibits rent control and similar measures. Prohibits deference to government in property rights cases. Defines “just compensation.”

Proponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Opponents: San Francisco Tenants Union, progressive leaders and community activists.


Draft of initiative:
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initia ... iative.pdf

More info:
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p ... n_98_(2008)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... =printable

http://takeaction.wordpress.com/2008/03 ... n-prop-99/

[Jeff_W]

Analysis of Proposition 98
By Jeff Whittington

Redefines Section 19 of article I of the California Constitution. Alterations are in red.

SEC. 19@ Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use [word only deleted here] 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. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.
Most of the true damage is done in the definitions in subsection (b):

Article 19 (b) (1): “Taken” includes transferring the ownership, occupancy, of use of property from a private owner to a public agency or to any person or entity other than a public agency, or limiting the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy, or use his or her real property.

This language effectively eliminates rent control and affordable housing schemes. Apparently it would also effect severe hardships on mobile home owners by making it harder for them to sell (higher fees would be charged for the lot).

(3) “Private use” means:

. . . (ii) transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated propertv rights to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources or for the same or a substantially similar use as that made by the private owner.

This language appears to block the state from acquiring property for the control of water rights, and other similar purposes.

. . . (iii) regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.

Yet another hit on rent control. Additionally, this sort of language has been interpreted by the courts as invalidating environmental regulations, since they “transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.”

There is also a subsection that defines “regulated public utilities” as private property owners.

(8) "Regulated public utility" means any public utility as described in Article XII, section 3 that is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and is not owned or operated bv a public agency. Regulated public utilities are private property owners for purposes of this article.

Thus property cannot be taken from a private owner to be given to a utility not owned by the public, such as PG&E. Personally I don’t see a problem with this.

Section 6 of the initiative states that rent control on a unit remains in effect as long as one of the tenants residing in it as of the date of the election continues their tenancy.