Update November 8, 2006
Proposition 90 was rejected by 52.3% of voters.
Proposition 90 in Plain English
This amendment to the state constitution would place tighter rules on eminent domain property takeovers. It would also require the state to pay property owners for new rules or laws that result in substantial economic losses to that property, such as limitations on development. Current rules require the governments to pay if their actions result in a complete loss of all beneficial uses of that property. The costs to the state are unknown, but it could be significant.
Official Title and Summary
Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
- Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects or uses.
- Limits government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve public health or safety.
- Voids unpublished eminent domain court decisions.
- Defines “just compensation.”
- Government must occupy condemned property or lease property for public use.
- Condemned private property must be offered for resale to prior owner or owner’s heir at current fair market value if government abandons condemnation’s objective.
- Exempts certain governmental actions.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
- Increased annual state and local government costs to pay property owners for (1) losses to their property associated with certain new laws and rules, and (2) property acquisitions. The amount of such costs is unknown, but potentially significant on a statewide basis.
Analysis
- Official Legislative Analysis, California Legislative Analyst’s Office (PDF)
- In Depth Nonpartisan Analysis, League of Women Voters Ca.
Articles
- Eminent Domain or Imminent Disaster? Don’t be fooled by Prop. 90, an anti-environment stealth measure passed off as a ‘protect your home’ initiative. Los Angeles Times
- Editorial: No on Proposition 90. It boasts a radical stealth agenda. Sacramento Bee
- A shield from government land grabs, Proposition 90 on the November California ballot is a good protection for property owners against the use of eminent domain. Orange County Register
- Prop. 90 would gut wise land use controls. Threat to Environment, Consumers. San Jose Mercury News
- Proposition 90. Scope of property rights issue debated. San Francisco Chronicle
October 23rd, 2006 at 2:23 am
It would seem to me that Prop 90 simply RETURNS the concept of eminent domain to more of what the founding fathers intended.
The conversion of private land to NEEDED public purposes when there are no other options.
One of the mainstays of the founding of our country is the right of private property ownership and use without the fear of a more powerful individual or group being able to bascally steal it for their own purposes.
This does not mean that I can do anything that I want with my land,, I could not start farming or build a business on my Burbank home lot, it is already zoned for single family homes.
Yet as the law NOW stands, the home my wife’s family bought in 1951 and left for her ( it is true ) and we plan to leave to our children or grandchildren could be eminent domained by the city of Burbank for a private developer to build an apartment complex or even just a triplex with the justfication that the city would earn more property tax with the ‘new use’.
Oh, and that the city would know what the best use of my land would be to ‘benefit’ society, more dwellings per foot of land……
I will vote yes on 90, I did see a mom and pop store taken from a family, given to a city official’s husband’s company and what was the result?
A richer city official and a new small conveniance store……
More taxes collected because of the ‘new use’ to the city coffers was the stated excuse….
A ruined family business that might have been passed on to their children ( not mine, I am a wage earner, ok ? ).
PLEASE VOTE YES !
Thank you.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
My VOTE is no. I am wholeheartedly for the emininent domain proposal. However, the second part is a stealth proposal to shrink government and remove power from govt entities to legislate for the common good. Until the proposal is better written (separate out the two), I will vote NO.