|
Home >
Issues
> 2008 Propositions
April 15, 2008
Redondo
Beach Chamber Positions on June 2008 Statewide Propositions
Proposition 98
Regulation of Private
Property
Redondo Beach
Chamber Position: OPPOSE
Proposition 98 aims to protect private property, including
businesses and farms, from government profiting by seizing
property from one private property owner and giving it to
another private entity.
Private property may not be taken by eminent domain for
private use under any circumstances (e.g. to build a
shopping center, auto mall or industrial park).
Property may be taken by eminent domain only for public use
(e.g.. freeway construction, parks, schools).
Property may not be taken by government and used for the
same purposes (e.g. residential housing cannot be used for
government housing).
Family farms and open space are protected from seizures by
government for the purpose of selling the natural resources.
Background
- Provides full compensation to the property owner, even
when property is seized for public projects.
- Removes the current $10,000 cap on reimbursable expenses
associated with legal or other expenses.
- Property owners will be compensated for all reasonable
costs associated with moving, loss of business, and
reestablishment of the business.
- Should a public agency take immediate possession of
property, the owner is entitled to prompt release of the
money offered while keeping the right to challenge the
agency's offer, and its right to take the property.
- Includes a provision that requires a public agency to
return the seized property to its original owner if the
public project is ever abandoned. Under this provision,
property would also be taxed at the pre-condemnation value.
This is known as the abandonment clause in the proposition.
- Limits government’s ability to decide the amount a
property owner can charge to sell or lease his property.
- Does not limit government’s ability to use eminent domain
for public projects like roads, parks and water supply
projects, nor does it limit local zoning ordinances and land
use decisions, workplace regulations or projects that
benefit the health and safety of a community or environment.
Reasons for
the Chamber's Oppose Position
This proposition is an effort to eliminate rent control as a
hidden agenda and not about eminent domain.
Would allow landlords to raise rents on seniors and working
families by eliminating rent control.
Would stop future water projects, destroy local-use
planning, erode environmental protections and lead to higher
taxpayer costs.
According to the Association of California Water Agencies
Proposition 98 could derail needed groundwater and surface
water storage projects around the state and calls this flaw
in the measure "cause for alarm."
Proposition 98
could lead to thousands of frivolous lawsuits and paralyze
approval of new homes, businesses and other projects.
Opponents of
Proposition 98 and Proponents of Proposition 99 argue that
in the definitions section of the Proposition 98 has a
clause that would prohibit laws and regulations that
“transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons
at the expense of the private owner.”
Courts have
ruled that virtually all local land-use decisions can
transfer economic benefit from one party to another, which
would lead to countless lawsuits.
Proposition 99
Acquisition of
Owner-Occupied Residence
Redondo Beach Chamber Position: No Position
Proposition 99 Aims to prohibit the government from using
eminent domain to take a home to transfer to another private
party.
Will not change state or local rent control laws or
ordinances as Proposition 98 would abolish rent control.
Background
Amends the California Constitution to respond specifically
to the facts and the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in
Kelo v. City of New London, in which the Court held that it
was permissible for a city to use eminent domain to take the
home of a Connecticut woman for purpose of economic
development.
Since that U.S. Supreme Court decision, more than 40 states
have reformed their eminent domain laws.
Respects the decision of the voters to reject Proposition 90
in November 2006, a measure that included eminent domain
reform but also included unrelated provisions that would
have subjected taxpayers to enormous financial liability
from a wide variety of traditional legislative and
administrative actions to protect the public welfare.
Provides a comprehensive and exclusive basis in the
California Constitution to compensate property owners when
property is taken or damaged by state or local governments,
without affecting legislative and administrative actions
taken to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Arguments in Support
True eminent domain reform without the “hidden agenda” of
eliminating rent control laws and ordinances.
Proposition 99 will not threaten California’s water quality
and supply as does Proposition 98, argued by proponents of
this proposition.
Arguments in Opposition
According to the Institute of Justice, a non-profit
organization, it says of Proposition 99, “Californians
require real, substantive reform for everyone and the Act
does not come close to providing it.”
Argues that many provisions have been left out of
Proposition 99, but are included in Proposition 98 such as
“quick take” protection, abandonment clause and just
compensation.
Click here
to contact the Redondo Beach Chamber
for more
information
Home >
Issues
> 2008 Propositions
|
