Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Authority.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

THE QUESTION

Should the California constitution be amended to restrict state and local governments’ authority to take private property through eminent domain, as well as phase out local rent control regulations?

THE SITUATION

The power of eminent domain allows governments (local, state or federal) to take property for public use, even from an unwilling seller, as long as they pay a fair price for it. Typical public uses include parks, roads, and schools. Public use may also include goals such as downtown redevelopment, affordable housing, or crime reduction. Governments usually build and operate public projects, but they sometimes transfer property to private businesses or nonprofi t organizations for redevelopment projects.

State law allows local governments to place limits on how much a landlord may increase a tenant’s rent each year, commonly referred to as “rent control.” Over a dozen California cities currently have some form of rent control for apartments, and about 100 cities and counties limit the rent that mobile home park owners may charge for space in their park.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 98 would amend the state Constitution in two major ways. This proposition would restrict state and local government authority to take private property through eminent domain by prohibiting the following:

• Taking property and transferring it to another private person or organization, for any reason other than public safety.
• Taking property to use it in the same way as its previous owner had used it, or reselling property that was taken or changing its intended public use, without first giving the previous owner a chance to buy it back at the price paid.

Additionally, in the event that an owner challenges the government’s right to take the property, Proposition 98 would require the court hearing the case to exercise independent judgment, rather than defer to the public agency’s findings.

Proposition 98 would not prevent state and local governments from continuing to own and take private property for public works and public facilities.

This proposition would also prohibit rent control laws. However, tenants currently affected by rent control protections adopted prior to 2007 would continue to have their rent increases limited by those regulations until they move from their current apartment or mobile home park space.

FISCAL EFFECT

According to the Legislative Analyst, while individual governments may face increased costs to acquire land for public use, the net statewide fiscal effect probably would not be significant.

WHAT A YES VOTE MEANS

Government authority to take private property in order to transfer it to another private person or organization would be greatly reduced, and rent control laws would be phased out.

WHAT A NO VOTE MEANS

Government could continue to take property for a public purpose as long as the owner is paid for its value, and government jurisdictions could continue to implement and adopt rent control measures.

SUPPORTERS SAY

OPPONENTS SAY

FOR MORE INFORMATION

PRO   Californians for Property Rights Protection. 916-556-1110. www.YesProp98.com

CON   Stop the Landlords’ Hidden Agendas Scheme. 888-362-2337. www.NoProp98.org

For more information from the League of Women Voters and others, see Smart Voter on Proposition 98.

The League of Women Voters of California is a nonpartisan organization committed to informed and active citizen participation in government. All citizens, men and women, of voting age are welcomed to join. The League has two roles, citizen education and advocacy. Our election services are carried out by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund (LWVCEF) and exclude all advocacy.