California Proposition 99 (2008)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

California Proposition 99 was a proposed amendment to the California Constitution that appeared on the June 3, 2008 statewide ballot in California, where it won handily.

62.5% of voters endorsed Prop. 99, while only 39% of voters in the low-turnout election approved of its bitter rival, Proposition 98.

Proposition 99 prohibits state and local governments from acquiring an owner-occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to another person, with certain listed exceptions. Proposition 99 does not change current rules regarding use of eminent domain for businesses.

See California Proposition 98 versus California Proposition 99 (2008) for the main article contrasting the two ballot measures, their campaigns and their competing claims.

See complete June 3 California election results here.

Background

In the wake of the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, a number of states have enacted legislation to rein in what many voters in those states saw as a potential for eminent domain abuse.

Proposition 90, an eminent domain reform measure that also would have significantly restricted the extent to which the government could engage in regulatory takings and would also have repealed rent control, lost 52-48% in 2006. In June 2008, the eminent domain ballot battle will be re-joined again, this time between Prop. 98--which opponents say incorporates issues unrelated to eminent domain--and Prop. 99--which opponents say does not go far enough.

Provisions of Proposition 99

Limits on Use of Eminent Domain

Proposition 99 amends section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution, adding section 19(b) which prohibits "acquiring by eminent domain an owner-occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person."

Sections 19(c) and 19(d) provide that eminent domain would still be allowed if the purpose is related to public health and safety; preventing serious, repeated criminal activity; responding to an emergency; remedying hazardous environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety; or for a public work or improvement.[1]

Effect of Competing Eminent Domain Measures

Section 9 of Proposition 99 states that if the measure appears on the same statewide ballot as another initiative measure amending the Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, then if Proposition 99 gets more affirmative votes only Proposition 99 would go into effect, and the provisions of the competing measure would be null and void. The only other measure affected by this provision is Proposition 98.

Petition drive

To get on the ballot, the supporters of Proposition 99 hired Progressive Campaigns, Inc. to collect signatures at an overall cost of $3,559,970.[2] Competing measure Proposition 98, for which signature gathering began significantly earlier, paid Arno Political Consultants $1,583,000 to qualify for the ballot.[3]

Supporters and donors

Two ballot committees have formed to support Proposition 99. Both committees list as a concurrent goal the defeat of Proposition 98. They are the "Californians for Neighborhood Protection; No on 98/Yes on 99" commmittee[4] and the "Committee to Save Rent Control; No on 98/Yes on 99".[5] The "Eminent Domain Reform Now" committee is an alternate name under which campaign finance reports have been filed.[6]

Groups that support Proposition 99

Notable groups supporting Proposition 99 include the League of Women Voters of California, California Democratic Party, California Alliance for Retired Americans, Gray Panthers California, California Police and Fire Chiefs Associations, California League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon California, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club California, The Trust for Public Land, Greenbelt Alliance, Housing California, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Coalition for Economic Survival, Eviction Defense Collaborative, Tenants Together, Mercy Housing California, California Labor Federation, SEIU California State Council, State Building and Construction Trades Council, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Consumer Federation of California, Consumers Coalition of California, American Civil Liberties Union, Northern California, California Tax Reform Association, League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, Californians for Neighborhood Protection, and the League of California Homeowners.

Public officials who support Proposition 99

Public Officials supporting Proposition 99 include: Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Barbara Boxer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, California State Assembly member Hector De La Torre, State Assembly member Mark Leno, State Senator Carole Migden, California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, California State Senator Patricia Wiggins, and Former California State Assemblymember Fran Pavley.

This is a partial list of notable supporters. A more complete list of supporters appears on the website of Prop. 99's proponents.[7]

Major donors to the committees include:

Opposition

The measure has met with disapproval from some California property rights groups. The National Federation of Independent Business formally announced on October 4, 2007 that it opposes the act, thanks in large part to an analysis released by the Institute for Justice which says:
"The Act will provide insubstantial protection against the use of eminent domain for private commerical development. Small business owners will continue to lose not only their buildings, but also their incomes. All farmers and working class renters are vulnerable. Californians require real, substantive reform for everyone and the Act does not come close to providing it.[10]
.

The proponents of the competing Proposition 98 say that the HPPPA will not significantly reform eminent domain abuses and will still allow for property to be taken and given to private owners. The group also quoted the Legislative Analysts Office review of the measure which said, "is not likely to significantly alter current government land acquisition practices."[11] Eminent domain reform groups say that the measure is a Trojan Horse, intended to confuse voters by offering only a weak protection against eminent domain seizures. The measure is sponsored by the League of California Cities, which in 2006 spent over $5,000,000 to defeat Proposition 90, an eminent domain reform measure that appeared on the November 2006 ballot and lost narrowly.

Others that are against the proposition include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Californians for Property Rights Protection.

Limits to Proposition 99

According to property rights analyst Timothy Sandefur, who works for the Pacific Legal Foundation, "The fact is that Prop. 99 would not protect anyone in California from eminent domain abuse. It would not apply at all to small businesses, which are the most common victims of eminent domain. It would not protect people living in apartments at all. It would not protect farms, or churches. It would only protect “owner occupied residences.” And in fact, it would not even protect them, because the small print in the initiative eliminates such protections in almost every case of eminent domain abuse."[12]

On its face, the text of Proposition 99 restricts using eminent domain to take owner-occupied residences and transfer them to a private party. Eminent domain would still be allowed if the purpose is related to public health and safety, preventing serious, repeated criminal activity, responding to an emergency, remedying hazardous environmental contamination, or for a public work or improvement. If one of these purposes cannot be shown, then Proposition 99 would prohibit use of eminent domain.[13]

Effect of Competing Initiatives

Proposition 99 includes a provision that would nullify any other attempts to amend Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution that appear on the same ballot. Such a provision is common when multiple ballot items on the same subject are on the same ballot. The so-called "poison pill provision" blocks conflicting pieces of law when one measure has more votes than the other. Only Proposition 98 is affected by this provision: if Proposition 99 wins more affirmative votes than Proposition 98, then only Proposition 99 will go into effect, not Proposition 98.

See also

External links

References

  1. ↑ Text of Proposition 99
  2. ↑ Expenditures of the Eminent Domain Reform Now committee
  3. ↑ Prop. 98 campaign expenditure details
  4. ↑ Campaign finance details for the Californians for Neighborhood Protection, Yes on 99/No on 98 committee
  5. ↑ Campaign finance details for the Committee to Save Rent Control; No on 98/Yes on 99 committee
  6. ↑ Eminent domain reform now committee details
  7. ↑ List of Prop. 99 Supporters from Yes on 99 web site.
  8. ↑ Campaign donation information
  9. ↑ Campaign contribution details
  10. ↑ NFIB Opposes League of California Cities Eminent Domain Ballot Measure
  11. ↑ Experts call Measure Flawed and Expose Deceptive Poison Pill Provision Reuters, Nov. 29, 2007
  12. ↑ Freespace, The Deep Dishonesty of Prop 99, May 13, 2008
  13. ↑ Text of Proposition 99

Additional reading

Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_99_%282008%29"
Personal tools