CA Proposition 98/99

Great Debates
1

I just got the voter info guide on these two amendments, read the arguments for and against, and read most of the text of the amendments.

My impression is that 98 goes too far, and 99 doesn’t go far enough. I am in favor of eliminating rent control. I am in favor of limiting eminent domain to public entities and establishments for public use. I’m wary of the “any damage whatsoever” way that 98 is written, since it seems like that could have further-reaching effects than is being made clear, here.

I am confused by one of the claims of the anti-98 arguments, which is that 98 would eliminate renter protections like timely repayment of the security deposit. I don’t see where they’re getting that idea from; maybe someone can enlighten me.

I’m not really in favor of 99 either, since, while I think that abuses of eminent domain should be limited, I don’t agree that owner-occupied properties should have special protection that other properties don’t.

Absent a compelling argument to vote for one or the other, I’m voting no.

2

I voted (abentee) yes on 98/no on 99.
What gets me about 99 is that you’re only protected if you own your house a year or more. Imagine buying your dream home then 6 months later, the guvment tells you to get the fuck out cuz Walmart wants your property or you have to vacate your office because Starbucks needs another storefront.

3

I’m voting **NO on 98, and YES on 99. **

4

I imagine that’s to prevent people from just selling property to people right before the government might try to take it. I imagine that any eminent domain deal takes a while to put together, so there’s a big financial incentive to get a quick owner-occupier in there to force a higher sale price.

But, that’s mostly a good argument for why all property should get the protection.

5

The thing that is the deal-breaker for me for 98 (Proposition 98: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property - California State Government) is this change to Article I, sec 19, (b) (3) (iii):

I think that’s where the claim that it will destroy rent control comes from.

6

I’ve been a lurker for a long time and this thread made me register! This proposition is an issue that is near and dear to my heart, because I am an urban planner by profession and this can impact A LOT of what a city government can/cannot do. I got my graduate degree from one of the best urban planning programs in the world and now I work for a major municipality in California. I am personally planning to vote NO on 98, and YES on 99. Why?

A little background on the history of the two Propositions. These propositions were created in response to a landmark Supreme Court case, Kelo v. New London, in which eminent domain was used to seize private property for a private developer. Before, historically eminent domain was primarily used for public good, i.e., we will give you fair market value for your home to build a freeway/school/police station, etc. The Supreme Court justified the use of eminent domain in the Kelo case because the private development was geared to increase tax revenue, create jobs, etc. - hence indirectly contributing overall to the public good. This case was a big deal, as you can imagine.

I want to also preface my argument in saying I think eminent domain is a double-edged sword. In the right hands, it can be a great tool for governments to do much needed work to enhance the public good. Othertimes, the results can be disastrous, as exampled by much of the “urban renewal” movement of the 50s and 60s. So, although I am an urban planner by profession, I am not in the “eminent domain is totally great and governments should have unlimited power” camp.

So why am I voting NO on 98? First off, you should examine who is sponsoring the bill: the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. They were the group who initiated Prop 13 in the 70s causing property taxes to stagnate, and hence causing local/state governments to lose SUBSTANTIAL tax revenue. Although in principle, Prop 13 is great, in reality, it has crippled the finances of the California government. Want to know why we have a massive budget deficit? Why the cost of public universities in California have gone up over 100% in less than 10 years? Why our public schools/police/fire suck? Why traffic sucks in LA because there is no money to build a world class subway? Because local governments have not been able to collect substantial property tax revenue - which is the primary base for most cities in the US. For Los Angeles in particular, the situation is so dire, they are planning to LAY OFF employees. When was the last time you heard government employees getting laid off?

Currently, cities in California have to become very creative in financing public works projects nowadays. You have an explosion of Business Improvement Districts (BIDs, which are non-profits, self-taxed by local business owners, that were created to help finance basic things like street cleaning and economic revitalization programs (Old Town Pasedena is a good example of a successful BID). Also, public-private partnerships are becoming more and more common. A good example is the Staples Center in downtown LA which was a joint project between the California Redevelopment Agency and a private developer. You can’t deny that the Staples Center has helped revitalize downtown by bringing jobs, tourism, tax dollars, etc.

Another great example is the current public-private partnership that is occurring with the development of Hollywood and Vine in Los Angeles. A 4 star hotel is being built as well as MANY great public things. The condo development that is being built there will allot 20% (some number like that… not sure of the exact figures) for affordable housing for low-income residents. The developers there have incorporated a special hiring process to prioritize hiring local citizens (I think the criteria is they have to live within a 5 mile radius of the project) and they are working with many non-profits to address the homeless situation in Hollywood. Funds from this project are also geared to benefit nearby Hollywood High School, the developers of this project will be forced to pay a “living wage” for all its employees, and a percentage of revenue have been allocated for public art works. Would the City of Los Angeles be able to provide any of these services on it’s own? Absolutely not - the city is too cash strapped to do any of this on it’s own.

So the point i am trying to make is that cities these days are forced into doing public-private partnerships to get things done that are good for the public. By eminent domain standards, YES, these properties were seized for a “private developer” but look at all the public good that is occurring because of this project. The field of urban planning has really evolved since the nightmare of the 60s, and now we work hard to incorporate community interests, economic development - and try to strike a happy balance between the two.

So anyways, to limit the power of eminent domain as severely as 98 will, it will probably lead to bad things down the road - exactly like Prop 13 did for the state of California. I know it looks great on paper - no one wants to have their homes taken away for a Wal-Mart, but in reality, it will severely restrict what local governments can and cannot do in a bad way.

Thank you all for listening. I work full-time so I might not be able to address any other questions you might have in a timely manner but I will do my best.

7

But is that a bad thing?

  1. How many people benefit from rent control and why should it be so limited?
  2. Should it be the responsibility of the government or property owners to provide the social welfare of less-than-market value rents

Sounds like a lot of people benefit except for the folks that lost their homes. This is why we need Prop 98, because of the growing movement that anything that is a public benefit is worth taking private property under eminate domain, but what limits do you put on it? For over 200 years we had a great system - that it had to be for public use. It expanded a couple decades ago to include urban blight. OK, I see that. But Kelo was over tax revenue! Basically, under Kelo whoever can pay the most in taxes has ultimate right to use a property.

Now the example you give sounds great, but is it really any different than giving my house to Starbucks as long as they higher a few workers and donate $ to the local middle-school? Who gets to decide? You? The City? The County Assessor?

8

Good question. Like I said before, eminent domain is definitely a slippery slope, and it has been used for both good and bad things. I want to reiterate how the field of urban planning has evolved - back in the 50s and 60s, planners were usually old white men who sat in an ivory tower or high rise office building with all these great ideas on how to help women, the poor, minorities, etc. Did any of their ideas work? For the most part, no - because they totally neglected to consult any of their constituents and had a “father knows best” mentality. Nowadays, the field of urban planning works hard to incorporate interests from all involved parties.

(In that example I gave, actually it was pretty much all business owners who pretty much voluntarily sold their properties to the CRA for market value since that area was so blighted anyways they knew they would be better off selling vs. hanging onto a decaying propery.)

So who does decide? Ultimately, the power can lay with the people. Citizen groups are now more powerful than ever in terms of urban planning issues and lawsuits run abound when necessary. You can elect officials who support whatever stance you have. I’m not saying Prop 99 is perfect, but it allows for flexibility, debates and negotiations on eminent domain issues instead of just axing it and not even proposing a private-public partnership as an option.

Seriously people, as someone who is working for the public, to not allow ANY private-public partnerships to use eminent domain powers is seriously a death sentence to public services throughout CA. You think services are bad now? This will totally make things get worse since local governments are already incredibly limited in their tax-generating capabilities.

9

Oh yeah, on the other issues, rent control is good and helps protect the poor and elderly, since they are the ones who benefit the most from rent control. More reasons why I am voting NO on 98.

10

I’m voting NO on both of them. Bond issues are one thing, but the results of over a hundred years of a manipulated, easily-gamed system should have taught us by now that, at least where Californians are concerned, the initiative process is a piss-poor way of setting public policy*.

Yes, I get it; democracy isn’t for sissies. But legislation isn’t for amatuers, either…

*ETA: If there is ever an initiative to repeal Prop 13, I WILL vote Yes on that though.

11

Welcome aboard, Le Corbusier. Hope you have a blast here. No need to talk shop ALL the time. :slight_smile:

12

Glad you’re posting, and hope you sign up. I’m voting no on 98 and yes on 99 also, but it is good to hear some more arguments from a professional. The Pro-98 people are a bit sneaky in never mentioning rent control explicitly.

When I was a kid I lived across the street from one of Robert Moses’ projects. It was a shame that the people there got their houses moved, but the expressway that they build benefited a lot more people.

And I, for one, would vote against bunnies and daisies if the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association was for them. When we moved to California from New Jersey (to a pretty good district) my daughter in 8th grade was over six months ahead of her class, just from having more periods a day.

13

I haven’t made up my mind about the cost/benefit of rent control, but I think it shouldn’t be gutted by a constitutional amendment. Let the local city government decide when/if it’s necessary to preserve the character of a given neighborhood. If you think your city government is being overly arbitrary, organize and vote the bums out.

14

Rent control is a disaster. It is popular because it “protects litle old ladies.” However, it always and everywhere winds up destroying everyone else, or it gets skirted around with ample reserves of cash, or both. It’s an iron fact and there’s not much anyone can do about it.

15

Cite please? And in California, rent control applies differently in different cities, so I think making a broad, sweeping statement such as this isn’t applicable.

16

I actually have no problem with rent control being eliminated. I’m not sure that modifying the Constitution is the way to go about it, though. What I’m more concerned with is what the overly broad definition of “private party use” might also apply to. The argument stated in the CA voter’s guide claims the following:

Now, I don’t see anything in the act that explicitly does this, so that must mean that something could be interpreted that way. I can see how requiring 60 days notice could be argued to be within the definition of “private use” that 98 establishes. Does that mean that the notice would be reduced to 30 days, in line with the notice a tenant must give? Or does it mean that there would be no notice at all, since any notice requirement would “damage” the landlord.

And I’m not at all clear about how having to return a security deposit is damaging to the property at all. The security deposit has to be returned (less any damages) because it doesn’t belong to the landlord.

Normally, I’d say that this is a needless ad-hominem. But I think I agree with you. They have absolutely no credibility on this issue.

For those who are planning to vote no on 98, you may want to vote yes on 99. If 99 gets more votes than 98, then it’ll stop 98 from happening. And its provisions seem fairly minor.

17

So the city of L.A. steals property to give to a private developer and in return forces that developer to do a bunch of stuff that sounds good (they certainly sound good to voters, which I’m sure has something to do with why they are part of the deal) but is probably of limited economic value? But, in the end, the developers are the ones who primarily benefit. They make the money off this project.

I’m not opposed to people making money but they should not be able to do so through theft. No matter how you dress it up, eminent domain is theft. I’ll agree that sometimes it is necessary. For truly public goods, such as roads, I can see why it should be left as an option of last resort. But to try and defend the theft of people’s property to build a hotel for rich people just because the builders say they are going to try and hire local people and do a few other things which sound nice is ridiculous.

Furthermore, you leave out that there is a big difference between the promises of these “enlightened” urban planners and the reality of what actually happens. Yes, they can promise all these “public benefits” but do they really occur? There are numerous examples around the nation where arenas, convention centers, and the like were built based on urban planners’ description of all the benefits that would flow from them. Generally these benefits fail to materialize to the extent that planners claim.

I’m sorry, but some things should not be left up to the political process. The decision to take property to give to a private developer should be illegitimate, no matter if the majority of people in a given area want to do it. The only person who should be able to decide this question is the person who owns the property.

How? By reducing the building of new rental units? By driving up the price of other units? There is absolutely no evidence to suppor the notion that rent control is good public policy.

18

I really don’t want to turn this debate into a “Is eminent domain good or not?” because that is not the debate here. The debate here is whether these Propositions are good for California or not. I don’t think non-Calfornians here realize how dire the financial situation is here and I think all citizens in California can recognize the decline in quality of public services, hence why this issue is important.

Although I am not the OP, I think it would be beneficial to keep the debate centered on whether these Props are good for CA or not. Save the ED debate for another thread please.

19

You certainly defended eminent domain in your post, so why not address my objections? And from my understanding the issue of whether eminent domain is good (or useful, however you want to define it) is pretty intimately wrapped up in this debate, so why not hash it out?

20

I won’t pretend that I can control the topic of conversation here. But I think that a substantial part of the discussion of whether to vote for these props will hinge on what conditions you think justifies eminent domain.