# California's Proposition 90: Trojan horse of the property-rights movement

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-proposition-90-trojan-horse-of-the-property-rights-movement/378355>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [October 29, 2006, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-proposition-90-trojan-horse-of-the-property-rights-movement/378355 "2006-10-29T20:16:25Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2006, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-proposition-90-trojan-horse-of-the-property-rights-movement/378355/21 "2006-10-31T22:22:38Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]  
But Prop 90 isn’t mainly about eminent domain. It’s about government regulations and actions that depress property values. **Any kind** of regulations or actions.  
[/quote]

“Mainly”? Hmm. The proposition makes Eminent Domain seizures for private development a no-no. Then it has to discuss what “just compensation” is for issues dealing with property seized for public use, and for property effected by _new_ changes in statutes. (Zoning/dezoning, for example.)

> [@](#):
>
> If the state does something that happens to **increase** the value of your property, should you be obliged to send the difference to your tax collector? You will, of course, in the form of an increased property tax if an when your property assessment is adjusted to account for the changed conditions – but that’s just a few extra mills, not the **whole** value of the appreciation.

No. It’s the states job to assess a properties tax value, and send the owner a statement (and tax bill) to that affect. It is not up to the property owner to be aware of all public improvements in the general area, and guesstimate what that difference means in taxes, and cut a check. The burden is on the Gov for that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2006, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-proposition-90-trojan-horse-of-the-property-rights-movement/378355/22 "2006-10-31T22:27:03Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=ouryL]  
So if they pass a law to outlaw this, the developer can sue for damages? 😕  
[/QUOTE]

This is mentioned in the text on “dezoning”:

[http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig\_06/general\_06/pdf/proposition\_90/entire\_prop90.pdf](http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/general_06/pdf/proposition_90/entire_prop90.pdf)

If a developer _got a permit_ to build 500 homes in an area, then later the local gov says “Nevermind. Make that 250.” Than probably, yes. It seems that the local gov better put some thought into zoning when they issue permits…

But if a developer got a permit to build 250 homes, he can’t sue claiming that he _feels_ he should have been allowed to build 500.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\
**Post date:** [October 31, 2006, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-proposition-90-trojan-horse-of-the-property-rights-movement/378355/23 "2006-10-31T22:32:14Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]  
But that’s **not** what Prop 90 is about, it’s just the clause they’re using to sell it. See the OP and post #3.  
[/QUOTE]

The official voting guide is here:

[http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig\_06/general\_06/pdf/proposition\_90/entire\_prop90.pdf](http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/general_06/pdf/proposition_90/entire_prop90.pdf)

Limits actions as described by me are found on page 92, under the section **“What Property Takings Would Be Prohibited?”**.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-proposition-90-trojan-horse-of-the-property-rights-movement/378355.md?page=1)