California Proposition 90, Limits on Government's Power of Eminent Domain Amendment (2006)
| California Proposition 90 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 7, 2006 | |
| Topic Eminent domain | |
| Status | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 90 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 7, 2006. It was defeated.
Election results
|
California Proposition 90 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 3,932,043 | 47.62% | ||
|
|
4,324,722 | 52.38% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 90, if it had been approved, would have accomplished two things:
- It would have reduced the ability of government entities in the state to take property away from private property owners under eminent domain by restricting the purposes for which government may take property, increasing the amount that government would have had to pay owners if it did take their property and by requiring the government to sell property back to its original owners if the government did not end up using the property for the reasons it stated when it took it.
- It would have required government entities in the state to compensate property owners for their lost property value if the government entity passed new laws or rules that resulted in substantial economic losses to their property.
Two years after Proposition 90 was on the ballot, a pair of competing initiatives -- Proposition 98 and Proposition 99 -- were on the ballot. Propositions 98 and 99 also dealt with eminent domain reform. Proposition 99 was approved.
Proposition 90 was one of 12 eminent domain-related ballot measures throughout the country on the 2006 ballot.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 90 was as follows:
| “ | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects or uses. • Limits government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve public health or safety. • Voids unpublished eminent domain court decisions. • Defines 'just compensation.' • Government must occupy condemned property or lease property for public use. • Condemned private property must be offered for resale to prior owner or owner’s heir at current fair market value if government abandons condemnation’s objective. • Exempts certain governmental actions. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Constitutional changes
If Proposition 90 had been approved, it would have amended Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ | Increased annual state and local government costs to pay property owners for (1) losses to their property associated with certain new laws and rules, and (2) property acquisitions. The amount of such costs is unknown, but potentially significant on a statewide basis.[2] | ” |
Support
Yes on 90 led the campaign in support of Proposition 90.
Supporters
- Manuel Romero[1]
- Bob Blue[1]
- Pastor Roem Agustin[1]
- Mimi Walters, Honorary Chair, California Protect Our Homes Coalition[1]
- Martyn B. Hopper, California Director, National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)[1]
- John M. Revelli[1]
Official voter guide
The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 90 were signed by Manuel Romero; Bob Blue; and Pastor Roem Agustin:[1]
| “ |
Proposition 90 stops eminent domain abuse! Local governments can take homes, businesses, and churches through unfair use of eminent domain. They can also take away your property value with the stroke of a pen. We are three average Californians, and it happened to us. Local governments unfairly tried to take our property away from us and turn it over to developers to build condos, hotels, and other commercial projects. Why? Because these developers are politically connected, and their projects will generate more tax revenue for local governments. If the government can take our property, it can take yours too.
It’s wrong for senior citizens, small business owners, or anyone who can’t fi ght back to be forced to give up their property so wealthy developers can build giant retail stores, shopping malls, and upscale housing developments. Government can also take property without compensating property owners. When governments pass regulations that reduce the value of your property, it’s called regulatory taking. When this happens you should be compensated by the government for your lost value. Government should not be able to take your home— outright or through regulations that reduce the value of your property—without it being for a legitimate PUBLIC use and without paying for what it takes. That’s simple fairness. That’s why California needs Proposition 90, the Protect Our Homes Act. Proposition 90 will:
that serve the public and not the financial interests of the government and powerful developers.
Those who benefit financially from the status quo are spending millions to mislead voters and claim the sky is falling. Opponents are engaging in scare tactics in order to divert attention from their REAL MOTIVE—maintaining the status quo so they can continue to profit from taking our private property. For example, opponents falsely claim that the measure will hurt the enforcement of environmental regulations. But all existing California environmental laws and regulations are expressly protected. The Protect Our Homes Act protects all of us—and helps families for future generations—while stopping government from taking your property simply to boost tax revenue. Save our homes and businesses. Please vote YES on Proposition 90. For more information, visit www.protectourhomes2006.com.[2] |
” |
Opposition
No on 90 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 90.
Opponents
- Robert Redford[3]
- Michael L. Warren, president, California Fire Chiefs Association[1]
- Steve Krull, president, California Police Chiefs Association[1]
- Edward Thompson, Jr., California director, American Farmland Trust[1]
- Kenneth W. Willis, president, League of California Homeowners[1]
- Jacqueline Jacobberger, president, League of Women Voters of California[1]
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 90 were signed by Michael L. Warren, president of the California Fire Chiefs Association; Steve Krull, president of the California Police Chiefs Association; and Edward Thompson, Jr., California director of the American Farmland Trust:[1]
| “ |
The handful of wealthy landowners that paid to put Prop. 90 on the ballot are trying a classic bait and switch on California voters. They want you to believe Prop. 90 is about eminent domain. That’s the bait. But, hidden in the fine print of the measure is the trap—a far-reaching section unrelated to eminent domain that would lead to huge new costs for all California taxpayers. Prop. 90 would change California’s constitution to enable large landowners and corporations to demand huge payouts from state and local taxpayers just by claiming a law has harmed the value of their property or business—no matter how important the law may be or far-fetched the claim. According to William G. Hamm, formerly California’s nonpartisan legislative analyst, 'PROP. 90 could require BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN NEW TAXPAYER COSTS EACH YEAR, if communities and the state continue to pass or enforce basic laws to protect neighborhoods, limit unwanted development, protect the environment, restrict unsavory businesses, and protect consumers.' With no limit on the total costs, Prop. 90 traps taxpayers into signing a blank check. We all pay, while large landowners and corporations reap windfall payouts. Here’s an example of how the 'taxpayer trap' works: If local voters pass a measure to limit a new development to 500 houses—instead of 2,000 houses that a developer wants to build—under Prop. 90, the developer could demand a payment for the value of the remaining 1,500 houses. Even if local community services and infrastructure would be strained by the larger development, Prop. 90 would put taxpayers at risk for payment. Prop. 90 is not just limited to land-use laws. Read the official analysis. Statewide consumer protection laws, restrictions on telemarketing, and worker protections would all trigger new demands for payouts. As a result, Prop. 90 would lead to thousands of expensive lawsuits that would tie up our courts and result in added bureaucracy and red tape. The cost of these lawsuits and payouts would rob local communities of billions of dollars in limited resources that fund fire and police protection, paramedic response, schools, traffi c congestion relief, and other vital services. That’s why the CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, and CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION oppose Prop. 90. PROP. 90 would trap taxpayers in a LOSE-LOSE situation. If communities act to protect their quality of life, taxpayers could be forced to make huge payouts. Or, if communities couldn’t afford the payouts, basic quality of-life protections simply couldn’t be enacted. That’s why conservation groups, including the CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS and the PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, warn the measure would drastically limit our ability to protect California’s coastline, open spaces, farmland, air and water quality. For more information on Prop. 90, visit www.NoProp90.com. When you vote, please join groups representing California taxpayers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, educators, small businesses, land conservationists, the environment, and homeowners. Say NO to the TAXPAYER TRAP. Vote NO on PROPOSITION 90.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
As an initiated constitutional amendment, 598,105 valid signatures were required to qualify Proposition 90 for the ballot.
Arno Political Consultants was paid $1,788,706.00 to collect the signatures.[4]
See also
External links
- Official California Voter Guide
- Full text of Proposition 90
- Guide to Proposition 90 from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against 90 from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 90 from Follow The Money
- Official declaration of the November 7, 2006 ballot proposition election results
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedguide - ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Truthout, Robert Redford in Truthout, October 2006 (dead link)
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Expenditure details, Yes on 90," accessed March 22, 2021
