California Proposition 98, Eminent Domain and Rent Control Prohibition Amendment (June 2008)

California Proposition 98
Election date June 3, 2008
Topic Eminent domain and Property
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 98 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on June 3, 2008. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported placing limits on the power of government to take property from one private owner through the process of eminent domain and give it to another private owner; prohibiting any future rent control measures; and phasing out rent control measures enacted prior to January 2007.

A "no" vote opposed placing limits on the power of government to take property from one private owner through the process of eminent domain and give it to another private owner; prohibiting any future rent control measures; and phasing out rent control measures enacted prior to January 2007.

Election results

See also: June 3, 2008 California election results

California Proposition 98
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,675,213	38.49%
No		2,677,456	61.51%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design

Proposition 98 would have placed constitutional limits on the ability of local governments to take property from one private owner through the process of eminent domain in California and give it to another private owner. Proposition 98 also would have prohibited any new rent control measures, ended any measures enacted after January 2007, and phased out rent control that was enacted before January 2007. Proposition 98 needed to earn more affirmative votes than a competing initiative, Proposition 99, which added exceptions to the process of eminent domain. California voters approved Proposition 99 in a vote of 62% to38%.

See also California Proposition 98 versus California Proposition 99 (2008)

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 98 was as follows:

“

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

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

-Bars state and local governments from taking or damaging private property for private uses. -Prohibits rent control and similar measures. -Prohibits deference to government in takings cases. -Defines 'just compensation.' -Requires an award of attorneys fees and costs if a property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by the government. -Requires government to offer to original owner of condemned property the right to repurchase property at condemned price when property is put to substantially different use than was publicly stated.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

If Proposition 98 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:

“

Increased costs to many governments due to the measure's restrictions. The net statewide fiscal effect, however, probably would not be significant.

”

Support

"Yes on 98" website banner

Yes on 98 led the campaign in support of Proposition 98.

Supporters

See also: List of California Proposition 98 supporters

• Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• Doug Mosebar, president of the California Farm Bureau
• Steve L. Caughran, 2007 California Small Business Owner of the Year, National Federation of Independent Business
• Cruz Baca Sembello
• John Revelli
• Joel Ayala, president, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
• California Farm Bureau Federation
• California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights Committee
• California Republican Party
• California Association of Realtors
• California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce (CHCC)
• Institute for Justice

Arguments

• Moe Mohanna, a property owner in Sacramento that traveled the state speaking on behalf of Proposition 98, said, "I'll be going to different cities, and talking about private property rights, and the taking of private property for private use. Today it is my buildings, tomorrow it is your home."

Official arguments

The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 98 were signed by Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Doug Mosebar, president of the California Farm Bureau; and Steve L. Caughran, 2007 California Small Business Owner of the Year, National Federation of Independent Business:

“

Proposition 98 is clear, simple, and straightforward, with only one purpose: to protect our homes, farmland, and small businesses . . . all private property. Proposition 98 does this by: 1. Making it illegal for government to seize homes, small businesses, family farms, and places of worship and transfer them to private parties for their private use and profit. 2. Making it illegal to force the sale or rental of private homes, apartments, or other residences at below market prices. This is all there is to Proposition 98, nothing tricky, nothing hidden. Read the Proposition 98 text carefully and you’ll find it has the purpose of saving our homes, farms, small businesses, and places of worship from being seized from their owners for the benefit and profit of private developers. WHY IS PROPOSITION 98 NEEDED? First, because state and local governments are seizing private homes, apartments, small businesses, family farms, and places of worship for the benefit of politically well-connected developers. These seizures enable tax collectors to get around Proposition 13’s limitations on property taxes, allowing them to reap huge property tax increases on the seized property. Second, developers make huge profits when they develop seized land. The politicians can help friends and financial supporters make big profits by seizing other peoples’ property. Third, California is losing open space, farmland, and orchards at a distressing rate. Proposition 98 will prevent the seizure of these lands for developers who would otherwise cement over farmland and forever convert farms to tract homes and shopping malls. Fourth, government has many fair and legitimate ways to help the elderly, poor, disabled, veterans, students, and others with their rent and other housing needs. Government can provide rental assistance and housing programs. Government can buy or build residential housing and provide it to the needy at low cost or even no cost. But government should not force a private property owner alone to bear the entire cost of renting his or her home or apartment at less than the fair rental value. Forty-fi ve of the other 49 states provide this basic protection. We are long overdue in protecting our property owners. WHAT PROPOSITION 98 WILL NOT DO Proposition 98 will never cause renters who now have their rents limited to lose their current rent control. Proposition 98 DOES NOT affect the acquisition of property needed for legitimate public purposes. Property for the public good, such as schools, fi re stations, highways, police stations, water projects, flood control, emergency services, parks, and environmental conservation, can still be acquired by eminent domain. SUMMARY—ONLY 98 PROTECTS ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY Currently, tax hungry governments get around Proposition 13, dramatically increasing property taxes by seizing homes, small businesses, apartments, family farms, and places of worship. Also, by seizing private property, politicians can help their financial contributors get the property and profits those developers want. Proposition 98 is the only measure on the ballot that restores private property protections for all Californians—everyone. Visit YesProp98.com. Vote Yes on Proposition 98.

”

Opposition

"No on 98/Yes on 99" website banner

No on 98 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 98.

Opponents

• Jeannine English, California State President of AARP
• Janis R. Hirohama, president of League of Women Voters of California
• Richard Word, president of California Police Chiefs Association
• Dean Preston, co-chair, Coalition to Protect California Renters
• Ken Willis, president, League of California Homeowners
• Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
• Senator Dianne Feinstein (D)
• Former Governor Pete Wilson (R)
• AARP
• League of California Cities
• California League of Conservation Voters
• California Teachers Association
• SEIU
• California Chamber of Commerce

Official arguments

The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 98 were signed by Jeannine English, California State President of AARP; Janis R. Hirohama, president of League of Women Voters of California; and Richard Word, president of California Police Chiefs Association:

“

Proposition 98 is a DECEPTIVE SCHEME by wealthy landlords to abolish rent control and other renter protections. Their deeply flawed measure also contains hidden provisions that would harm the environment and our communities. VOTE NO. Wealthy apartment and mobile home park owners are spending millions on a deceptive campaign to pass Prop. 98. Ask yourself why? They don’t care about eminent domain. What these landlords really care about is eliminating rent control so they can raise rents and make millions. Read the initiative yourself. You’ll see Prop. 98: Eliminates rent control. Wipes out basic renter protections like requiring the fair return of rental deposits. Takes away protections requiring 60-day notice before forcing renters out of homes. Prop. 98 would DEVASTATE MILLIONS OF RENTERS including veterans, seniors, and young families. Prop. 98 is the worst kind of special interest proposition. It benefits a few wealthy landlords at the expense of millions protected by rent control and other laws that ensure renters are treated fairly. 'I’m a retiree and a veteran, and I’ve lived in my studio apartment for 30 years. Rent control is the only way I can afford a roof over my head. If 98 passes, hundreds of thousands of seniors could face skyrocketing rents.' —Robert C. Potter, 80, U.S. Army Veteran, San Francisco 'I’m a retired widow on a fixed income. Prop. 98 would financially devastate many seniors like me who depend on rent control and other laws that protect us against unfair landlords. Vote NO on Prop. 98.' —Helen J. Furber, 85, retired, Calistoga The problems with 98 go far beyond ending rent control. HIDDEN PROVISIONS ALSO JEOPARDIZE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS. In the fine print of 98 are provisions that could prohibit important laws that protect the environment and ensure responsible growth. 'Prop. 98 goes beyond canceling rent control. It would gut important laws that protect our air, land, water, coasts and wildlife, and laws we need to combat global warming.' —Jim Lyon, Vice President for Conservation, National Wildlife Federation Prop. 98’s hidden provisions THREATEN OUR SUPPLY OF SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER and our ability to protect the public’s safety. The measure also cripples our ability to create communities that are 'livable' for those who are aging—with housing options, ways of getting around, and access to services that promote independence. 'Prop. 98 would jeopardize our ability to protect the quality of our drinking water and to secure new sources of water to prevent water shortages.' —Tim Quinn, Executive Director, Association of California Water Agencies 'In addition to abolishing rent control, Prop. 98 contains hidden provisions that prevent law enforcement officials from dealing with slum-like conditions that contribute to crime.' —Richard Word, President, California Police Chiefs Association Don’t let the wealthy landlords get away with their scheme to abolish rent control and eliminate protections for our environment and our communities. Join senior, homeowner, conservation, public safety, and renters’ rights organizations in voting NO ON PROP. 98.

”

Media editorials

Support

• The Orange County Register editorialized in favor of Proposition 98.

Opposition

• Los Angeles Times: "With the ill-considered Proposition 98, property rights advocates once again have undermined themselves and poorly served homeowners, businesspeople and real estate investors by overreaching."
• San Francisco Chronicle: "Proposition 98 is disingenuous and dangerous."

Polls

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released a poll in May 2008 that suggested that while Californians were concerned about property rights, they were not convinced that Proposition 98 addressed their concerns. PPIC's March poll showed higher support for 98 than the May poll.

Month of Poll	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
May 2008	30%	48%	22%
March 2008	37%	41%	22%

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 2008, at least 694,354 valid signatures were required.

Arno Political Consultants conducted the petition drive to qualify Proposition 98 for the ballot, charging the campaign $1,583,000. Competing ballot measure, Proposition 99 paid PCI Consultants, Inc. $3,559,970 to qualify that measure for the ballot.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Ballot language lawsuits

Both opponents and proponents of Proposition 98 filed lawsuits against the California Attorney General's office in February 2008 regarding the ballot language. The proponents argued that rent control repeal should not have been mentioned in the description. Opponents argued that the measure's ballot title was misleading because it said nothing about Proposition 98's stance toward rent control. Both lawsuits were unsuccessful.

The California Attorney General agreed that rent control repeal is a chief purpose of Proposition 98, and Judge Frawley concurred, commenting that he might have written it differently had it been his task. However, Judge Frawley concluded that the attorney general had not gone beyond his discretion in writing the title and description, taken together. In the lawsuit by proponents, the judge rejected the argument that the rent control provisions should not be characterized as "repeal."

See also

2008 Measures

• 2008 Measures
• Eminent domain on the ballot
• Property on the ballot
• 2008 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Suggest a link

• Official Voter Information Guide
• Full text
• Proposition 98 in the Smart Voter Guide
• Guide to Proposition 98 from the California Voter Foundation
• Summary of donors to and against 98 from Cal-Access
• Donors for and against Proposition 98 from Follow The Money
• California Farm Bureau endorsement of Proposition 98
• Yes on Property Rights Official supporters of Proposition 98
• No on 98/Yes on 99 Protect Renters, Protect Homes Official opponents of Proposition 98
• Side-by-side comparison of Propositions 98 and 99 from the supporters of Proposition 98
• List of California cities with rent control
• Yes on 98, YouTube.

Additional reading

• It's time to vote again, May 26, 2008
• Eminent domain measures would have little effect, analysis finds, May 26, 2008
• Seizures v. rent control, May 27, 2008
• Ventura Daily Press, Only one is the real deal (dead link), April 22, 2008
• LA & Cal Tenants Fight to Save Rent Control (dead link)
• Californians to vote on eminent domain
• Eminent domain on June ballot Email Wire, March 5, 2008
• Sneak attack on property rights fall flat - eminent domain measure does not jeopardize water projects, National Tax-limitation committee
• Two Propositions battle over eminent domain, San Mateo Daily Journal, April 30, 2008
• Eminent domain...special California edition, CBS News, May 4, 2008
• Rent control key to one of two ballot initiatives, San Diego Union-Tribune, May 4, 2008
• Fighting eminent domain abuse in California, Redstate
• What to make of Props 98 and 99, Los Angeles Times, May 1, 2008.
• California measures address property rights concerns (dead link), Associated Press
• Property on the ballot at a glance (dead link)
• Do we vote or strike?
• Farmerville opposes Prop 98
• Eminent domain: Ballot is a battlefield, May 18, 2008.
• Prevent eminent dysfunction
• Eminent Domain Targeted by Propositions 98 and 99 (dead link)