A Yes vote on Prop. 90 will reform the use of eminent domain by restoring the original meaning of property ownership, fundamental due process, and re-establishing equality without raising costs to taxpayers or hindering development.
Prop. 90 will also protect non-property owners such as tenants, small businesses with leases, and their employees who are also forced out when eminent domain is used by local government in the context of private development.
Property ownership is a core fundamental right both in the Constitutions of the U.S. and California. But, like any core Constitutional right or legal protection, the real beneficiaries are those least able to afford legal representation and those without political influence.
The basic enforcement of these rights helps to somewhat level the playing field between the privileged and the politically connected on one side, and those with less on the other side. It also establishes confidence and predictability that makes our economy work.
Without this enforcement, we wind up with a reverse Robin Hood where the government intervenes to confiscate property without permission of the owner and transfers it over to another private owner with more money. It is counter-intuitive to any sense of justice and equality, and it is ripe for corruption.
Kelo v. New London, Conn.
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor pointed out this very fact in her dissenting opinion on the case of Kelo v. New London:
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
Prop. 90 is very simple. It is a little over one page long. I encourage you to read for yourself both the actual language of the Prop. 90 and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissenting opinion in the Kelo case.
The core opponents of Prop. 90, the California League of Cities , the California Redevelopment Assn., and their Platinum partners the development community (developers, bond firms, consultants and builders) have followed the playbook from the "Wizard of Oz." They have put out some very honorable groups as their face of the opposition, and they have provided them with talking points.
I would like to address some issues raised during the debate on Prop. 90.
Opponents Claim That Reform Is Needed:
The opponents of Prop. 90 claim that the use of eminent domain for private transfers needs reform, but that Prop. 90 goes too far. This is quite hypocritical and disingenuous. The California League of Cities is on record opposing each and every eminent domain reform measure proposed at the state level, including by Democrats Kehoe and Torlakson. Kehoe proposed tightening up the definition of blight, and that was weakened by the California League of Cites. The California League of Cities and the California Redevelopment also sided with the city of New London against homeowner Susette Kelo when the city sought to transfer her property so that housing and commercial property could be built to support Pfizer Pharmaceutical.
Measure 37 (Oregon 2004), False Claims of Payouts
The opponents refer to a law passed in Oregon in 2004 called Measure 37. They say that it cost Oregon taxpayers millions. They extrapolate the costs based on population to California, saying that Prop. 90 will prove very costly to California taxpayers. However, the opponents left out several important facts:
1) Even though hundreds of claims were filed, it never resulted in payouts, according to Bob Stern from the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Governmental Studies, who was recently featured on KCET’s “Life and Times” program as part of its coverage of Prop. 90.(2) Mr. Stern said that based on his analysis, Prop. 90 would not cost taxpayers money.
2) Prop. 90 is different from Measure 37. Prop. 90 is prospective, not retroactive. No claim has been filed to any zone changes made after the passage of Measure 37 in Oregon.
Government Has the Burden of Proof for Public Use, Right to Trial by Jury
Under current California Redevelopment law, there is presumptive conclusion that the government is right even when a Redevelopment zone is 20 years old and the area is booming. This defies the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides basic due process protections.
Why shouldn’t innocent property and small business owners be afforded the same legal protection that is granted to those accused of violent crimes? A trial by a jury of their peers and the burden of proof being on the government, not on the accused, is a basic right in all other parts of the law. After all, the only crime that a small business or homeowner committed was being in the way of a wealthy developer.
This addresses a real world situation that recently occurred in South Los Angeles. Vaughan Benz is a furniture manufacturer. He was forced by the city to sell his property to make way for an animal shelter, only to see the city propose instead to sell the site to a competing furniture maker.(1)
Narrows the Meaning of Public Use. Prohibits Takings Expected to Result in Transfers to Non-Governmental Owners on an Economic Development or Tax Revenue Enhancement Grounds
This is the direct eminent domain reform that corrects existing California Redevelopment law. It addresses issues raised in the Kelo decision as described in Associate Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion.
Grandfathering, Fairness and the Real World
The idea of grandfathering is well established, and it makes the process fair and stable for the small property and business owner. Ironically, the core opponents of Prop. 90, the California League of Cities and the Development Community are pushing for "up-zoning" throughout the state to absorb predications of increased population.
Prop. 90 has Protections for the Taxpayer and the Government
Prop. 90 specifically allows for the public use of eminent domain. It also allows for health and safety exemptions. Prop. 90 will be interpreted by the State Legislature, which will prevent any of the chicken little scenarios that are described by the opponents.
Important Supporters of Prop. 90
The Black Chamber of Commerce. League of United Latin American Citizens, Region 7 (Long Beach).
National Federation of Independent Business (small business group with 600,000 members).
Hollywood-Highland Democratic Club.
Footnotes:
1. "U.S. Targets L.A.’s Seizure of Property," Los Angeles Times, June 14, 2006.
2. KCET — Life and Times program, "War Over Land Rights," Nov. 2, 2006, broadcast date.
