Eminent domain measures on ballot

Eminent domain measures on ballot
Tom Chorneau, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

Monday, March 10, 2008

(03-10) 04:00 PDT Sacramento --

Celebrity developer Donald Trump stirred controversy last year with his plan to build an upscale golf community in Fresno that would have required the city to use eminent domain to help him get all the land he needed.

Fresno officials backed down, even though government's authority to condemn privately owned land for the use of another private buyer has been on the books for many years and was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005.

On June 3, California voters will decide two ballot measures that would restrict government's use of eminent domain for private purposes - and one of them goes much further, eliminating rent controls in cities including San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and San Jose.

Eminent domain is the power state and local governments have to take possession of private property for the public good. In its most common application, private landowners are given market value for their property that might be needed for things such as a highway expansion, a public building or installing utility lines.

In its ruling three years ago in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London, the nation's highest court said the power of eminent domain included the authority to take private land without consent of the owner for the express purpose of reselling that land to another private party.

The case involved members of a Connecticut family forced out of their home to make way for a privately sponsored development plan. The court said the taking was justified because eventually the new development would add to the local tax base.

Fearing similar confrontations in California, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association led an effort to qualify Proposition 98 for the June ballot. California voters narrowly rejected a similar measure in 2006.

Rental control targeted
Prop. 98 would not only prohibit state and local governments from taking private land and transferring it to another private party - but it would also phase out rent control ordinances and, some critics said, would undermine general land-use zoning and environmental protections.

Saying the Jarvis measure had a hidden agenda, a coalition led by the California League of Cities has qualified Proposition 99 for the June election. The competing measure would simply prohibit government from using eminent domain to take a single-family home to help a private landowner.

Prop. 99 is written so that if it receives more votes than its rival, it would become law - even if a majority of voters also supports Prop. 98.

Supporters of Prop. 99 said the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision raised an issue that needs to be addressed - but not the way Prop. 98 would solve the problem.

"The Kelo decision was about taking someone's home," said Tom Adams, president of the California League of Conservation Voters. "We believe that voters in California want clean, straightforward protection for residents (but) not having other issues being hijacked into eminent domain."

Jarvis group sees threat
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said the Kelo decision poses a threat to landowners. If approved, Prop. 98 would still allow government to condemn land for public projects like schools, roads and parks.

But Coupal fears that if Prop. 99 is adopted, government officials will find ways to acquire private property for private use using other methods, such as increasing the use of rent controls. He said Prop. 98 is aimed at closing all the loopholes - including rent control.

Supporters of Prop. 98 contend that rent control is one way government officials could undermine private property rights. Coupal said government officials must be prohibited from imposing price restrictions on the sale or lease of private property.

If Prop. 98 is approved, it would eliminate rent control ordinances in at least 17 California cities. Much of the financial support for the Prop. 98 campaign has come from owners of mobile home parks and apartment owner groups, who together have contributed about $2 million.

Supporters of Prop. 99 include a long list of renter groups, including the San Francisco Tenants Union, Housing California and the Coalition to Protect California Renters.

Adams said Prop. 98 might also be interpreted to restrict laws that protect development of natural areas and laws that restrict pollution, which is why environmental groups such as the National Wildlife Federation, California League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council are backing the competing measure.

Fresno officials reluctant
Officials in Fresno were reluctant last year to use their eminent domain powers to seize private property to help billionaire Trump move forward with his 480-acre Running Horse development.

"Eminent domain has its place," said Brian Calhoun, a member of the Fresno City Council. "We use it to help with road constructions and public housing. It's a tool to deal with recalcitrant landowners.

"But when it came to using that power to help Mr. Trump build a private golf course - I just couldn't see it. It just wasn't defensible."

Property rights initiatives
Voters June 3 will be asked to consider two ballot measures intended to curb government's use of eminent domain. If Proposition 99 receives more votes than its rival, it becomes law.

Proposition 98


What it would do: Prohibit state and local government from taking possession of private land and transferring it to a private party; would phase out rent control; would allow government to take property for public facilities.

Proposition 99


What it would do: Prohibit state and local government from using eminent domain to take a single-family home (including condominiums) to transfer it to another private party.

Sources: Legislative analyst; secretary of state.

To get involved
To learn more about Proposition 98's impact on rent control in San Francisco, a Save Rent Control convention will be held Saturday at 1 p.m. at the Main Library, Grove and Larkin streets.

E-mail Tom Chorneau at tchorneau [at] sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle