Yes on 99 to put "eminent domain reform" to rest

While Prop 98 is the most important, and evil, thing on this ballot, Prop 99 is the most nuanced. I think I'm voting Yes, but I'm torn.

Background: In 2005, the US Supreme Court's Kelo decision said that governments could use eminent domain to take property from one private owner and give it to another to do economic development. When we imagine that as taking grandma's house to build a new WalMart, just about everyone thinks that's a bad idea. Of course, there's more nuance than that (see below), but stick with that for now.

The response has been a national effort to reform the use of eminent domain. Here in California, we approach reform with constitutional amendments, or initiatives. The property rights zealots have taken the lead; they narrowly failed with Prop 90 in 2006, and now they're back with evil Prop 98. So several groups put forward Prop 99 as a more limited reform.

What would 99 do? Prop 99 is a limited reform of how eminent domain can be used. It would prohibit state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence and convey any part of it to a private person or business. Much more narrowly written than 98, Prop 99 would continue to allow eminent domain to be used for public uses: schools, roads, government buildings, parks, public utilities, etc. Prop 99 also has a "poison pill" clause: if both initiatives pass but 99 gets more votes, it kills 98.

Who supports 99? LOTS of people and groups I trust. My own organization, for one, as well as lots of environmental and renter protection groups. For examples of reasons, see Greenbelt Alliance or Just Cause Oakland. For the groups I support, the main motivations are to make sure 98 does not go into effect and to take eminent domain reform off the political agenda in California by passing 99's modest reform.

Who opposes 99? Opposition to 99 is split: there's the extreme property rights folks who think 99 doesn't go far enough, and they'd rather have 98 pass. And then there's some good analysts, notably the Sacramento Bee and SPUR, who both argue that eminent domain reform is unnecessary. SPUR also argues that we may want to use eminent domain on homes in the future, and uses the example of building a transit station that also happens to have some shops, child care, or jobs on top of it.

Jeff's position:
There's a lot of truth in the opposition analysis: during 2000-2005, only three single-family homes were taken by eminent domain in all California [source]. There's hardly a crying need for reform, and legislation by initiative is usually a bad idea.

In the end, I bow to the reality of California politics. When I argued against Prop 90 in 2006 , I said that would give the Legislature a chance to pass a reasonable reform. But the Legislature didn't and the issue is still on the agenda. If I thought defeating 98 and 99 both would drive a stake in the heart of eminent domain reform, I'd say vote no on 99 too. But I don't think vampires die that easily.

So I think I'm voting Yes. But I'm open: let me know what you think. If I change my mind, it'll show up in the comments.

Maybe instead, we should just focus on defeating Prop 98 and showing its proponents for what they are: greedy selfish jerks who value private profit over the public good.