InCaseYouMissetLAT FB BC PSN SBS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: KATHY FAIRBANKS
May 12, 2008 (916) 443.0872
In Case You Missed It…
Los Angeles Times, Fresno Bee, Bakersfield Californian, Pasadena

Star News, San Bernardino Sun, and others say NO on 98
Total NO on 98 Editorials: 21 and growing…
Los Angeles Times: “No on 98, Yes on 99” May 12, 2008
“Statewide abolition of rent control must not sneak its way onto the books as a hidden addendum to an ostensible
eminent domain reform. Including it in Proposition 98 is cynical and devious -- and reason enough to reject the
measure.”
Fresno Bee: “Vote no on Proposition 98, yes on 99” May 11, 2008
Prop. 98 “deserves to go down in flames… Proposition 98 is a poster child for all that's wrong with California's
initiative system… [Prop. 98] is so larded up with special interest goodies and poorly written language that it could
take years, and millions of taxpayer dollars, for the courts to sort it all out.”
Bakersfield Californian: “No on Prop. 98, Yes on 99” May 9, 2008

“Prop. 98 would unquestionably lead to an avalanche of lawsuits involving government, developers and landowners,
with taxpayers signing the checks.”
San Bernardino Sun: “No on Prop. 98, yes on Prop. 99” May 12, 2008
“… Proposition 98 would bring a tsunami of lawsuits against public agencies, and you know who could pick up the tab
– you, the taxpayer.”
Pasadena Star News: “We recommend a ‘no’ vote on Proposition 98 June 3.” May 7, 2008
“If we are to have a statewide debate on rent control, let's have it out in the open without such deceptive
nomenclature.”
Vacaville Reporter: “No on 98” May 7, 2008

Prop. 98 “would impose so many new restrictions that it could severely undermine planning and zoning regulations
throughout the state and open up endless lawsuits. No wonder the No on 98 campaign has the backing of a broad
coalition that includes the governor, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Building Industry, the
California Labor Federation, the AARP, the League of California Homeowners and the Sierra Club”
San Luis Obispo Tribune: “Too many flaws in Props. 98” May 8, 2008
“Are apartment owners and mobile-home park owners so desperate to undermine rent control that they have to prey
on public fears about eminent domain?”
List of No on 98 editorials so far:
Bakersfield Californian (5/9/08) San Francisco Bay Guardian (4/30/08)
Contra Costa Times (5/4/08) San Francisco Chronicle (5/4/08)
Fresno Bee (5/11/08) San Gabriel Valley Tribune (5/7/08)
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (5/12/08) San Luis Obispo (5/8/08)
Lompoc Record (5/12/08) Santa Cruz Sentinel (5/5/08)
Los Angeles Times (5/12/08) Tulare Advance Register (5/8/08)
North County Times (5/11/08) Visalia Times Delta (5/8/08)
Pasadena Star News (5/7/08) Vacaville Reporter (5/7/08)
Riverside Press Enterprise (5/1/08) Whittier Daily News (5/7/08)
San Bernardino Sun (5/12/08) Woodland Daily Democrat (5/8/08)
San Diego Union Tribune (4/23/08)
Paid for by No 98/Yes 99 – a committee of city and county associations, taxpayers and environmental groups, League of California Cities and Californians for
Neighborhood Protection, coalition of conservationists, labor and business. A sponsored committee of the California League of Conservation Voters.1121 L. Street,
Suite 803 – Sacramento, CA 95814 – 916.443.0872
www.no98yes99.com
Los Angeles Times 5/12/08
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-props12-2008may12,0,62073.story
No on 98, Yes on 99
The Times endorses state ballot measures.
May 12, 2008
Eminent domain has become big business -- for the ballot measure industry. Californians rejected an initiative two years
ago that purported to protect property owners from government land grabs, but on closer inspection turned out to be an
attempt to sweep away the state's environmental protection and zoning laws. Now we have another initiative that
masquerades as a simple correction to the notorious Kelo ruling, but really carries the long-standing agenda of interests
that want to extinguish rent control and block water and air quality laws.
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. It would have been so easy to give
Californians what they need: assurance that no city, county, other local government or the state can condemn property,
evict the owner and turn the land over to a developer who donated to elected officials and then convinced them that he
could make the plot prettier and more productive.
That kind of assurance is needed in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo vs. New London,
upholding a Connecticut city's decision to give the plaintiff's property to the developer of a commercial project. Such
takings of private homes are rare in California, but owners should not have to fear them.
There was, in fact, a real opportunity to craft a good law in the Capitol, exactly where that sort of work is supposed to get
done. Lawmakers were negotiating a constitutional amendment that would have blocked forced private-to-private transfer
of homes. It didn't go far enough, but it was a start, and talks with property rights advocates were proceeding.
But landlords detected a chance to use the fear of eminent domain abuse for their own purposes. They poured several
million dollars into getting advocates to drop the legislative approach and go to the ballot with an initiative that quietly
targets the rent control laws in about 100 California cities, including Los Angeles, Santa Monica and West Hollywood.
You wouldn't know from reading the ballot title and summary that Proposition 98 is an anti-rent-control measure, but that's
become the primary focus of its financial backers, the vast majority of whom are landlords and rental property
management companies. One of them is connected to The Times. Sam Zell is chairman and CEO of Tribune Co., which
owns The Times; he also chairs Equity Lifestyle Properties Inc., which donated $50,000 to Proposition 98. The company
owns 27 mobile home parks in California, many of them subject to rent control.
If Proposition 98 becomes law, rent controlled units would become permanently market rate when the current tenants
leave. In Los Angeles, that would affect 626,600 apartments and other rental units.
Serious debate is due on rent control. Does it in fact keep housing affordable, or does it drive up the price by restricting
the supply? Is it the renter's version of Proposition 13, keeping residential neighborhoods stable and housing costs
predictable by limiting annual increases? Or does it unfairly transfer to private landowners the public responsibility to
provide affordable housing?
But these questions are best answered by voters in each city that currently has rent control laws. Statewide abolition of
rent control must not sneak its way onto the books as a hidden addendum to an ostensible eminent domain reform.
Including it in Proposition 98 is cynical and devious -- and reason enough to reject the measure.
Even without the rent control component, the initiative reaches beyond public taking of private land for private gain. By
barring the transfer of any economic benefit "to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner,"
Proposition 98 crosses into the territory rejected by voters in 2006. It could open the door to lawsuits whenever a
government agency zones in such a way that it raises the value of some properties and reduces the potential for others.
That could jeopardize efforts to create open space or protect water quality.
Once Proposition 98 took its present form, backers of a less-sweeping initiative went to the ballot as well, leaving voters
with two measures to deal with.
The problems with Proposition 99 are that it attempts to address a complex topic with the blunt instrument of the initiative
www.no98yes99.com
process, and that it achieves too little. Homeowners who live in the property they own would be protected, and that's a
step forward. Despite assertions to the contrary by opponents, cities couldn't wipe away a home's coverage simply by
rezoning the area. But small-business owners are even more vulnerable to a city council's confiscatory redevelopment
schemes than are homeowners. They too deserve protection, and Proposition 99 doesn't provide it.
Voters should take the opportunity to protect homeowners, but that only starts the job. Lawmakers have to do the rest,
with legislation that allows eminent domain to move forward only for legitimate public purposes. This time, perhaps
property rights advocates will proceed in good faith and avoid yet another bait-and-switch initiative.
In the meantime, The Times urges a no vote on Proposition 98 and a yes vote on Proposition 99.
Fresno Bee 5/11/08
http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/590820.html
Vote no on Proposition 98, yes on 99

Dueling eminent domain measures have very different approaches.
05/10/08 22:32:51
Eminent domain is one of the hottest of buttons in California and across the nation. So it's no wonder that voters face two
ballot propositions that purport to address the issue. And it's no surprise that both have flaws.
In one case -- Proposition 98 -- those flaws are fatal. It deserves to go down in flames.
Proposition 99 covers ground that should have been handled by the Legislature but wasn't. It also has a number of
loopholes; it applies only to homeowners who have occupied their homes for a year or more, but leaves out apartments,
churches and businesses. Despite those misgivings -- and because we've come to expect nothing of substance from the
Legislature on substantive issues -- we recommend passage of Proposition 99. It addresses at least part of the real
problem.
Proposition 98 is a poster child for all that's wrong with California's initiative system. It ostensibly addresses a question
that's important to voters -- eminent domain -- but is so larded up with special interest goodies and poorly written language
that it could take years, and millions of taxpayer dollars, for the courts to sort it all out.
Both propositions arise out of public outrage over a Supreme Court ruling (Kelo v. City of New London) that said there is
no constitutional obstacle to prevent a government from taking private property and giving it to another private interest for
development, so long as that serves the public interest.
In the Kelo case, the "public interest" was expected to be new revenues from a commercial development.
That shouldn't happen. Proposition 99 would give the state a clear rule protecting those who've been in their homes at
least a year against such seizures.
But there is a very great deal more about Proposition 98 that's troubling. It would prohibit the use of eminent domain for
purposes of something called "consumption of natural resources." There are very real concerns that such a prohibition
could interfere with desperately needed statewide water projects.
The California Farm Bureau Federation supports Proposition 98, but other farm groups -- including the Nisei Farmers
League and Western Growers Association -- fear it could spike water projects.
That kind of uncertainty is one reason Proposition 98 is a full-employment act for lawyers -- its ambiguity will mean round
after round of court battles.
There is also a very real concern that Proposition 98 would severely curtail the ability of cities and counties to use zoning
and land use regulations to achieve desirable goals, such as keeping certain types of business out of neighborhoods
where they are inappropriate.
There is also the question of whether requirements for low-income housing in new developments would be allowed, which
would exacerbate an already difficult situation for hundreds of thousands of Californians with limited means.
www.no98yes99.com
Another element of Proposition 98 is an end to rent control, which would devastate many of the 1.2 million people who are
now able to afford housing because of such controls. Particularly hard hit would be mobile home park tenants, who
typically own their home but lease the land on which it sits.
It should be no surprise that a substantial portion of the funding for Proposition 98 has come from mobile home park
owners -- who have yet to explain what jacking up their rents has to do with eminent domain.
The seizure of one person's home so that it can be given to another private party is exceedingly rare in California. The
state already limits the uses for which property can be taken, and when it is taken, the owner is typically given the higher
of two independent appraisals, along with relocation costs.
The use of eminent domain is unpleasant at best, even when it serves indisputable public interests. But it is an important
tool that governments must have.
The limits Proposition 99 would place on eminent domain are useful. The scorched-earth solutions of Proposition 98 --
and its hidden agendas -- are not. Vote "no" on Proposition 98, and "yes" on Proposition 99 on June 3.
Tell us what you think. Comment on this editorial by going to http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion, then click on the editorial.
Bakersfield California 5/9/08
http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/editorials/story/439552.html
No on Prop. 98, Yes on 99
The Bakersfield Californian | Thursday, May 8 2008 6:37 PM
Envision Bakersfield's long-anticipated downtown linear park, South Mill Creek, finally at completion -- except for a few
spotty storefronts interrupting the scenic walking path every quarter-mile or so.
Imagine the long-awaited City Walk project, just south of Bakersfield's Rabobank Arena, finally coming to fruition -- except
for the abandoned-looking warehouse situated squarely in the center.
Those are glimpses of city redevelopment in a post-Proposition 98 California.
Prop. 98, on the June 3 ballot, would severely restrict local governments' ability to acquire private property through the
power of eminent domain. Government would still be able to use its constitutionally mandated right to acquire property for
roads, parks, schools and certain other public uses, but government would generally lose the power to condemn private
property if the land is to ultimately end up in the hands of another private owner.
The impetus for the initiative is the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision against Susette Kelo, a Connecticut woman who
tried to prevent the city of New London from seizing 15 occupied houses, including her own, for a private development.
She lost, leading to justifiable and widespread outrage.
Prop. 98 would ban transactions like that. But Prop. 98, as written, could also hamstring an assortment of laws that restrict
land use or protect air and water resources.
Prop. 98 would unquestionably lead to an avalanche of lawsuits involving government, developers and landowners, with
taxpayers signing the checks. Opponents -- who include Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Gov. Pete Wilson and Sen.
Dianne Feinstein -- fear it could also stall state water projects and limit public access to the coastline.
Oddly, Prop. 98 also ends rent-control law across the state. That fight is not relevant in Kern County, where rent control is
not an issue, but it would seem more appropriate and logical for opponents of rent control (landlord associations in the
case of Prop. 98) to draw up a separate initiative addressing that issue exclusively.
Restriction of eminent domain is a subject best addressed by the state Legislature, which can study, develop, debate and
refine property-condemnation laws that are fair to both property owners (because, yes, eminent domain has been abused
by a few cities) and taxpayers (who are generally well-served by government-facilitated development, including blight-
eradication efforts).
www.no98yes99.com
In the absence of legislative initiative, however, there is Proposition 99, an alternative sponsored by the League of
California Cities. It, too, would bar governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence in
order to transfer it to another private party. But it allows reasonable exceptions.
Prop. 99 also has a poison-pill provision that, assuming both propositions pass, nullifies Prop. 98 if it gets fewer votes
than Prop. 99. Prop. 98 sponsors consider the provision underhanded, but the fact is, it spares a judge the chore of
deciding how to combine the two into a single, comprehensible law.
We urge voters to reject Prop. 98 and approve Prop. 99.
Pasadena Star News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Whittier Daily News 5/7/08
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/rds_search/ci_9174694?IADID=Search-www.pasadenastarnews.com-
www.pasadenastarnews.com
http://www.sgvtribune.com/rds_search/ci_9174694?IADID=Search-www.sgvtribune.com-www.sgvtribune.com
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/rds_search/ci_9174694?IADID=Search-www.whittierdailynews.com-
www.whittierdailynews.com&IADID=Search-www.whittierdailynews.com-www.whittierdailynews.com
No on 98 and on 99
IT'S sad that we've come to the point at which any initiative sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association,
which saved California property owners' bacon through Proposition 13, has to be viewed with automatic suspicion by
voters today.
Sad, but true. Jarvis himself, of course, is long gone. And those who carry on in his name often ally themselves with fringe
causes as well as being expert at putting forward proposals that look good in their titles but are deceptive in their intent.
Leninism probably sounded pretty good to a serf under the czars. But the new fanaticism of the Bolsheviks themselves,
and a Lenin morphing into a Stalin, defined the concept of taking an interesting idea too far.
Now comes the Jarvis Association-sponsored Proposition 98 on the June 3 ballot, which pretends to be about reining in
supposedly rampant eminent-domain takings by government, and is really about eliminating rent control throughout the
state.
Rent control, as it happens, is a mostly terrible idea that often works in ways opposite to its intent.
It discourages the construction of new housing. It encourages scofflaws who hold on in name to rental housing while
actually subletting it, sometimes for literally generations. Landlords stuck in such situations have no incentive to maintain
the exteriors of their properties. Crazy bureaucracies are created with arcane rules and appeals processes that would
make one of those Bolshevik apparatchiks blush.
But some California municipalities do have forms of rent control, usually much milder than in big cities on the East Coast.
Formerly exceptionally onerous versions, such as Santa Monica's, have been modified in the direction of fairness and
reality.
So while we are against rent control as pure economic theory, the fact is that many people in our own region who are
protected by it are very low-income seniors in mobile-home parks and other such enclaves. They also currently have legal
protections against unfair deposit policies and short notices of eviction.
But Proposition 98 claims to be about eminent domain and the supposed problem of unfair government taking of property,
not rent control.
If we are to have a statewide debate on rent control, let's have it out in the open without such deceptive nomenclature.
While eminent domain, which certainly can be unfairly used by government, simply hasn't been a major problem in
California in recent memory. It always sounds like a problem, of course, when described in terms such as "seizing family
farms," and thus the backers of 98 hope to deceptively appeal to voters.
An amazing coalition of moderates and liberals throughout the state have come together to oppose this extremist
proposal. From former Gov. Pete Wilson to current Gov. Arnold Schwarzenneger, from Sen. Dianne Feinstein to the
Sierra Club to the Metropolitan Water District, the forces of reason in the Golden State are against Proposition 98.
www.no98yes99.com
So are we. We recommend a "no" vote on Proposition 98 June 3.
But we also recommend a "no" vote on Proposition 99, set up by 98 opponents as a kind of poison pill to the former
proposal.
It also offers up some rather milquetoast objections to eminent domain - the nuts and bolts of which are already part of
California law and practical policy. We're against passing such laws where they are not needed.
The best part of Proposition 99 is that its passage would nullify Proposition 98. We would rather see voters do that in the
appropriate way by giving 98 the thumbs-down June 3.
Vacaville Reporter 5/7/08
http://www.thereporter.com/editorials/ci_9180223
Dueling propositions: No on 98; yes on 99
Article Launched: 05/07/2008 05:54:53 AM PDT
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court broadly interpreted the power of eminent domain, there have been attempts at the
ballot box and in the Legislature to adjust the state's laws. This June, voters face two more proposals: Proposition 98,
which goes way too far, and Proposition 99, which may not go far enough.
Eminent domain is the ability of government to take private property for "public benefit." Usually that means for roads,
schools, utilities or parks. Of course, the government must reimburse the owner for the value of the property and provide
relocation assistance.
In 2005, the Supreme Court overly broadened the definition of "public benefit" to include economic benefit. In Kelo v. New
London, Conn., the court said the government could take private property - specifically, Susette Kelo's Victorian home -
and give it to another private owner, in this case a developer who wanted to build condominiums and an office on the
property.
It would be easy enough to change the state law to limit that interpretation in California, but so far, attempts in the
Legislature have failed. If the legislative proposals have been as vastly different as the competing ballot measures, it's no
wonder reform attempts have failed.
Proposition 98, which is supported by developers and mobile home park owners, does far more than limit the
government's ability to enact eminent domain. It limits the ability to threaten using it, a tactic that has been known to
prompt owners to make a voluntary deal.
The proposal would impose so many new restrictions that it could severely undermine planning and zoning regulations
throughout the state and open up endless lawsuits. Worse, the proposed measure would enact a statewide prohibition
against rent control in apartments and mobile home parks - laws that have little to do with eminent domain.
No wonder the No on 98 campaign has the backing of a broad coalition that includes the governor, the California
Chamber of Commerce, the California Building Industry, the California Labor Federation, the AARP, the League of
California Homeowners and the Sierra Club.
But not everyone opposed to Proposition 98 supports Proposition 99, which would limit the use of eminent domain to
situations such as that of Ms. Kelo. In other words, government could not take the home of an owner and turn it over to
someone else for private use or development. But Proposition 99 does nothing to protect apartments or churches or
private businesses or homes that an owner has lived in for less than a year.
Some protection may be better than none at all, and Proposition 99 would leave open the possibility of further reform
efforts down the road. So when voter go to the polls on June 3, they could comfortably vote in favor of Proposition 99. But
they should decidedly vote no on Proposition 98.
North County Times 5/11/08
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/05/10/opinion/editorials/zea9e621f535bd8538825744300641471.txt
www.no98yes99.com
EDITORIAL: Vote 'no' on Props. 98, 99
By The North County Times Opinion staff | Saturday, May 10, 2008 5:07 PM PDT ∞
We urge voters to vote against both eminent-domain propositions on their mail or poll booth ballots for the June election.
Both propositions (numbered 98 and 99) were crafted to limit government power to take property from unwilling sellers
under a process called eminent domain.
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling broadening government's eminent domain power. In response to the
court decision, more than 40 states have acted to restrict that power.
Neither of the competing June propositions does the job for California, although parts of Prop. 98 make it closer to being a
fix than Prop. 99.
Prop. 99 has been supported by numerous groups and some governmental agencies, including local cities. No surprise
there, for it makes little change in the status quo. The language used is soothing, reassuring and vague enough to
convince some voters it does something.
It does not.
Instead, Prop. 99 leaves intact the government's right to take property, even homes, for a variety of reasons. Those
include so-called blighted areas ---- with "blight" loosely defined, and often defined by the government involved.
The other proposition, Prop. 98, does contain language that would actually improve the current situation. It would place
more constraints on government use of eminent domain. It tightens the gap the Supreme Court ruling opened. Prop. 98
improves the compensation process for the property owner.
But Prop. 98 also tackles a new, separate topic: rent control, which the proposition would phase out.
Rent control should be dealt with directly and on its own, even though it, too, deals with property rights. Nonetheless, this
issue should be left in the hands of local government and not the state or a statewide referendum.
Thus, both propositions are clumsy, flawed attempts to amend the California Constitution's eminent domain provisions.
Vote "no" on Props. 98 and 99.
Additional reading:
REGION: Dueling propositions target eminent domain
'Yes' on Proposition 98
'Yes' on Proposition 99
Woodland Daily Democrat 5/9/08
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/opinion/ci_9205822
Prop. 99 deserves our votes; while Prop. 98 does not

At Issue: Dueling propositions on using eminent domain.
Our Opinion: Proposition 98 goes way too far while Prop. 99 doesn't do enough - but can be changed.
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court broadly interpreted the power of eminent domain, there have been attempts at the
ballot box and in the Legislature to adjust the state's laws. This June, voters face two more proposals: Proposition 98,
which goes way too far, and Proposition 99, which may not go far enough.
www.no98yes99.com
Eminent domain is the ability of government to take private property for "public benefit." Usually that means for roads,
schools, utilities or parks. Of course, the government must reimburse the owner for the value of the property and provide
relocation assistance.
In 2005, the Supreme Court overly broadened the definition of "public benefit" to include economic benefit. In Kelo v. New
London, Conn., the court said the government could take private property - specifically, Susette Kelo's Victorian home -
and give it to another private owner, in this case a developer who wanted to build condominiums and an office on the
property.
It would be easy enough to change the state law to limit that interpretation in California, but so far, attempts
in the Legislature have failed.
Proposition 98, which is supported by developers and mobile home park owners, does far more than limit the
government's ability to enact eminent domain. It limits the ability to threaten using it, a tactic that has been known to
prompt owners to make a voluntary deal.
The proposal would impose so many new restrictions that it could severely undermine planning and zoning regulations
throughout the state and open up endless lawsuits. Worse, the proposed measure would enact a statewide prohibition
against rent control in apartments and mobile home parks - laws that have little to do with eminent domain.
No wonder the No on 98 campaign has the backing of a broad coalition that includes the governor, the California
Chamber of Commerce, the California Building Industry, the California Labor Federation, the AARP, the League of
California Homeowners and the Sierra Club.
But not everyone opposed to Proposition 98 supports Proposition 99, which would limit the use of eminent domain to
situations such as that of Ms. Kelo. In other words, government could not take the home of an owner and turn it over to
someone else for private use or development. But Proposition 99 does nothing to protect apartments or churches or
private businesses or homes that an owner has lived in for less than a year.
Some protection may be better than none at all, and Proposition 99 would leave open the possibility of further reform
efforts down the road. So when voter go to the polls on June 3, they could comfortably vote in favor of Proposition 99. But
they should decidedly vote no on Proposition 98.
San Luis Obispo Tribune 5/8/08
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/editorial/story/354126.html
Too many flaws in Props. 98, 99
Measures to curtail eminent domain raise red flags; leave it to Legislature.
After their string of 3-2 decisions on land-use issues, we’re glad to see that county supervisors are on the same page
when it comes to Proposition 98 — one of two eminent domain measures on the June 3 ballot.
All five supervisors voted Tuesday to oppose Proposition 98.
Good for them.
It speaks volumes when all five members of the board — conservative and liberal alike — take a united stand on
important public policy matters.
Proposition 98 ostensibly seeks to reform eminent domain law by prohibiting governments from taking private property for
private uses, such as shopping centers or industrial parks.
Sounds good on the surface. But because of its vague wording, Proposition 98 would create many more problems than it
solves. Officials predict that it would lead to endless and expensive litigation. They also fear that a prohibition on the
taking of land for “consumption of natural resources” would interfere with water projects, and they believe other provisions
in the measure could jeopardize programs such as inclusionary housing, which requires developers to include some
lower-cost homes in their projects.
Beyond those weaknesses, Proposition 98 is much too broad in scope.
In addition to its eminent domain restrictions, it prohibits new rent control laws and phases out existing rent control as
property changes hands.
www.no98yes99.com
Why lump the two issues together?
Are apartment owners and mobile-home park owners so desperate to undermine rent control that they have to prey on
public fears about eminent domain?
We agree that it’s time to reform the state’s eminent domain regulations to better protect private property owners.
However, we’re not convinced that the initiative process is the best way to go about achieving the necessary reforms.
For that reason, we cannot support Proposition 99 either.
That measure would limit government seizures of owner-occupied homes, but it has too many loopholes. For example, it
would apply only to homeowners who have occupied their homes for a year or more. Also, apartments would not be
included.
While it would not have the same dire consequences as Proposition 98, we don’t think voters should settle for a flawed,
ineffective measure.
It makes far much more sense to demand that our state legislators do their jobs and pass meaningful reform of our
eminent domain laws.
We urge a “no” vote on both Propositions 98 and 99.
Visalia Times-Delta/Tulare Advance-Register 5/8/08
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/OPINION01/805080311
Vote no on both state ballot measures

Many California voters have adopted a simple strategy for make their selection about propositions: Just say no.
The longer California's fractured system of non-governance continues to throw complicated and technical issues at voters
in the form of propositions, the more likely we are to adopt that strategy.
The offerings on the June 3 primary ballot are a classic example.
Both Proposition 98 and Proposition 99 offer reform for the practice of using eminent domain by governments to take
property for public use.
But each also contains ulterior motives over which their supporters continue to bicker, especially over a provision in
Proposition 98 to eliminate or modify rent control.
On top of that, Proposition 99 contains a so-called "poison pill" that would nullify 98 if it were adopted.
The bottom line is that both of these measures are convoluted and misleading. Voters ought to reject both of them.
And then they should demand that our lawmakers start doing the job they were sent to Sacramento for.
These issues ought to be addressed by the Legislature and not presented directly to voters.
We will not dispute that eminent domain is due for reform, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New
London decision, made it appear that government has the right to take private property not only to meet a pressing public
need, such as a road or public building, but to provide an economic benefit to the community.
In our own community, the exercise of eminent domain has produced some controversial issues and raised questions of
fair market value.
The exercise of eminent domain is largely a local function. Restrictions on it could result in loss of local control. There are
some cases where eminent domain is an important tool for the public good.
Without it, private property owners hold government over a barrel and could paralyze needed public action forever.
www.no98yes99.com
Abuses in eminent domain usually occur in how things are interpreted: One person's idea of "just compensation," for
instance, might not be the same as another's. Current law entitles property owners to have those kinds of disputes settled
by a jury.
Eminent domain might need some fine-tuning. It does not need to be so restricted as these two ballot measures propose.
If there are abuses in eminent domain, settle those cases; don't tie government's hands.
Even if we agreed with full-scale overhaul of eminent domain, these measures go beyond that.
Proposition 98 is using this occasion to end rent control in California. About a dozen California cities, including many of
the largest ones, have some form of rent control for apartments. About 100 cities and counties have laws limiting mobile
home park rent. Proposition 98 would end rent control in all cases after the current tenant has moved.
This isn't even necessary: Current law allows landlords to reset rents to reflect market value when a lease expires.
There are good reasons for having rent control in some cases, especially in mobile home parks, where tenants own their
mobile homes but not the property they sit on. If rent control needs reform, let's do that through the Legislature.
Regardless, ballot measures ought to stick to one issue.
As constitutional amendments, both these provisions will be nearly impossible to reform if adopted.
This is a classic case of issues that ought to be taken up by our state Legislature and not left for voters to decide amid a
confusing barrage of media ads.
When our Legislature refuses to take up serious issues, however, this is what we will get: Badly crafted measures made
by special interests.
Until that tendency changes in California, voters ought to take the simplest approach: Just say no.
Lompoc Record 5/12/08
http://www.lompocrecord.com/articles/2008/05/12/opinion/051208a.txt
No on Prop. 98, yes on Prop. 99
The day after Mother's Day seems an appropriate time to discuss the mother of all proposition face-offs on the June 3
statewide ballot.
We bring this up so early in the process because mail-in ballots are already in the hands of thousands of county voters.
And these competing initiatives provide a classic demonstration of what's right and what's wrong with the initiative
process.
We'll hit the bottom line first. We believe you should solidly support Proposition 99, but soundly defeat Proposition 98. It's
confusing, but we'll do our best to explain why we make these recommendations.
Part of the confusion has to do with the fact that California has a rich history of ballot initiatives, so rich, in fact, that it is
forced to recycle some of the proposition numbers. Prop. 98, for example, in a past incarnation was all about school
funding.
The one you'll see on the June 3 ballot purports to be about eminent domain - but really is about giving mobile-home-park
owners the power to rid themselves of rent controls.
The eminent-domain aspect of Prop. 98 seems to make sense - greatly limiting the power of local government to seize
private property - but the tradeoff of stripping away rent controls has the potential to do irreparable harm to the state and
its middle- and low-income residents.
So, if you don't closely inspect Prop. 98's fine print, you might vote in favor of limiting government's power to take
property, but at the same time essentially kick tens of thousands of Californians out of their homes.
www.no98yes99.com
If Prop. 98 should win voter approval, any rent-control laws enacted after Jan. 1 of last year would be wiped out. The older
rent-control rules would be phased out gradually, but the overall result would be just as painful.
And before marking your ballot, it would be wise to consider the major source of funding behind Prop. 98 - mobile-home-
park owners. Proponents of 98 have raised about $4.5 million for their campaign, and nearly 75 percent of that money
came from mobile-home-park owners.
Mobile homes may not be the prettiest houses on the block, but they provide a crucial segment of affordable housing
throughout the Central Coast, especially for seniors. Many park residents benefit from rent control, and have for years.
The impacts of this law on these folks - and probably on the local economy as well - likely would be devastating.
Prop. 99 was created as the anti-Prop. 98 measure, and is supported by both government and private-property-rights
activists. It would limit the power of governments to seize property through eminent domain, in a common-sense way, but
is not nearly as Draconian as Prop. 98 - and, it doesn't mess with the mobile-home rent controls.
There is no hidden agenda in 99, as there is in 98.
The differences between the propositions could not be more well-defined, but that doesn't automatically doom the lesser
of the two proposals. These are the only statewide initiatives on this ballot, and this is the second of three statewide
elections this year.
When ballots are this bare, and part of a string of elections, voters tend to stay away in droves. A small turnout puts more
emphasis on the campaign with the deepest pockets. Polls show voters don't like Prop. 98, and do favor Prop. 99. But you
don't want to leave this to chance.
Our best advice is to not be fooled by Prop. 98's claim to reign in greedy government, because that comes at the expense
of a significant number of middle- and low-income Californians.
We recommend a “no” vote on Proposition 98, and a “yes” vote on Proposition 99.
San Francisco Bay Guardian 4/30/08
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=6247&volume_id=317&issue_id=376&volume_num=40&issue_num=31&
l=1
Endorsements
NO, NO, NO
Proposition 99
Eminent domain reforms
YES, YES, YES

There's a little rhyme to help you remember which way to vote on this critical pair of ballot measures:
"We hate 98, but 99 is fine."
The issue here is eminent domain, which is making its perennial ballot appearance. Californians don't like the idea of the
government seizing their property and handing it over to private developers, and the most conservative right-wing forces
in the state are trying to take advantage of that.
Think about this: if Prop. 98 passes, there will be no more rent control in California. That means thousands of San
Francisco tenants will lose their homes. Many could become homeless. Others will have to leave town. All the unlawful-
evictions laws will be tossed out. So will virtually any land-use regulations, which is why all the environmental groups also
oppose Prop. 98.
In fact, everyone except the Howard Jarvis anti-tax group hates this measure, including seniors, farmers, water districts,
unions, and — believe it or not — the California Chamber of Commerce.
www.no98yes99.com
Prop. 99, on the other hand, is an unapologetic poison-pill measure that's been put on the ballot for two reasons: to fix the
eminent domain law once and for all, and kill Prop. 98 if it passes. It's simply worded and goes to the heart of the problem
by preventing government agencies from seizing residential property to turn over to private developers. If it passes, the
state will finally get beyond the bad guys using the cloak of eminent domain to destroy all the provisions protecting people
and the environment.
If anyone has any doubts about the motivation here, take a look at the money: the $3 million to support Prop. 98 came
almost entirely from landlords.
This is the single most important issue on the ballot. Remember: no on 98, yes on 99.
www.no98yes99.com

InCaseYouMissetLAT FB BC PSN SBS

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

InCaseYouMissetLAT FB BC PSN SBS

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: KATHY FAIRBANKS

May 12, 2008 (916) 443.0872

In Case You Missed It…

Los Angeles Times, Fresno Bee, Bakersfield Californian, Pasadena

Bakersfield Californian: “No on Prop. 98, Yes on 99” May 9, 2008

Vacaville Reporter: “No on 98” May 7, 2008

May 12, 2008

Fresno Bee 5/11/08

Vote no on Proposition 98, yes on 99

Bakersfield California 5/9/08

No on Prop. 98, Yes on 99

The Bakersfield Californian | Thursday, May 8 2008 6:37 PM

Those are glimpses of city redevelopment in a post-Proposition 98 California.

We urge voters to reject Prop. 98 and approve Prop. 99.

Vacaville Reporter 5/7/08

Dueling propositions: No on 98; yes on 99

Article Launched: 05/07/2008 05:54:53 AM PDT

North County Times 5/11/08

Vote "no" on Props. 98 and 99.

REGION: Dueling propositions target eminent domain

Woodland Daily Democrat 5/9/08

Prop. 99 deserves our votes; while Prop. 98 does not

San Luis Obispo Tribune 5/8/08

Too many flaws in Props. 98, 99

Measures to curtail eminent domain raise red flags; leave it to Legislature.

All five supervisors voted Tuesday to oppose Proposition 98.

Good for them.

Beyond those weaknesses, Proposition 98 is much too broad in scope.

For that reason, we cannot support Proposition 99 either.

We urge a “no” vote on both Propositions 98 and 99.

Visalia Times-Delta/Tulare Advance-Register 5/8/08

Vote no on both state ballot measures

The offerings on the June 3 primary ballot are a classic example.

Regardless, ballot measures ought to stick to one issue.

Lompoc Record 5/12/08

No on Prop. 98, yes on Prop. 99

There is no hidden agenda in 99, as there is in 98.

San Francisco Bay Guardian 4/30/08

YES, YES, YES

Você também pode gostar