RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
Marylee Shrider: Vote yes on 98 to protect private property
| Friday, May 9 2008 2:32 PM
Last Updated: Friday, May 9 2008 2:42 PM
In case you haven’t heard, there’s an election coming up, on June 3.
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:
Loading Stories
Advertisement
I only mention it because some folks tell me they were surprised this week to find sample ballots in their mail. And if the turnout Tuesday night at the Bakersfield Republican Assembly’s candidates forum is any indication, voter interest in this particular election is very low.
The forum featured the eight judicial candidates running for two Superior Court seats and the two men vying for the job of 4th District supervisor. The audience was sparse to begin with, but when it came time for the round-table discussion on eminent domain, of which I was a part, it had thinned out considerably. I think there were about 13 people, including the sound guy.
Not that I blame anyone for leaving. The issue of eminent domain, particularly in this election, is confusing. It can be boring, too, as dry as day-old toast.
Until it happens to you. Then it gets really interesting, really fast.
Which is why local folks should take a hard look at the only two propositions on the June ballot, both of which promise to offer private property protection and much-needed reforms of current eminent domain practices in California.
Proposition 98 delivers on that promise. Proposition 99 does nothing.
That’s not just me talking. Folks at the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state’s nonpartisan fiscal and policy adviser, found that Proposition 99 “would not change significantly current government land acquisition practices.”
Sure, it offers a teensy bit more protection for private homes, but what about farmland, small businesses and churches? Where is the protection for those? Why is one piece of private property more privately held than others?
Proposition 99 is bad news for California’s private property owners, who have clamored for some real measure of protection since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2005 that using eminent domain to seize private property to fork over to other private owners is constitutional.
Even so, that decision doesn’t trump states’ efforts to reform eminent domain statutes, which more than 40 have already done. California is three years behind in such efforts and will be even more so if Proposition 98 is defeated in June.
Proposition 98 will curb eminent domain abuse, but the measure’s most vocal opponents, groups like the League of California Cities, insist the measure will make it impossible to develop new water resources and toss hordes of low-income elderly from their homes by phasing out rent control.
Draconian? Sure, if it were true.
Kern County doesn’t do rent control, but other cities do. Proposition 98 would allow landlords in those cities to raise rates, as is their right as property owners, but only after said properties have been vacated. Nobody’s throwing anybody out on the street.
And the water? Eminent domain will continue to allow the government to take private property for roads, parks and public utilities like, for example, public water storage facilities and reservoirs. Some farm groups are caving in to the hype, but the California Farm Bureau Federation is backing the measure.
Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court made a very bad call. A year later, Californians voted down the chance to protect private property. Now we have a chance to set things right, to protect our property and that of our neighbors. Vote yes on 98 and no on 99 — before things get really interesting.
Marylee Shrider’s column appears Saturdays. Reach her at 395-7474 or mshrider@bakersfield.com.