Propositions 98 and 99
So, there are two propositions on this mid-year ballot that happens on June 3rd. The first, Proposition 98, is summarized as
Bars state and local governments from taking or damaging private property for private uses. Prohibits rent control and similar measures. Eliminates deference to government in property rights cases. Changes condemnation rules.
This particular proposition is typical of the political way many laws are written: offer something good, tag along something bad, and inflate the bad issue so that people forget about the good.
The good part of this one is the "bars state and local governments from taking or damaging private property for private uses." The particular case this addresses is the continuing seizure of private, typically residential, property to build private, typically commercial, enterprises. East Palo Alto is a prime example of this type of behaviour with the properties around 101 and University. Other examples include parts of Los Angeles where run down, condemned buildings on Hollywood Blvd, or Colorado Blvd. in Pasadena, are seized from the owners because they "look bad" or aren't being revitalized enough to sufficiently satisfy neighbors who are gentrifying the neighborhood.
No one wants his property taken by the government without just compensation. Emotional compensation is, of course, much harder to quantify, and where the difficulty lies in this issue. Few would argue that a blight should be removed for the benefit of the whole, but no one wants that his blight (it's not so bad!) taken.
Now, this issue is paired with the removal of the government's right to introduce and maintain rent control, a policy that enabled local areas to keep lower skilled, lower paid people who can take the bottom jobs most people don't want. If you have a job that pays $8/hour, you can't afford those $1900/month apartments for your family. You can't, you just can't without cramming too many people into too small of a place (which we did experience when we lived in the hood, above a single bedroom apartment which housed 8 taxi cab drivers).
People who prefer rent control removed are those who own the properties and want to charge more rent. The purpose of owning a building certainly isn't to lose money by providing housing to unknown persons, and rent control does limit the cash flow for a building, and hence the ability and willingness of the owner to make improvements.
Being a property owner myself, I can say that I'm in the minority when I rent out my place to cover my expenses and not gouge my tenants for every penny I can get. I benefit I receive is that my tenant is more likely (and, thus far has been) to take care of the place. My costs are still covered, I don't have to spent lots of time and money dealing with the tiny, annoying things wrong with the place. If the sink is clogged, the tenant is willing to deal with it himself, as he knows if I have to, his rent is going up.
Most people in this area who benefit from the rent control in the City are in favor of rent control, and in limiting government seizure reach. So, which way do you vote on this one? Yes, then you remove rent control. No, then you think it's okay for the government is fine in seizing private property.
I hate laws written this way, especially those with very specific riders on them, of which this isn't one of them, but many federal laws are.
I think Proposition 100 should be one that states all laws must be focused. Better words, but general idea.
Proposition 99 is summarized as
Bars use of eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence for conveyance to a private person or business entity. Creates exceptions for public works, public health and safety, and crime prevention.
Wow, does this sound good? Can't seize your house, the one you're living in. Great!
Except that the government can still seize your rental properties.
Or your house for "crime prevention."
Crime prevention. That's very, very vague.
We're seizing your house because we think you might be doing something illegal. With the laws today, as complicated as they are, it doesn't matter who you are, there's most likely something in your house that's illegal, intentional or not. By seizing your house, we're preventing you from doing that illegal thing. It's an allowed exception, don't you know.
Basically, this proposition is worthless. It doesn't change anything, allowing the government to still take your house by eminent domain, and give it to someone else to build a half-way house, or a retirement house, or HEY! a shopping mall. Yes, a shopping mall is considered a public use project promoting downtown redevelopment.
What's the point of these propositions again?