New Independent Legal Analysis of California's Prop. 99 Exposes Fatal Flaws

Purported Homeowner Protections Easily Circumvented & Redevelopment Zones
Exempt

SACRAMENTO, Calif., April 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, proponents of
Proposition 98 announced new evidence that a competing eminent domain ballot
measure, Proposition 99, will do next to nothing to protect homeowners from
eminent domain abuse. Proposition 99 includes a major loophole that will allow
public agencies to continue to forcibly seize owner occupied homes for the
benefit of wealthy and politically connected developers even if the measure
wins voter approval.
According to the Institute for Justice (IJ), an independent non-profit
organization that represented Susette Kelo before the U.S. Supreme Court,
public agencies could circumvent Prop. 99's purported homeowner protections by
merely rezoning residential neighborhoods for business use.
IJ's independent analysis states: " ... Prop 99 only applies to
owner-occupied residences when the government's 'purpose' is to convey
property to another private party, so it is unclear if Prop 99 would protect
any property. Government can always claim that its purpose is something else.
For example, under the Prop 99 'purpose' test, a government could change the
zoning of an area -- from residential to commercial, for example -- and then,
with the alleged purpose of making the properties in the area meet the new
zoning requirements, use eminent domain to transfer homes to private
developers. Courts give great deference to a government's claim of purpose, so
Prop 99 would be of little use to homeowners whose cities are determined to
take their properties.
Prop 99 will do little to prevent eminent domain abuse in California --
and this flaw is fatal."
"Prop. 99 will not stop the City of Vista from giving my home of 10 years
to a developer," said Jerome Hymes, a Northern San Diego County homeowner
threatened by eminent domain. "Prop. 99's loopholes explain why the city is
not concerned with whether or not voters approve this fatally flawed ballot
measure. Prop. 99 does not protect my home."
The City of Vista has instituted an ambitious redevelopment plan spanning
over 2000 acres, threatening hundreds of small businesses and homeowners.
In addition to rezoning, Prop. 99 includes several other loopholes within
its exemption clauses, that do not apply purported protections to all
California homes, its failure to reform overly broad blight designations that
allow any modest home or productive business to be seized by eminent domain,
allowing private to private takings by preserving the Kelo definition of what
is a legitimate "public use," and its failure to define its health and safety,
and so called emergency exemptions.
Since the purported purpose of redevelopment zones are to stimulate
economic development by replacing existing properties with business and retail
tenants, it is reasonable to conclude that Prop. 99's purported homeowner
protections will not apply to any residential neighborhood within a
redevelopment area rezoned for business purposes. According to the Municipal
Officials for Redevelopment Reform (MORR), "Fully 30% of all urbanized land in
California has now been declared blighted."
Given how fatally flawed the measure is, it is not surprising that the
State's independent Legislative Analyst has said that Prop. 99 "is not likely
to significantly alter current government land acquisition practices."
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau
Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights are
the sponsors of Proposition 98. Prop. 98 is the only measure appearing on the
June ballot that protects all private property from private to private
takings, while allowing traditional uses of eminent domain for roads, schools
and water projects. The measure is endorsed by NFIB, the Hispanic Chambers of
Commerce and a diverse coalition of taxpayer, faith and good government
organizations. For more information on Prop. 98, visit
http://www.yesprop98.com.
SOURCE Yes on Prop. 98 - Californians for Property Rights Protection

Marko Mlikotin of Yes on Prop. 98 - Californians for Property Rights
Protection, +1-916-444-8781; or Steven Anderson of The Institute for Justice,
+1-703-682-9320, for Yes on Prop. 98 - Californians for Property Rights
Protection