Town Square

Post a New Topic


Original post made on May 30, 2008

There are only two initiatives on the statewide June primary ballot. Both are constitutional amendments that restrict the power of eminent domain--the ability of governments to take private property for a public purpose in return for fair compensation. Proposition 98, sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, prohibits state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property for private uses and prohibits rent control as well. The latter provision would override local rent control ordinances, including controls on rents in mobile home parks in dozens of California cities, including Pleasanton. It might also eliminate the type of inclusionary affordable housing provisions that have been used in Pleasanton to require developers to build some affordable units along with high-priced homes. The land use/eminent domain restrictions attempt to accomplish what a similar initiative, Proposition 90, proposed, which the voters rejected in 2006.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, May 30, 2008, 12:00 AM

Comments (3)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mary
a resident of Downtown
on May 30, 2008 at 10:30 am

I would suggest that you vote No on 98 and No on 99. 99 really does not do anything and is really part of the No on 98 campaign. It is a sham. We should vote both of these down and have the legislature enact legislation that truly addresses the problems of eminant domain.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 30, 2008 at 11:39 am

I'm with Mary. No on both. 98 is deceptive and 99 doesn't provide enough protection.

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 30, 2008 at 11:45 am

What I get a kick out of is that renters are against Prop 98 and for Prop 99. But in truth they should be against both since Prop 99 only protects owner-occupied homes. The renters could be out on the streets if either passes. All the seniors in the mobile home parks who tell us to vote no on 98 and yes on 99 will have to find somewhere else to live if a government entity decides to confiscate their mobile home park for "redevelopment".

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Skin cancer rates soaring as Baby Boomers age
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 508 views

Taking SAT Subject Tests: Greater Flexibility or More Murkiness
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 438 views

Internet, Über alles?
By Tom Cushing | 6 comments | 409 views