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
Posted by Mary, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, 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.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, 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".