Our View: Rare Opportunity

There are twin Propositions, 98 and 99, on our June 3 ballots. Each is entitled “Eminent Domain,” a topic that has been of considerable local concern in siting a new hospital. Here’s what we had to say on the subject more than two years ago:
“Eminent domain – government taking private property – has been practiced for centuries. Its frequent use under King George III so irked the American colonists that our own Constitution includes in the Bill of Rights (the Fifth Amendment) important limits on its use: ‘… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.’
“In our enlightened times, unfortunately, that restraint is being increasingly breached. We now find examples around the U.S. of cities taking private property not for public use, but for private use deemed more valuable. That is, private use that will generate more tax revenue to the local jurisdiction. From Atlantic City tearing down homes so Donald Trump can have more parking next to his casino, to Maplewood, Missouri, tearing down homes so Wal-Mart can build a new store, to Long Branch, New Jersey, and New London, Connecticut, tearing down homes so developers can put in condominiums – these takings represent a raw use of government power that surely should be illegal.
“Nay, says the Supreme Court these days, finding in several cases that cities do have that right. Truly a scary scenario, one that should concern citizens of all political leanings, demonstrating the provincial arrogance of city officials in their lust to fulfill their own visions of how their neighbors ought to live. “
Whenever we voters can rein in government power, that’s a good thing. And thanks to the initiative process in California, 98 and 99 are before us, purporting to do just that. Some people are suggesting that differences between the two measures make one worth voting for and the other not. But those arguments focus on concerns such as “water infrastructure projects, … land use planning” and other issues that neither we nor the California Legislative Analyst can divine from the actual text of the constitutional amendment proposed.
That’s not to say that unintended consequences can’t arise, particularly with initiative measures, but the attractiveness of these measures in that they intend to limit government action, not expand it. Their key difference is the prohibition in 98 against government control over rents charged by certain private property owners. That is also a “taking” and it occurs without compensation, just or otherwise.
We’re as sensitive as anyone to the difficult financial situation in which many folks living in trailer parks find themselves, especially if they were counting on equity in their mobile home. Rent control has distorted that housing market, badly. In the local saga surrounding Rancho de Sonoma, as an example, the property owner’s returns have been held down by government rent control, which diminishes the owner’s incentive to reinvest in the infrastructure of the facility in its present use, leading to its deterioration. Conversion to condominium ownership is the common path to solvency, but the prohibition of rent control, to be phased out under 98, would remove the perverse incentives. As readers know, we are always conscious of incentives, believing that most people will act in their own perceived self-interest.
If the government wants to subsidize “affordable” housing, and we think that is indeed a legitimate public interest, it should do so openly, by acquiring existing units or developing vacant land, and not by burdening certain property owners, forcing them to subsidize below-market rents. That way, as we’ve seen, lie problems.
Many pundits have noted that any democracy is doomed eventually to fail, once the majority realizes they can vote themselves benefits at the expense of the minority. By voting to limit the power of government to take private property, we would show that a majority can, instead, protect the minority’s rights.