Few Supreme Court rulings in recent years produced as much of a surprise backlash as the 2005 Kelo decision, in which a badly divided court upheld the right of government to seize private property, while compensating the owner, to clear the way for economic development.
This upheld more than 50 years of precedent. Most courts have long since accepted that seizing land in the name of a “public purpose” is no longer limited to such traditional projects as roads and schools.
But post-Kelo, a funny thing happened: Horror stories from homeowners and businesspeople describing how they had been driven out so their land could be given to politically connected developers struck a chord. Instead of eminent domain being seen as a prudent tool, it was seen as yet another exercise in mutual back-scratching between politicians and rich special interests.
This backlash is welcome, because the need for reform is plain. It's time to establish a middle ground – one that limits land speculation by governments but allows the sort of projects that have caused downtown to blossom.
Instead, the two eminent domain measures on Tuesday's ballot are gross disappointments. Proposition 98 would prevent even limited, thoughtful redevelopment while phasing out rent control. Also, its drafting flaws mean it is bound for a long court fight if adopted.
But loophole-ridden Proposition 99 – purported to protect homeowners – would result in no significant change in present practices, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office. This is unsurprising, given that the initiative was crafted by local governments, the main abusers of eminent domain.
So we urge No votes on both Propositions 98 and 99. Neither provides the common-sense reform California needs.
