At first glance Proposition 90, the “Taxpayer Trap,” seems to be a safeguard against the abuse of the government”s unpopular powers of eminent domain, and thus a measure meriting consideration and perhaps an approving vote. But a closer look tells quite a different story. If this underhanded initiative (which has been put forward by well-funded, well-organized groups outside the State of California) is adopted, it will make it impossible for local communities to guide our own destiny and protect the environment 9 all in the name of “Saving Our Homes.” Passage would be a catastrophe for farmers, for seniors, for smart growth management: in fact, for everything we cherish in Lake County.
This measure is being promoted as a way to protect individuals and small businesses from having their property condemned to facilitate commercial development, under the pretext that the Supreme Court”s Kelo decision approving the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment purposes has opened the floodgates to such actions. But a less prominent provision of Proposition 90 also incorporates language changing the California Constitution to categorize environmental, land use and housing laws and regulations affecting private property as a “taking,” and to require that the property owner be compensated accordingly.
For example, if a city or county wants to protect water quality by keeping development out of wetland areas it could be forced to compensate the developer for the value of the property as if it could be developed. A county or municipality attempting to shelter tenants from unreasonable rent increases could only do so by forcing the taxpayers to pick up the difference between controlled rent and anything a landlord might choose to charge. If a developer applies to put 200 houses on a site, but local government will only allow 50, the developer could demand payment for what the land value would have been if the other 150 units could be built. If the Coastal Commission requires that an eight-story hotel be reduced to four stories to protect ocean views, it would have to pay compensation for the four unbuilt floors. The chilling effect of this measure on local control of development cannot be understated, and neither can its potential for generating lawsuits and transferring money from cities and counties to the pockets of canny outside investors.
The State of Oregon passed a very similar law (“Measure 37″) two years ago, and now faces potentially ruinous financial consequences: with an economy only one-seventh the size of California”s, $5 billion worth of claims against the state are pending or already paid, indicating that Proposition 90 could easily cost our state 37 billion dollars within the first few years of its enactment.
The scariest part is that early polls have indicated an 80 percent favorable response to the measure, which is being marketed as a way to keep Big Brother from grabbing your home to build a WalMart 9 so it”s extremely important that everyone who cares about California communities and environment be made aware of the threat it poses. It”s also important that we all pull together, as Napa County voters did last June when they resoundingly defeated a local initiative with similar provisions (“Measure A”).
Fortunately opponents to Proposition 90 have been joining forces over the past several months; aside from environmental organizations, the growing list now includes the League of Women Voters, the Farm Bureau and Police and Fire Chief Associations. All these diverse groups (and many many more) have at least one thing in common: they recognize Proposition 90 as the Taxpayer Trap it really is, and are determined to save California from its catastrophic consequences.
For more information from a Lake County perspective and links to the statewide No-On-90 campaign, visit www.lakelive.org/noprop90/ or give me a call at 994-1931.
Editor”s Note: Victoria Brandon chairs the Sierra Club Lake Group.
