Out of control: Vote no on 98
Proposition banks on uninterested voters
05/29/2008
Democracy is a wonderful thing, except when it’s not. If you rent a house or apartment, or if you care about the efficiency of state courts, you better hope it’s the former, because a possible constitutional amendment on the June 3 ballot could threaten your interests.
Despite the endless drone of electoral campaigns, anyone concerned about their economic security or California’s potential to thrive should note Proposition 98. If passed, the measure would amend the state’s constitution in a way that would open up a bonanza for wealthy landowners at tremendous cost to average citizens.
Couched in terms that seem benign enough, Proposition 98 seems like a stand for private property rights against the threat of bureaucratic excess. It attacks the practice of eminent domain, wherein state and local governments condemn and acquire property at cut-rates, often to transfer it to another private entity with revitalization plans or other goals intended for the public good. Eminent domain can be a method to attack urban blight and bring renewed energy with new, modern housing developments or other projects, but it can also have a gentrifying effect that threatens the character of existing neighborhoods.
However, eminent domain is simply a boogeyman used to stir up public antipathy toward the perceived excesses of social engineering. Proposition 98 is a textbook example of what is wrong with California’s initiative process. By writing the initiative as a constitutional amendment to be approved or rejected in the June primary, the measure’s backers are counting on the disinterest of voters fatigued by nonstop election news and the drone of school bond measures, state assembly fights and county supervisor’s races, races that appear far less sexy than a presidential battle of historic proportions. Less interest means fewer voters, and fewer voters mean a smaller pool of individuals deciding on the fate of all Californians.
Less interest also means less attention to the details, and that is tragic in the case of Proposition 98. Its authors have inserted language that, if the measure is approved, would ban rent control measures and other restrictions imposed by city, county and state governments on landlords. This puts renters in peril and that should matter in Ventura County.
While Thousand Oaks is the only community in Ventura County with some form of rent control, the measure also includes vague language about restrictions on property “in order to transfer an economic benefit” from a property owner to other private purposes. Such intentionally cloudy language means affordable housing initiatives, regulated mixed-use projects, assistance to students or elderly individuals, enforcement of deposit return provisions and many other protections can be at risk. In a county where housing prices are still ludicrous despite the economic downturn and wages are still outpaced by the cost of living, these sort of protections often mean the difference between economic survival and not.
The real problem, though, is that voters will be deciding on an amendment with language completely open to interpretation. Landlords will challenge anything they perceive as a transfer of economic benefits, dooming state and local governments to long, expensive legal entanglements with property owners. Anyone concerned about a sluggish, bogged down court system and runaway litigation should take note, this initiative promises years of both should it pass.
Just because we can vote, doesn’t mean we always should.
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT