Jan 17, 2008

By Michael Gardner COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
January 17, 2008
SACRAMENTO - Voters will be called on to settle a duel over government's authority to seize private property.

A proposed constitutional amendment to limit the ability of cities and other local agencies to use eminent domain powers to take homes and businesses has qualified for the June ballot.

A counter-initiative primarily sponsored by cities also is expected to qualify within the next few days and would appear on the same ballot. That measure, also a constitutional amendment, calls for restricting eminent domain as well, but would give more leeway to local governments than the competing measure.

"Finally, Californians will have the opportunity to vote for real reforms that protect their homes, small businesses, family farms and places of worship," said former Rep. Doug Ose, R-Sacramento, a leading supporter of the just-qualified measure that is opposed by cities.

However, voters rejected a similar initiative to constrain local governments in 2006, 52 percent to 48 percent.

Recognizing public discontent despite the win at the ballot box, local governments and allies initially sponsored legislation that would have imposed some restrictions. However, Republican lawmakers demanding tougher standards held fast and were able to block passage since a two-thirds vote is necessary before lawmakers can place a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

As the two initiatives move ahead, the League of California Cities is considering a move to try to convince voters that a constitutional amendment isn't needed. The organization may seek basic legislation to tighten eminent domain rules, rather than a constitutional amendment. A statute needs only a simple majority vote to move to the governor's desk.

League President Jim Madaffer, a San Diego city councilman and a backer of the cities' counter-initiative, said he supports that approach. He said the legislation could give more protection against eminent domain to small businesses, owner-occupied duplexes and churches - thus weakening the argument for a more restrictive ballot measure.

Ose called the potential legislation "an end-run around real reform."

"The reason for the constitutional amendment route is that way you can't just come in and revoke these rights by statute," Ose said.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposed the 2006 ballot measure, but has not taken a position on the new proposals.

The newly qualified measure would bar government from seizing property of unwilling sellers just to turn it over to another commercial enterprise. But, it does allow local agencies to take land for some public purposes, such as roads and schools.  

Madaffer claims the measure would weaken rent-control ordinances and make it easier to evict tenants, including those on fixed incomes and the elderly, because it includes language that strengthens the rights of property owners.

That initiative is endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Farm Bureau, and some apartment and mobile-home park owners.

California has been debating changes in eminent domain rules since June 2005 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New London, upheld the Connecticut city's right to evict the Kelo family to make way for a commercial development. The vote was 5-4.