For the record, how we decided on 2008 props

CA props:

1A: High Speed Rail-- YES-- we want to be able to visit friends in LA for $55 and in only 2.5 hours! PASSED

2: Farm Animal Standards--YES, We've got a friend who has his own chickens and sheep and who lets them range around freely and the eggs the chicken give are just amazing. It makes me so happy to see them walking around like satisfied, contented creatures, and I can't imagine that there's anything good about even confining chickens as much as so-called "Free-range" chickens normally are. PASSED

3: Children's Hospital Bond-- NO This was tough, but one thing that I kept thinking was, as wonderful as it would be to fund research in children's ailments, emergency rooms and hospitals that erve adult are closing all over this state. I want better funding for ALL hospitals. (And I want universal health care, but that's a different issue.) PASSED

4: Waiting Period and Parental Consent for Minors seking and abortion-- NO NO NOYou can probably guess my feeling on this one. FAILED

5: Rehab for non-violent Drug Offenders--Yes. I'd just rather fund people to get help and get out of the prison system than just thrown them into the meat grinder. FAILED

6: Police and Law Enforcement Funding--NO This one was hard also, but I just didn't see that we need to fund more prisons. Plus I didn't understand how the money was going to be allocated. PASSED

7: Renewable Energy: NO, another tough one to get through, but the big sticking point for me was that it was placed on the ballot with no consulting of any environmental groups. PASSED

8: Ban Gay Marriage NO, for all the obvious reasons -- including that it violates the constitution in my opinion. PASSED

9: Victim's rights: NO--This one is funny. The local Bay Guardian notes that it was put on the ballot by "billionaire Broadcom Corp. cofounder Henry Nicholas, who has poured millions into the two campaigns. But a funny thing happened to Nicholas on the way to becoming California's poster boy for law and order. In June, he was indicted on numerous counts of securities fraud and drug violations (including spiking the drinks of technology executives with ecstasy and operating a "sex cave" staffed with prostitutes under his house). He insists he's innocent." PASSED

10: Alternative Fuel-- NO-- the general sense I've gotten is that while on first glance it looks good, it actually is designed to support natural gas industry over the development of any other serious non-fossil fuel options. FAILED

11: Redistricting. NO-- I always get shivers when they start talking about gerrymandering. This one puts an EQUAL number of democrats and republicans to be on the commission deciding district lines--expcept that there are more dems than republicans in this state, so that's not a representative breakdown for the commission. PASSED

12: Veteran' Bond: Yes. This one just extends a previous existing bond, and I feel like even though I think we should do other things for Vets like expand the GI bill, at least we can do this.... PASSED

And for San Francisco Props-- jeez, how many do we have to go through?? I must admit I think we were running out of steam at the end...

A: Bond for seismic upgrades for SF General Hospital: Yes-- gotta keep the hospital standing. PASSED

B: Affordable Housing Fund: Yes, it doesn't raise taxes and affordable housing is a serious issue here in SF. FAILED

C: Prohibit City employees from serving on Charter Boards and Commissions: No. This one would bar ANY city employees from ever sitting on commissions, not just managerial level. That seems unnecessary. FAILED

D: Finance Pier 70 waterfront District Development: Yes, this revives a really sadly run-down area of the city that could be a good site for urban development. PASSED

E: Change number of signatures required to recall a city official: Yes, this raises the number of sigs required for a recall (which I think is a dumb idea anyhow, but we're stuck with recalls) so at least it won't be as easy to have a recall. PASSED

F: Hold scheduled city elections on even numbered years: Yes, this makes the elections coincide with presidential elections and mid-term elections. We went back and forth on this one -- do silly ballot props or important mayoral elections get lost in the fray in presidential election years? Well, here we are reading through all these stupid propositions, so it's not true for us at least. And voter turnout is definitely better on even year elections. FAILED

G: Allow retirement system credit for unpaid parental leave: Yes, this doesn't cost a thing, it just qualifies employees to include parental leave time as a "credit" counting toward their retirement. They would be able to buy the credits, so it's not a burden on the system. PASSED

H: Clean energy act: YES, this puts the city on a schedule to changing over to renewable energy and it includes funding for a green job initiative, which is very cool. PG & E is funding the "No on H" campaign basically because they'd wind up out of business, unless they'd care to switch to providing clean energy. FAILED

I: Create the Office of Independent Rate Payer Advocate. No-- This one sets up an office that advises PG & E on rates, but embedded in H is essentially the same oversight, so since I voted yes on H, this one I said No on. FAILED

J: Creating a Historic Preservation Commission: Yes. This updates the composition of the office that oversees landmarking and preservation. It's been formulated by groups on either side, both developers and also preservationists, so it hasn't got any opposition. PASSED

K: Changing Enforcement of Prostitution and Sex Worker laws: Yes, Personally I believe that you shouldn't have laws you can't enforce even on the books, but this one at least downgrades the priority of enforcing the prostitution laws in SF. FAILED

L: Funding a Community Justice Center: No, I voted against this one just on principle. The CJC is already approved and funded. This prop only funds it at a slightly higher level and wound up ont he ballot basically as a political maneuver to get publicity. Whatever. FAILED

M: Changing Residential Rent Ordinance to prohibit tenant harassment by landlords: Yes. We voted this way because we have a landlady who totally harasses tenants. She's crazy of course, but it does happen. PASSED

N: Changing real property transfer tax rates: Yes. This only increases tax on properties sold in SF for over $5 million. PASSED

O: Replace Emergency Response fee with Access Line tax: YES. This one updates the definition of what a phone line is (which is now completely different from when the law was first written) and changes the classification of the fee that is used for 911 service. It doesn't cost anything extra, but helps keep the service up to date with emerging communication technology. PASSED

P: Change the SF Transportation Board makeup: NO The Board of Supes oversees the Muni right now and replacing the board with an appointed commission will have the net effect of leaving each neighborhood without a specific advocate for the transportation needs of their area. I like it staying int he hands of the supervisors, who are elected officials and therefore more accountable for what ahppens with Muni. FAILED

Q: Modify the Payroll Expense tax: Yes, this makes it so that "partnerships", such as law firms, which ordinarily are exempt from payroll tax, will have to treat their income as taxable. It does exempt small businesses that have a payroll under $250,000. PASSED

R: Rename the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant to George W. Bush Sewage Plant. No. Funny, but just a grandstanding move with no real point, and in my opinion makes us look like nutjobs. FAILED

S: Changing the Budget Set aside Policy: No Personally I wasn't really swayed one way or the other on this, so I voted No to keep the status quo. I see no reason to change policies on the budget earmarks. PASSED

T: Free and low-cost Substance Abuse programs: Yes. Call me a bleeding heart liberal, but I believe that it's better to have treatment facilities and get people off the streets wherever we can. For $13 million, I think we can make the investment into helping clean up people's lives and maybe get them off the city streets. PASSED

U: Policy against the deployment of armed forces in Iraq: Yes. More than just a policy maneuver, it sets the precendent that San Francisco is against spending SF money on funding for the local operations that must go toward funding the war-- it doesn't prevent the funding, but it sets our default policy as against it. PASSED

V: Policy against terminating JROTC program in schools: No. Too many negatives here to unwind. Basically JROTC is out of the public schools, which is how I think it should be, and though this is a measure in support of restoring it, ultimately prop V does nothing-- it doesn't even have the ability to restore JROTC, it's just meant to send a message. PASSED



Read more.

Proposition 1: The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century PASSED

Bond Measure

• Prop. 1 asks voters to approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds.
• This would partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
• The train would run between San Francisco and Los Angeles, with Anaheim, California, designated as the southern terminus of the initial segment of the high-speed train system.
• Estimates are that the train system would be completed in 2030, and that it would take passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in about 2 hours and 40 minutes.

POSSIBLE DELAY

• The California State Assembly approved AB 3034 on May 30 by a vote of 60-3. The goal of AB 3034 is to "make the rules for spending the bond money more flexible if voters sign off on the bonds in November."[1] The Senate Appropriations Committee is considering the bill.
• AB 3034 has to be signed no later than midnight on July 15 in order for the language in it to be included in the ballot pamphlet for the November 4 election.
• As it is currently written, Prop 1 gives top funding priority to a route between Los Angeles and San Francisco. If AB 3034 becomes law, Prop 1 would be:
• * Amended to give all high-speed rail corridors, including the route through Altamont Pass, an equal opportunity to compete for a share of the $9 billion.

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 2: Treatment of Farm Animals. PASSED

Statute

• Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around.
• Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs.
• Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes.
• Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• Probably minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue.
  

(Initiative 07-0041.)

For the full text as submitted to the CA Secretary of State, click here.

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 3: Children’s Hospital Bond Act. PASSED

Bond Act

• Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals.
• Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.
• Requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements.
• Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• State costs of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($1 billion) costs of the bond.
• Payments of about $67 million per year.

(Initiative 07-0034.)


More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy FAILED

Constitutional Amendment

• Amends California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse reported, an adult family member.
• Provides exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver.
• Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.
• Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.
• Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
• Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions.
• Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent is coerced.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined.

(Initiative 07-0053.)

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 5: Nonviolent Offenders. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. FAILED

Statute

• Requires State to expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees.
• Reduces criminal consequences of nonviolent drug offenses by mandating three-tiered probation with treatment and by providing for case dismissal and/or sealing of records after probation.
• Limits court’s authority to incarcerate offenders who violate probation or parole.
• Shortens parole for most drug offenses, including sales, and for nonviolent property crimes.
• Creates numerous divisions, boards, commissions, and reporting requirements regarding drug treatment and rehabilitation.
• Changes certain marijuana misdemeanors to infractions.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• Increased state costs that could exceed $1 billion annually primarily for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs for offenders in state prisons, on parole, and in the community.
• Savings to the state that could exceed $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs.
• Net savings on a one-time basis on capital outlay costs for prison facilities that could exceed $2.5 billion. Unknown net fiscal effect on expenditures for county operations and capital outlay.

(Initiative 07-0081.)

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 6:Criminal Penalties and Laws. Public Safety Funding. FAILED

Statute

• Requires new state spending on various programs to combat crime and gangs, and to operate prison and parole systems.
• Increases penalties for several crimes, including violating gang injunctions, using or possessing to sell methamphetamine, or carrying loaded or concealed firearms by certain felons.
• Eliminates bail for illegal immigrants charged with violent or gang-related felonies, establishes crime for removing or disabling a monitoring device affixed as part of a criminal sentence, and changes evidence rules to allow use of certain hearsay statements as evidence when witnesses are unavailable.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• Net state costs likely to exceed a half billion dollars annually primarily for increased funding of criminal justice programs, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations.
• Unknown one-time state capital outlay costs potentially exceeding a half billion dollars for prison facilities.
• Unknown net fiscal impact for state trial courts, county jails, and other local criminal justice agencies.

(Initiative 07-0094.)

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 7: Renewable Energy. FAILED

Statute

• Requires all utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations.
• Raises requirement for all utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025.
• Imposes penalties for noncompliance. Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants.
• Requires utilities to sign longer contracts (20 year minimum) to procure renewable energy.
• Creates Solar and Clean Energy Transmission Account to purchase property or rights of way for renewable energy.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• State administrative costs of up to $3.4 million annually for the regulatory activities of the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission, paid for by fee revenues.
• Potential, unknown increased costs and reduced revenues, particularly in the short term, to state and local governments resulting from the measure’s potential to increase retail electricity rates, with possible offsetting cost savings and revenue increases, to an unknown degree, over the long term to the extent the measure hastens renewable energy development.

(Initiative 07-0066.)


More on the CA Secretary of State's site.

Read more.

Proposition 8: Limit on Marriage. PASSED

Constitutional Amendment

• Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.

(Initiative 07-0068.)

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 9: Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole. PASSED

Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

• Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole.
• Establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole. Increases the number of people permitted to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings.
  
• Reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled.
• Requires that victims receive written notification of their constitutional rights.
• Establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• Unknown potential increases in state prison and county jail operating costs due to provisions restricting early release of inmates.
• To the extent that any such costs were incurred, they could collectively amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
• A potential net savings in the low tens of millions of dollars for the administration of parole reviews and revocations if the changes related to parole revocation procedures were not overturned by potential legal challenges.

(Initiative 07-0100.)

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. FAILED

Bond. Statute.
Authorizes $5 billion in bonds paid from state’s General Fund, allocated approximately as follows:

• 58% in cash payments of between $2,000 and $50,000 to purchasers of certain high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles;
• 20% in incentives for research, development and production of renewable energy technology;
  
• 11% in incentives for research and development of alternative fuel vehicle technology;
• 5% in incentives for purchase of renewable energy technology; 4% in grants to eight cities for education about these technologies;
• and 3% in grants to colleges to train students in these technologies.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• State costs of about $9.8 billion over 30 years to pay both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($4.8 billion) costs on the bond.
• Payments of about $325 million per year.
• Increase in state sales tax revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to beyond 2018.
• Increase in local sales tax and VLF revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to about 2018-19.
• Potential state costs of up to about $10 million annually, through about 2018 -19, for state agency administrative costs not funded by the measure.

(Initiative 07-0101.)

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 11: Redistricting. PASSED

Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

• Creates 14-member redistricting commission responsible for drawing new district lines for State Senate, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts.
• Requires State Auditor to randomly select commission members from voter applicant pool to create a commission with five members from each of the two largest political parties, and four members unaffiliated with either political party.
• Requires nine votes to approve final district maps.
  
• Establishes standards for drawing new lines, including respecting the geographic integrity of neighborhoods and encouraging geographic compactness.
  
• Permits State Legislature to draw lines for congressional districts subject to these standards.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• Probably no significant increase in state redistricting costs.

(Initiative 07-0077.)

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 12: Veterans' Bond Act of 2008. PASSED

Bond Measure

• Authorizes issuance of $900 million in bonds to create a fund that assist veterans who are purchasing farms, homes and mobile home properties.

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 99: Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. PASSED

Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

• Bars state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence, as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity.
• Creates exceptions for public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• No significant fiscal impact on state or local governments.

For the TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW:

PROPOSITION 99

This initiative measure is submitted to the people of California in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution. This initiative measure amends a section of the California Constitution; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

TITLE. This measure shall be known as the “Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act.”

PROPOSED LAW SECTION 1. PURPOSE AND INTENT

By enacting this measure, the people of California hereby express their intent to:

(a) Protect their homes from eminent domain abuse.

(b) Prohibit government agencies from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home to transfer it to another private owner or developer.

(c) Amend the California Constitution to respond specifically to the facts and the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the Court held that it was permissible for a city to use eminent domain to take the home of a Connecticut woman for the purpose of economic development.

(d) Respect the decision of the voters to reject Proposition 90 in November 2006, a measure that included eminent domain reform but also included unrelated provisions that would have subjected taxpayers to enormous financial liability from a wide variety of traditional legislative and administrative actions to protect the public welfare.

(e) Provide additional protection for property owners without including provisions, such as those in Proposition 90, which subjected taxpayers to liability for the enactment of traditional legislative and administrative actions to protect the public welfare.

(f) Maintain the distinction in the California Constitution between Section 19, Article I, which establishes the law for eminent domain, and Section 7, Article XI, which establishes the law for legislative and administrative action to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

(g) Provide a comprehensive and exclusive basis in the California Constitution to compensate property owners when property is taken or damaged by state or local governments, without affecting legislative and administrative actions taken to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution is amended to read: SEC. 19.

(a) Private property may be taken or damaged for a public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.

(b) The State and local governments are prohibited from acquiring by eminent domain an owneroccupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person.

(c) Subdivision (b) of this section does not apply when State or local government exercises the power of eminent domain for the purpose of protecting public health and safety; preventing serious, repeated criminal activity; responding to an emergency; or remedying environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety.

(d) Subdivision (b) of this section does not apply when State or local government exercises the power of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring private property for a public work or improvement.

(e) For the purpose of this section:

1. “Conveyance” means a transfer of real property whether by sale, lease, gift, franchise, or otherwise.

2. “Local government” means any city, including a charter city, county, city and county, school district, special district, authority, regional entity, redevelopment agency, or any other political subdivision within the State.

3. “Owner-occupied residence” means real property that is improved with a single-family residence such as a detached home, condominium, or townhouse and that is the owner or owners’ principal place of residence for at least one year prior to the State or local government’s initial written offer to purchase the property. Owner-occupied residence also includes a residential dwelling unit attached to or detached from such a single-family residence which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons.

4. “Person” means any individual or association, or any business entity, including, but not limited to, a partnership, corporation, or limited liability company.

5. “Public work or improvement” means facilities or infrastructure for the delivery of public services such as education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation, emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood protection, streets or highways, public transit, railroad, airports and seaports; utility, common carrier or other similar projects such as energy-related, communication-related, water-related and wastewater-related facilities or infrastructure; projects identified by a State or local government for recovery from natural disasters; and private uses incidental to, or necessary for, the public work or improvement.

6. “State” means the State of California and any of its agencies or departments.

SECTION 3. By enacting this measure, the voters do not intend to change the meaning of the terms in subdivision (a) of Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, including, without limitation, “taken,” “damaged,” “public use,” and “just compensation,” and deliberately do not impose any restrictions on the exercise of power pursuant to Section 19, Article I, other than as expressly provided for in this measure.

SECTION 4. The provisions of Section 19, Article I, together with the amendments made by this initiative, constitute the exclusive and comprehensive authority in the California Constitution for the exercise of the power of eminent domain and for the payment of compensation to property owners when private property is taken or damaged by state or local government. Nothing in this initiative shall limit the ability of the Legislature to provide compensation in addition to that which is required by Section 19 of Article I to property owners whose property is taken or damaged by eminent domain. SECTION 5. The amendments made by this initiative shall not apply to the acquisition of real property if the initial written offer to purchase the property was made on or before the date on which this initiative becomes effective, and a resolution of necessity to acquire the real property by eminent domain was adopted on or before 180 days after that date.

SECTION 6. The words and phrases used in the amendments to Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution made by this initiative which are not defined in subdivision (e), shall be defined and interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the law in effect on January 1, 2007, and as that law may be amended or interpreted thereafter.

SECTION 7. The provisions of this measure shall be liberally construed in furtherance of its intent to provide homeowners with protection against exercises of eminent domain in which an owneroccupied residence is subsequently conveyed to a private person.

SECTION 8. The provisions of this measure are severable. If any provision of this measure or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SECTION 9. In the event that this measure appears on the same statewide election ballot as another initiative measure or measures that seek to affect the rights of property owners by directly or indirectly amending Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and each and every provision of the other measure or measures shall be null and void.

Read more.

Proposition 98: Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Authority. FAILED

Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

• Bars state and local governments from taking or damaging private property for private uses.
• Prohibits rent control and similar measures.
• Prohibits deference to government in takings cases.
• Defines “just compensation.”
• Requires an award of attorneys fees and costs if a property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by the government.
• Requires government to offer to original owner of condemned property the right to repurchase property at condemned price when property is put to substantially different use than was publicly stated.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Increased costs to many governments due to the measure’s restrictions. The net statewide fiscal effect, however, probably would not be significant.

For the TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW:

PROPOSITION 98

This initiative measure is submitted to the people of California in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution. This initiative measure amends a section of the California Constitution; therefore, existing provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in strikeout type and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

PROPOSED LAW SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS

(a) Our state Constitution, while granting government the power of eminent domain, also provides that the people have an inalienable right to own, possess, and protect private property. It further provides that no person may be deprived of property without due process of law, and that private property may not be taken or damaged by eminent domain except for public use and only after just compensation has been paid to the property owner.

(b) Notwithstanding these clear constitutional guarantees, the courts have not protected the people’s rights from being violated by state and local governments through the exercise of their power of eminent domain.

(c) For example, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New London, held that the government may use eminent domain to take property from its owner for the purpose of transferring it to a private developer. In other cases, the courts have allowed the government to set the price an owner can charge to sell or rent his or her property, and have allowed the government to take property for the purpose of seizing the income or business assets of the property.

(d) Farmland is especially vulnerable to these types of eminent domain abuses.

SECTION 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

(a) State and local governments may use eminent domain to take private property only for public uses, such as roads, parks, and public facilities.

(b) State and local governments may not use their power to take or damage property for the benefit of any private person or entity.

(c) State and local governments may not take private property by eminent domain to put it to the same use as that made by the private owner.

(d) When state or local governments use eminent domain to take or damage private property for public uses, the owner shall receive just compensation for what has been taken or damaged.

(e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact the “California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act.”

SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution is amended to read: SEC. 19.

(a) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use only and when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) “Taken’’ includes transferring the ownership, occupancy, or use of property from a private owner to a public agency or to any person or entity other than a public agency, or limiting the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property.

(2) “Public use” means use and ownership by a public agency or a regulated public utility for the public use stated at the time of the taking, including public facilities, public transportation, and public utilities, except that nothing herein prohibits leasing limited space for private uses incidental to the stated public use; nor is the exercise of eminent domain prohibited to restore utilities or access to a public road for any private property which is cut off from utilities or access to a public road as a result of a taking for public use as otherwise defined herein.

(3) “Private use” means:

(i) transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights to any person or entity other than a public agency or a regulated public utility;

(ii) transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources or for the same or a substantially similar use as that made by the private owner; or

(iii) regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.

(4) “Public agency” means the state, special district, county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, and any other local or regional governmental entity, municipal corporation, public agency-owned utility or utility district, or the electorate of any public agency.

(5) “Just compensation” means:

(i) for property or associated property rights taken, its fair market value;

(ii) for property or associated property rights damaged, the value fixed by a jury, or by the court if a jury is waived;

(iii) an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees from the public agency if the property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by a public agency as defined herein; and

(iv) any additional actual and necessary amounts to compensate the property owner for temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business reestablishment costs, other actual and reasonable expenses incurred and other expenses deemed compensable by the Legislature.

(6) “Prompt release” means that the property owner can have immediate possession of the money deposited by the condemnor without prejudicing his or her right to challenge the determination of fair market value or his or her right to challenge the taking as being for a private use.

(7) “Owner” includes a lessee whose property rights are taken or damaged.

(8) “Regulated public utility” means any public utility as described in Article XII, Section 3, that is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and is not owned or operated by a public agency. Regulated public utilities are private property owners for purposes of this article.

(c) In any action by a property owner challenging a taking or damaging of his or her property, the court shall consider all relevant evidence and exercise its independent judgment, not limited to the administrative record and without deference to the findings of the public agency. The property owner shall be entitled to an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees from the public agency if the court finds that the agency’s actions are not in compliance with this section. In addition to other legal and equitable remedies that may be available, an owner whose property is taken or damaged for private use may bring an action for an injunction, a writ of mandate, or a declaration invalidating the action of the public agency.

(d) Nothing in this section prohibits a public agency or regulated public utility from entering into an agreement with a private property owner for the voluntary sale of property not subject to eminent domain, or a stipulation regarding the payment of just compensation.

(e) If property is acquired by a public agency through eminent domain, then before the agency may put the property to a use substantially different from the stated public use, or convey the property to another person or unaffiliated agency, the condemning agency must make a good faith effort to locate the private owner from whom the property was taken, and make a written offer to sell the property to him at the price which the agency paid for the property, increased only by the fair market value of any improvements, fixtures, or appurtenances added by the public agency, and reduced by the value attributable to any removal, destruction or waste of improvements, fixtures or appurtenances that had been acquired with the property. If property is repurchased by the former owner under this subdivision, it shall be taxed based on its pre-condemnation enrolled value, increased or decreased only as allowed herein, pIus any inflationary adjustments authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 2 of Article XIII A. The right to repurchase shall apply only to the owner from which the property was taken, and does not apply to heirs or successors of the owner or, if the owner was not a natural person, to an entity which ceases to legally exist.

(f) Nothing in this section prohibits a public agency from exercising its power of eminent domain to abate public nuisances or criminal activity.

(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or impair voluntary agreements between a property owner and a public agency to develop or rehabilitate affordable housing.

(h) Nothing in this section prohibits the California Public Utilities Commission from regulating public utility rates.

(i) Nothing in this section shall restrict the powers of the Governor to take or damage private property in connection with his or her powers under a declared state of emergency.

SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT This act shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this act and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this act may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article II or Article XVIII of the California Constitution.

SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this act shall become effective on the day following the election (“effective date”); except that any statute, charter provision, ordinance, or regulation by a public agency enacted prior to January 1, 2007, that limits the price a rental property owner may charge a tenant to occupy a residential rental unit (“unit”) or mobile home space (“space”) may remain in effect as to such unit or space after the effective date for so long as, but only so long as, at least one of the tenants of such unit or space as of the effective date (“qualified tenant”) continues to live in such unit or space as his or her principal place of residence. At such time as a unit or space no longer is used by any qualified tenant as his or her principal place of residence because, as to such unit or space, he or she has:

(a) voluntarily vacated;

(a) assigned, sublet, sold or transferred his or her tenancy rights either voluntarily or by court order;

(c) abandoned;

(d) died; or he or she has

(e) been evicted pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4) or (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 798.56 of the Civil Code as in effect on January 1, 2007; then, and in such event, the provisions of this act shall be effective immediately as to such unit or space.

Read more.