Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
California Proposition 99, Rules Governing Eminent Domain Amendment (June 2008)
| California Proposition99 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date June 3, 2008 | |
| Topic Gambling | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 99 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on June 3, 2008. It was approved.
Election results
- See also: June 3, 2008 California election results
|
California Proposition 99 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
2,678,106 | 61.96% | ||
| No | 1,644,509 | 38.04% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 99 prohibited state and local governments from acquiring an owner-occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to another person, with certain listed exceptions. Those exceptions included "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." Proposition 99 does not change current rules regarding the use of eminent domain for businesses.[1][2]
Proposition 99 needed to earn more affirmative votes than a competing initiative, Proposition 98, which did not have exceptions for the process of eminent domain and phased out rent control measures. California voters defeated Proposition 98 in a vote of 38.49% in favor to 61.51% opposed.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 99 was as follows:
| “ | Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
-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.
| ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Constitutional changes
| California Constitution |
|---|
| Articles |
| I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XA • XB • XI • XII • XIII • XIII A • XIII B • XIII C • XIII D • XIV • XV • XVI • XVIII • XIX • XIX A • XIX B • XIX C • XX • XXI • XXII • XXXIV • XXXV |
Proposition 99 amended Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution.[2]
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[2]
| “ | No significant fiscal impact on state or local governments.[3] | ” |
Support
Yes on 99 led the campaign in support of Proposition 99.
Supporters
Individuals
- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D)[4]
- Senator Barbara Boxer (D)[4]
- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D)[4]
- State Representative Hector De La Torre (D)[4]
- State Representative Mark Leno (D)[4]
- State Senator Carole Migden (D)[4]
- California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer (D)[4]
- California State Senator Patricia Wiggins (D)[4]
- Former California State Assemblymember Fran Pavley (D)[4]
- Ken Willis, president, League of California Homeowners[2]
- Nan Brasmer, president, California Alliance for Retired Americans[2]
- Janis R. Hirohama, president, League of Women Voters of California[2]
- Richard Word, president, California Police Chiefs Association[2]
Organizations
|
|
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 99 were signed by Ken Willis, president of the League of California Homeowners; Nan Brasmer, president of the California Alliance for Retired Americans; and Janis R. Hirohama, president of the League of Women Voters of California:[2]
| “ | YES on PROP. 99.
Real Eminent Domain Reform—No Hidden Agendas We need to act now to PROTECT HOMEOWNERS. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government can use eminent domain to take a person’s home and give it to a private developer. Since then, more than 40 states have reformed their eminent domain laws, but California has failed to act. We need to act now to close this legal loophole created by the Supreme Court decision and to protect California homeowners from abuses of eminent domain. Prop. 99 is the straightforward solution we need to PROTECT AGAINST EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSES. Prop. 99 provides simple, powerful eminent domain reform.
'As an official proponent of Prop. 99, I urge all Californians to vote YES. Prop. 99 provides urgently needed eminent domain reform to protect homeowners across California.' —Ken Willis, President, League of California Homeowners 'The League of Women Voters of California has carefully examined Prop. 99. This is a straightforward measure that does what it says: prohibits the seizure of homes for private development projects.' —Janis R. Hirohama, President, League of Women Voters of California 'Prop. 99 ensures that seniors and other vulnerable citizens are protected from losing their homes to a private developer.’' —Nan Brasmer, President, California Alliance for Retired Americans ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES: Prop. 99 is the only real eminent domain reform on the ballot. Other measures may pretend to reform eminent domain, but Prop. 99 is the best way to protect homeowners and prevent future abuses. Prop. 99 is straightforward and strong. It protects our homes from eminent domain abuse. Pure and simple. No hidden agendas. Vote YES to Protect California’s Homeowners. Vote YES on Prop. 99.[3] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
Official arguments
The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 99 were signed by Jon Coupal, president, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Doug Mosebar, president, California Farm Bureau; and Steve L. Caughran, 2007 California Small Business Owner of the Year, National Federation of Independent Business:[2]
| “ |
The State of California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, says that Proposition 99 'is not likely to significantly alter current government land acquisition practices.' In everyday language: 'Proposition 99 does nothing.' So why did the politicians and developers spend $4,000,000.00+ to put Prop. 99 on the ballot, when it does almost nothing? They filed Proposition 99 and spent $4 million+ on it, only after homeowners, family farmers, and small business owners filed Proposition 98. Proposition 98 protects ALL private property in California. Proposition 99 protects virtually nothing. The politicians and developers don’t want you to vote Yes on 98, so they are trying to trick you into voting for 'do nothing' Proposition 99 instead. In past elections, you have seen powerful special interests use this trick to try to defeat popular ballot propositions. Two propositions on the same subject matter can confuse voters. The politicians who are against Proposition 98 tried the same trick years ago when they opposed Proposition 13. They put on a weak, do-nothing Proposition hoping to trick voters into being against Prop. 13! Well the old game of 'let’s trick the voter' is back— brought to you, this time, by the very politicians and developers who seize homes, small businesses, family farms, and places of worship from owners who don’t want to sell and turn them into car dealerships, chain stores, and the like. In 99 they took out every protection for farmers, small businesses, second homes, and rented homes. Read Prop. 99 carefully in this Voter Guide. Small businesses? Family Farmers? Renters? Places of Worship? All gone. No protection whatsoever. But homeowners? 99 looks like it protects homeowners. But the devil is in the details. Under 99 they can easily seize your home. Read 99, it says houses can be taken 'under certain circumstances.' And these 'certain circumstances' are many! In the end, homeowners have virtually no protection under 99. Read again the nonpartisan analysis: Proposition 99 'is not likely to significantly alter current government land acquisition practices.' This means 99 protects virtually nothing. But it gets even worse! The politicians and developers added that if 99 gets more votes than Proposition 98— EVEN IF PROPOSITION 98 GETS A MAJORITY—99 kills all the protections in Proposition 98 for everyone, INCLUDING HOMEOWNERS! REALLY! If you don’t believe us, read it for yourself in SECTION 9 of Proposition 99 in this Voter Guide. Renters, small business owners, homeowners, religious congregations, family farmers . . . none of us want to see our homes and property bulldozed. Let’s stick together, protect everyone, not just the few. It is only fair. Vote Yes on 98. Remember, only Prop. 98 protects all private property in California, Prop. 99 protects virtually nothing. Vote No on Proposition 99, the politicians and developers who paid $4,000,000.00+ to put it on your ballot are trying to pull off an old election trick. They did not trick us back when we passed Proposition 13; don’t let them trick you now! Visit YesProp98.com. No on 99![3] |
” |
Background
Past eminent domain ballot measures in California
Proposition 90, an eminent domain reform measure that also would have significantly restricted the extent to which the government could engage in regulatory takings and would also have repealed rent control, lost 52-48% in 2006.
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 2008, at least 694,354 valid signatures were required.
The supporters of Proposition 99 hired PCI Consultants, Inc. to collect signatures at an overall cost of $3,559,970.[6] Competing measure Proposition 98 paid Arno Political Consultants $1,583,000 to qualify for the ballot.[7]
See also
External links
- Official Voter Guide
- Full text of Proposition 99
- Proposition 99 in the Smart Voter Guide
- Guide to Proposition 99 from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against 99 from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 99 from Follow The Money
- Eminent Domain Reform Now Official website of Proposition 99 supporters
- The Truth about Proposition 99, website opposing Proposition 99
Footnotes
- ↑ MONDAQ, "What Passage Of Proposition 99 Means To The California Homeowner," July 10, 2009
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 University of California Hastings, "Voter Guide," accessed March 9, 2020
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 Eminent Domain Reform, "Supporters," accessed June 2008
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Yes on 98, NFIB Opposes League of California Cities Eminent Domain Ballot Measure," accessed June 2008
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Expenditures of the Eminent Domain Reform Now committee," accessed June 2008
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Proposition 98 campaign expenditure details," accessed June 2008
