Mixed Messages — Examining the Duality of Proposition 98
If Proposition 98 does not pass, then the strategists who decided to pair eminent domain reform with the gradual abolition of rent control will have a lot of questions to answer.
In the year after the 2005 Kelo v. New London decision, twelve state ballots initiatives set to limit the potential expansion of eminent domain set out under Kelo. In ten of those states, the referenda passed.
In the nine states where eminent domain was the sole issue within the ballot initiative, all nine passed. However, when eminent domain was linked with another issue, voters reacted differently. In those three states, eminent domain was successfully curbed only once.
This would suggest that eminent domain reform, by itself, is very viable with voters.
Why pair the two? A number of theories are plausible. One is that this is not a case of rent control reform coming along to supplement eminent domain, but just the opposite. Perhaps the gradual phase out of rent control is really the dog wagging this tail. Funding patterns hint at this. Most of the big money for 98 comes from landlords.
A subsequent conclusion from such an analysis would then be that Proposition 99 is less about providing an alternative to Prop 98 for eminent domain reform, than it is about neutralizing rent control.
Rent control initiatives can be successful with voters. Massachusetts, hardly a conservative state, passed an initiative against rent control in the 90s. This study, by a conservative think tank, seems to suggest that getting rid of rent control did increase both the quantity and quality of available housing in Cambridge.
Eminent domain, in the era after Kelo, seems to get a lot of people worked up. Transferring property to the government for a public purpose is one thing, but transferring to a private company in the wisdom that some public benefit will disseminate indirectly, appears to hold less satisfaction. Kelo did include language that said that “nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.”
California’s Proposition 90, which added regulatory takings powers to its eminent domain reform, failed by a small margin in 2006. Regulatory takings are ones that limit the economic viability of a property as a result of a government regulation. This would have great impact in environmental protections, for example.
Proposition 98 represents another mixed proposal. Its perhaps even more complicated, though, because rent control is also very provocative and attracts some support among groups that might otherwise not be energized to even participate in a referendum on a non-general election day.
It appears to be the issue that is holding up the success of Proposition 98. Many renters, as well as female voters, are identifying themselves against 98 in polling.
Get Weekly Blog Notifications
When I read the California’s sample ballot, a red flag went up after reading the text of proposition 98. The first line of proposition 98 relates solely to eminent domain. As mentioned in the article above, many states introduced anti-Kelo propositions after the 2005 decision. Kelo was an extremely controversial decision, as the Court had never before held that private property could be taken to further an economic redevelopment plan, such as a shopping mall. The second line is the “rent control” text. Immediately I began to wonder…why are they piggybacking rent control on an eminent domain proposition? Do landlords believe that rent control is a form of taking? That idea, to my mind is ridiculous. Rent control ordinances do not deprive property owners of any rights flowing from land ownership. These ordinances are a legitimate exercise of local government control over the rental market, creating stability for renters, especially those on fixed incomes. I live in Los Angeles County, where our rent control ordinance is extremely deferential to landlords. For example, in my building (built in the 1950s) the rent may be raised to market level when a tenant leaves. The stabilization aspect of rent control ordinances only impacts how much the rent may be raised each calendar year. What do landlords need more rent for? So they can build themselves another McMansion in the valley? I only hope voters will show up at the polls and defeat proposition 98. Los Angeles should be a city for everyone, not just for wealthy people who think nothing of paying thousands of dollars a month for rent.