|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Proposition 90, an initiative to reform eminent domain law that opponents said would have had devastating impacts on local land-use authority, was defeated Tuesday by California voters.
The vote was 52.5 percent opposed, and 47.5 percent in favor, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office.
In San Mateo County, voters rejected Proposition 90 by a much bigger margin: 59.9 percent to 41.1 percent, the county’s Elections Office reported.
Proponents of Proposition 90 said it is a desperately needed measure to curb government agencies’ attempts to take away people’s land for the benefit of wealthy developers and real estate investors.
The initiative was funded largely by Howard Rich, a millionaire real estate investor from New York.
If it had passed, it would have cost the state’s taxpayer billions of dollars in lawsuits over property values, according to the League of California Cities, a major backer of the No on Proposition 90 campaign.
Eminent domain is a process government agencies can use to acquire property against the owner’s wishes. The state might use eminent domain to make way for a freeway extension, or a city might use it to redevelop a “blighted” area.
Tom Adams, president of the board of the California League of Conservation Voters, said that Proposition 90 supporters claimed it would protect people’s homes from government seizure, but actually would have taken away one of the most important protections on property values — local zoning regulations.
The provisions of Proposition 90 said that any government action that results in a loss to private property — not just real estate, but even business interests — would require taxpayers to pay for the loss, Mr. Adams said. It would have opened the door to lawsuits whenever a city or county wanted to regulate land use by changing zoning or placing other restrictions on property, whether environmental protections, consumer protections or noise restrictions, he said.
Kevin Spillane, spokesman for Yes on 90, complained that the opposition to Proposition 90 ran a campaign of distortion. It wouldn’t make it impossible to make changes to zoning, or to enforce laws already on the books, he told the Almanac recently.
“That’s too broad a statement to make,” he said. “(Government agencies) may choose not to do something they would’ve done otherwise; hopefully, they will be more careful.”