Loading...
10. Prop. 98City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3212 FAX: (408) 777-33bb CUPERTINO COMMf1NICATION SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~ ~ Meeting Date: April 15, 2008 SUBJECT Adopt a resolution opposing Proposition 98 regarding eminent domain BACKGROUND Proposition 98 is a measure placed on California's June 3, 2008 ballot. T'he proposition is full of provisions that would hurt Californians and local governments. A broad coalition of groups including League of California Cities, AARP, California Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters of California, California Police Chiefs Association, Association of California Water Agencies, National Wildlife Federation, and hundreds of other organizations all oppose Prop. 98. ^ Prop. 98 negates important environmental protections like laws to combat global warming, and protect our land, air, water and coasts. ^ Prop, 98 jeopardizes the quality of our drinking water and our ability to secure new water sources to protect our environment and fuel our economy. ^ Prop. 98 will result in lawsuits, higher taxpayer costs, and hurt the economy. ^ Abroad coalition, including seniors, renters, businesses, conservationists, labor, homeowners, and agriculture oppose Prop. 98. Leading environmental organizations, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club California, California League of Conservation Voters and many others are opposed to Proposition 98. Legal analysis by the respected environmental law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger has found that provisions in this measure would wipe out regulations intended to protect our environment. Specifically, the measure prohibits laws and regulations that "transfer an economic benefit to one or mare private persons at the expense of the private owner." The courts have ruled that virtually all environmental regulations and land-use decisions are likely to impose costs on the affected party, while transferring economic benefits to another private party. Thus, the measure will gut all manner of laws and regulations that protect our environment and regulate growth and development. Proposition 98 contrtins poorly-drafted provisions unrelated to eminent domain that could stop much needed water projects and harm local land-use planning, and lead to frivolous ~o-~ lawsuits and project delays. Business groups like the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Black Chamber of Commerce and other local business associations oppose this ballot measure. A great deal of opposition to Proposition 98 stems from a provision, Section 19(c)(3)(iii) of the measure, which prohibits laws and regulations that "transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner." This broad language contains no exceptions for decisions to protect health and safety. Onbonents of Proposition 98 include: Ap~RP California Redevelopment Association American Federation of State, County California School Boards Association and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) California Special Districts Association Association of California School California State Association of Counties Administrators California Tax Reform Association Association of California Water League of California Cities Agencies California Teachers Association Audubon California Consumer Federation of California California Alliance for Retired Greenbelt Alliance Americans League of California Homeowners California Chamber of Commerce League of Women Voters of California California Chapter of the American National Wildlife Federation Planning Association Natural Resources Defense Council California Council for Affordable Planning and Conservation League Housing SEIU California State Council California Council of Land Trusts Sierra Club California California Fire Chiefs Association Silicon Valley Leadership Group California Housing Consortium (CHC} St. Anthony Foundation California League of Conservation State Building and Construction Voters Trades Council California Police Chiefs Association Western Growers Association California Professional Firefighters STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the council officially adopt the attached resolution opposed to Proposition 98. Submitted by: Council: Manager Approved for submission to the City David W. Knapp, City Manager ~0-2 RESOLUTION,. NQ:0~-048 ~FT A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL OPPOSING PROPOSITION 98 WHEREAS, a constitutional amendment ballot measure, Proposition 98, will appear on California's June 2008 ballot; and WHEREAS, Proposition 98 proponents want voters to believe the initiative is about eminent domain, but in fact the measure contains hidden agendas and flawed language which will eliminate rent control and other renter protections, threaten development of public water projects, stymie local land use planning and impair our ability to protect the environment; and WHEREAS, the majority of the funding to qualify this measure comes from wealthy apartment and mobile home park owners who are attempting to trick voters into abolishing rent control and other renter protections, thereby jeopardizing an important affordable housing tool to protect working families, seniors, single-parent homes, veterans and others; and WHEREAS, provisions in the initiative would also. preclude the use of eminent domain to acquire land or water to develop public water projects that are~rieeded to provide our residents, businesses, farmers and economy with a reliable and safe~su~ply of water; and WHEREAS, Proposition 98 is opposed by the Association of California Water Agencies and the Western Growers Association, who warn the initiative will impair water projects to protect water quality and supply; and WHEREAS, language in the initiative will also prohibit the passage of regulations, ordinances, land use and other zoning laws that enable local governments to plan and protect communities; and WHEREAS, the California Police Chiefs Association opposes the measure because it threatens their ability to keep communities and the public: safe; and WHEREAS, leading environmental groups warn provisions in the measure would impair our ability to enact environmental protections such as laws that control greenhouse gas emissions, preserve open space, protect coastal areas, and regulate development; and WHEREAS, the No on Proposition 98 campaign is represented by the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, League of California Homeowners, California League of Conservation Voters, California Alliance for Retired Americans and other leading state and local associations who oppose Proposition 98. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cupertino City Council hereby opposes Proposition 98 on the June 2008 ballot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we authorize the use of our name by the No on Proposition 98 campaign in opposition to Proposition 98. We direct staff to fax a copy of this adopted resolution to 91 b.442.3510. 10 - a Resolution No. 08-048 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of April 2008, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ~ APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 10-4 EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION HOWARD JARVIS, Founder (1903-1986) ESTELLE JARVLS, Honorary Chairwoman jON COUPAL, Pressdent TREVOR GRIMM, General Counsel TIMOTHY BITTLE, Director of Legal Affairs 0 7- 0 0 1 5 ~~D May 1, 2007 Ms. Patricia Galvan, Initiative Coordinator Attorney General's Office ~~ 1515 K Street, 6`h Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 MAY - 3 2007 Re: California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act INITIATIVE COORDINATOR ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Dear Ms. Galvan: By this letter, we respectfully request the Attorney General to prepare a title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, a copy of which is attached. The undersigned are the proponents of this measure. We also hereby withdraw Initiative No. 07-0003. Although our previous initiative and the attached proposal both deal with eminent domain and property rights, there are substantial differences between the two. Any correspondence regarding this initiative should be directed to Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, 921 Eleventh Street, Suite 1201, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 444-9950. The proponents' resident addresses are attached to this letter. Enclosed is the required $200 filing fee as well as the certification as required by Elections Code Section 18650. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Doug 1Vlosebar President, California Farm Bureau Federation Sincerely, Jor( Coupal President Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sincerely, Jim Nielsen Chairman, Cal. lance to Protect rivate Property Rights SACRAMENTO OFFICE: 921 11th Street, Suite 120], Sacramento, CA 95814 • (916) 944-9950, Fax: (916) 444-9823 COS ANGELES OFFICE: 621 South Westmoreland Avenue, Suite 202, Los Angeles, CA 90005-3971 • (213) 384-9656, Fax: (213) 384-9870 0 7- 0 0 1 5 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 maybe 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 1 of the California Constitution is amended to read: SEC. 19~ Private property maybe taken or damaged o~ for a stated public use 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: ~l) "Taken" includes transferring the ownership occupancy or use of property from a private owner to a public a ency or to anYperson 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 ~roperty. (2) "Public use" means use and ownership by a ublic a ency 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 leasin lig mited 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 re ulg_ated public utili~; (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) reQUlation of the ownership occ~ancy 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 2 (4) "Public agency" means the state, special district, county, city, city and county1 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. (S,Z"Just compensation" means: (i~ for property or associated property rights taken, its fair market value; iii) for property or associated property rights dammed, 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 com,~ensable by the Legislature. (6) "Prompt release" means that the property owner can have immediate possession of the money deposited by the condemnor without preiudicin his or her right to challenge the determination of fair market value or his or her ri hg t to challenge the taking, as being for a private use. (7) "Owner" includes a lessee whose pro~erty rights are taken or damaged. "Re ulated public utility" means a~ public utilitYas 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. Re lated public utilities are private property owners for purposes of this article. ~c) In any action by a property owner challen ing 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 a ency. The property owner shall be entitled to an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees from the public agenc~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 uroperty is taken or lama ed for private use may bring an action for an iniunction, a writ of mandate, or a declaration invalidating the action of the up blic aux. (d) Nothing in this section prohibits a public a ency 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 re arding the payment of just compensation. fie) If propert is acquired by a public apenc ty hrough eminent domain then before the a ency may put the property to a use substantially different from the stated public use, or conveythe 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, plus any inflationary adjustments authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 2 of Article XIIIA. The ri hit to repurchase shall apply only to the owner from which the p~erty 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. (fl 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 re ug_lating_public utility rates. ~) 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 section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article II or Article XVIII. SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section 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; (b) 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. 5 ~'~ Y~rs~c,~ #ID California Proposition 98 versus California Proposition 99 (2008) From Ballotpedia On the June 3, 2008 ballot in California, voters will have their choice between Proposition 98 and Proposition 99. Both ballot propositions are about eminent domain reform. However, each measure approaches the issue quite differently.~l ]~[2] Contents ^ 1 Dueling trojan horses? ^ 2 Campaign tactics and claims ^ 2.1 Proposition 98 supporters file complaint ^ 2.2 Are taxpayers the ultimate source of League of Cities money? ^ 2.3 Proposition 99 supporters file unsuccessful lawsuit ^ 2.4 Making a campaign issue out of donors ^ 2.5 Prevalence of rent control in California ^ 2.6 Will the National Football League ever return to Los Angeles? ^ 2.7 Disputed impact of Prop 98 on water regulations ^ 3 Poll results ^ 4 Supporters and opponents ^ 5 External Links ^ 6 References ^ 7 Additional reading Dueling trojan horses? Supporters of Proposition 98 say that Proposition 99 is a trojan horse initiative intended to fool voters into thinking they are voting for real eminent domain reform, when in fact Prop. 99 does little to inhibit California cities and counties from seizing property from one private owner and giving it to another private owner. Prop 99 forbids state and local government from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence and then turn it over to a private person or business. However, Prop. 99 allows apartments, commercial property or rental homes to be taken by government entities from private owners and given to other private owners. This leaves open most of the state's current eminent-domain options. Supporters of Proposition 99 respond that Proposition 98 is a Trojan horse of a different color, intended to fool voters into ending government-imposed rent control in the approximately 100 California cities that impose rent control, under the guise of reforming eminent domain land seizures in the state. What Prop 98 says about rent control is that existing rent controls would stay in force until a tenant moved out. The owner of thait property would then (if Prop 98 passes) be able to set amarket-based rent for the property whereas, under current law in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Cotati and Santa Monica, the property's rental price would once again be set by a government agency under their rent control provisions once a new tenant moved in.~3~ If both measures win more than 50 percent at the ballot box, the one with the most votes prevails. Campaign tactics and claims Proposition 98 supporters file complaint In early April, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission against three major donors to Proposition 99, the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties and the California Redevelopment Association. The complaint accuses the organizations of "laundering campaign money, failing to disclose the identity of donors and illegally tapping into taxpayer funds."~4~ Jon Coupal, a leader in the pro-Prop 98 campaign, told a newspaper reporter, "We suspect, and have some evidence to support it, that a major developer wants to defeat our measure (Proposition 98) but doesn't want his fingerprints on it, so he's given money to the league under some pretense or another for use in the campaign." Chris McKenzie, director of the League of Cities, has denied this charge, saying it is "a scurrilous dirty trick intended to discredit the coalition". The League of California Cities, which so far is the largest financial supporter of Prop 99, is composed primarily of elected officials who make land-use decisions. Are taxpayers the ultimate source of League of Cities money? Coupal decries the possibility that the League of Cities and the other two organizations may be taking money they have in their coffers from membership dues paid by cities and counties, and putting that money into the political campaign to defeat Prop 98. This practice is known as taxpayer-funded lobbying. The League denies that any of the money they are putting into political campaigns comes from membership dues saying that, rather, it comes from advertising revenues in their publications and attendance fees at events they hold. Coupal says, "It's implausible that their rent and advertising revenue could produce $4 million." It will be up to the California Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate and render a verdict. Proposition 99 supporters file unsuccessful lawsuit To hammer home the messaging strategy they feel will be most effective with California voters, Proposition 99 supporters filed a lawsuit in February against the California Attorney General alleging that his ballot title for Proposition 98 is in error, because it doesn't mention the impact that Proposition 98 will have on rent control. A California judge threw out this lawsuit. Making a campaign issue out of donors Just as Proposition 98 supporters are making an issue out of the fact that the majority of pro-Prop 99 funds come from organizations peopled by municipal elected officials who (opponents say) would prefer the freedom to exercise their current lenient eminent domain perogatives, Proposition 98 opponents have made an issue out of the fact that many donors to Proposition 98 are apartment owners and mobile home part owners, who could benefit from Prop. 98's phase-out of rent control.~s~. A Los Angeles Times story highlighted this aspect of Prop. 98, and interviewed several people who could potentially be affected if Prop. 98 were to pass and rent control is phased out. [6] Prevalence of rent control in California There are 12 cities statewide that have rent control ordinances, and about 110 mobile home communities which have rent controls in place on their parks. Overall, there are about 1.2 million people statewide who live in rent-controlled housing. Their rent-controlled rents stay in effect under Proposition 98, until such time as they vacate arent-controlled unit. At that time, the rent on the vacated unit would move to a market-based rent; whereas, under current rent control laws in many areas, the apartment stays under rent control when current tenants vacate it. Will the National Football League ever return to Los Angeles? According to one newspaper columnist, that is what is at stake in the battle between Prop 98 and Prop 99.~~~ "But many cities also use their confiscatory powers to take land from one owner and then resell it to another. Without such takings, there would be no Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles (home to the basketball Lakers and Clippers plus the hockey Kings), nor would there be an AT&T Park in San Francisco's China Basin (home of the baseball Giants). Many shopping malls would not exist, nor would some big-box stores." Disputed impact of Prop 98 on water regulations Some opponents of Prop 98 have maintained that the initiative could conceivably have the unforeseen result of prohibiting transfers of property under eminent domain or threat of eminent domain that a government agency views as needed for water projects. Some environment groups, while entertaining concerns about Proposition 98, have said that if it passes they would use it to block water projects they dislike.~g~ Poll results The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll in Apri12008~9~ with these results: ^ 71% of California's likely voters believes that California's current eminent domain laws need major or minor changes. ^ 53% of likely voters believe rent control is a good thing (39% think it is bad). ^ 37% of likely voters are currently planning to vote for Prop 98, and 41% are planning to vote against it, with 22% undecided. ^ Whereas, 53% of likely voters plan to vote for Prop. 99. Supporters and opponents Both campaign camps have long lists of supporters. ^ Complete list of groups opposing Proposition 98 External Links ^ Yes on Property Rights, Yes On Prop 98 (http://www.yesprop98.com/) Official supporters of Proposition 98 ^ No on 98/Yes on 99 Protect Renters, Protect Homes (http://www.no98yes99.com/) Official opponents of Proposition 98 ^ The Truth about Proposition 99 (http://www.thetruthaboutprop99.comn ^ California Farm Bureau endorsement of Proposition 98 (http://www.cfbf.com/protect~ ^ Text of the initiative (http://ag.ca.gov/cros_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i684_2007-OS-03_07-0015_Initiative.pdf) ^ List of donors over $5,000 supporting Proposition 98 (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1296303&session=2007&view=late 1) ^ List of donors over $5,000 opposed to Proposition 98 (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1287066&session=2007&view=latel ) ^ Analysis of the effects of Proposition 98 on housing (http://www.wclp.org/files/housing-effects-cpofpa-19dec07.pdf J ^ Analysis of impact of Proposition 98 on the environment (http://www.ecovote.org/pdf/smw-letter-re jarvis.pdf) ^ Side-by-side comparison of Propositions 98 and 99 (http://www.eminentdomainreform.com/fs/global:file/publish/publish_jf6a5k1 ~gj4x40_files/file/id/wvxx3bcvh40pk References 1. 1 Governments' ability to seize property at stake on June ballot (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8419973) 2. T San Francisco Chronicle, "Eminent domain measures on ballot" (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?~/c/a/2008/03/09/MNFBVFOBP.DTL) March 20, 2008 3. T Ventura County Star, "Not eminent domain, but rents and rail lines" (http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/apr/07/not-eminent-domain-but-rents-and-rail-lines/) , Apri17, 2008 4. T Contra Costa Times, "Activists at odds over fundraising", April 6, 2008 (http://www.contracostatimes.com/columns/ci_88305 86) 5. T Californians for Property Rights protection, supported by No New Taxes Committee, a Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and the California Farm Bureau Federation, & co-sponsored by the California Alliance to Protect Property Rights (http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1296303&session=2007&view=received) , California Secretary of State Campaign Finance Records 6. T Los Angeles Times, "Proposal aims to undo rent control laws" (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/California/la-me-rent29jan29,0,7455341.story) ,Jan. 29, 2008 7. T Ventura County Star, "Not eminent domain, but rents and rail lines" (http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/apr/07/not-eminent-domain-but-rents-and-rail-lines/) , Apri17, 2008 8. T Capitol Weekly, "Environmental groups may use Jarvis initiative to block water projects" (http://www.capitolweekly.nebarticle.php?xid=wnom5bxmcxst6b&done=search.php%3 Fsearchparams%3 Da%253A eptember 27, 2007 9. T Californians and their Government (http://www.ppic.org/contendpubs/survey/S_308MBS.pdf) Additional reading Proposed ballot measure prohibits use of taxpayer dollars for political activity (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news~ress_release,225620.shtml) Eminent domain state ballot measure takes aim at rent control (http://wwwsfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/11/18/BAR6TElEB.DTL&type=printable) ,San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 18, 2007 Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California Proposition_98 versus_California Proposition_99_%282008%29" Categories: Private property ~ Eminent domain ~ 2008 ballot measures ~ California ballot measures ^ This page was last modified 22:36, 11 Apri12008. ^ Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2.