Legal Analysis

Proposition 99 is a do-nothing, sham put on the ballot by politicians and developers to trick voters.  Three sources offer their independent analysis of Prop 99.

PROP 99: FATAL FLAW

"It is unclear if Prop 99 would protect any property."
Institute for Justice
The Institute for Justice (IJ), the organization that litigated the Kelo v. New London case before the U.S. Supreme Court ,  found that “Prop. 99 will do little to prevent eminent domain abuse in California—and this flaw is fatal.”  IJ includes in these fatal flaws the lack of protections for small businesses, family farms and other properties as well as loopholes that continue to allow even owner occupied homes to continue to be taken for private development.  Specifically, IJ concludes that among other loopholes, public agencies could circumvent the purported home protections by merely rezoning residential neighborhoods to business/retail use so that homes can be replaced with shopping centers.  Additionally, IJ found that Prop. 99 was “a clear attack” on Prop. 98, a measure also appearing on the June ballot.  

Read full analysis »

PROP 99 PROVIDES NO REAL PROTECTIONS:

Prop 99 "would not change significantly current government land acquisition practices.”
Non-partisan, Legislative Analysts' Office
Analysis from the state’s non-partisan Legislative Analysts'  Office clearly and simply states, “this measure would not change significantly current government land acquisition practices.”  This conclusion is based on their finding that Prop. 99  may protect  only some single family homes but  excludes new homeowners (those who have not lived in their homes for more that 1 year ) and there are are no protections for small businesses, farmers, places of worship and rental property. The LAO also clearly identifies the poison pill provision which says that if Prop. 99 “were approved by more votes than Proposition 98, this measure provides that the provisions of Proposition 98 would not take effect.” 

Read full analysis »

PROP 99: A SHAM

"Even the purported protection for single family homeowners is so ambiguously worded and conditioned with exceptions, that many experts in property rights law believe the initiative will do little to prohibit government from continuing to seize homes for redevelopment."
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association/Californians for Property Rights Protection
The  analysis, from  Californians for Property Rights and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association  exposes several specific loopholes that were included in Prop. 99’s vague language.  What’s more, this analysis finds that, “it is unlikely that the loopholes exposed in this analysis were unintended” and “it is reasonable to conclude, then, that the proponents’ primary goal in spending over $4 million to qualify this otherwise do-nothing ballot measure is to defeat passage of Proposition 98and to deny California property owners real and comprehensive eminent domain reform.” 

Read memo »