Competing eminent domain laws headed to ballot
Source: Capital Press, by Bob Krauter
February 20, 2008
State’s Farm Bureau backs measure to protect land, food
California voters will face competing ways to solve eminent domain problems on the June 2008 ballot.
Their choice: The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, backed by the state's largest farm organization and a taxpayers group, or a competing measure pushed by the California League of Cities in the form of the Homeowners Protection Act.
Marko Mlikotin, a spokesman for the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, said more than 900,000 signatures have been gathered as of early November. The initiative is supported by the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and private property rights groups.
"There's no question that this ballot measure will be on the June ballot," Mlikotin said. "The business community has basically stated that this ballot measure that the Farm Bureau has sponsored is the only one that provides the real substantive reforms. The other one does not."
An eminent domain rebellion was touched off in scores of states after the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo v. The City of New London, Conn. The court ruled that government could use eminent domain to take a home and give it to a private developer. Mlikotin said California has been behind the curve in fixing problems stemming from the Kelo case where farms and other businesses remain vulnerable.
"The objective of this ballot measure is to provide real and substantive reform like more than 40 states in the nation have so far," Mlikotin said. "At the end of the day, government should not have to power to seize private property from unwilling sellers and to give it to someone who is wealthy and well-politically connected."
Kenny Watkins, a rancher in San Joaquin County and the second vice president of the California Farm Bureau Federation, said as the state's population pushes into rural areas, problems linked to eminent domain will surely rise. He said protecting farmland, open space and the future food supply from eminent domain seizure is critical.
"Our personal property rights - whether it is water rights, whether it is your land rights - we are all in favor of true public projects, but when you take land away from me at a discounted value so someone else can profit, that's wrong," Watkins said.
Kathy Fairbanks, a spokesperson for the competing Homeowners Protection Act, said her measure appears headed for the June 2008 ballot. She said it would stop the government abuse of taking private land under eminent domain law. Fairbanks leveled criticism at the Farm Bureau-backed initiative.
"We are calling it the 'hidden agenda scheme.' There are a lot of provisions in their measure that are going to have impacts that don't really relate to eminent domain at all," she said. "There is a rent control provision in there that will abolish rent control. There's a regulatory takings provision in there, which would decimate local land-use planning. It would roll back environmental protections."
Fairbanks said a legal analysis of the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act indicated that it would prohibit land acquisition for public water projects, threatening construction of new reservoirs and other water storage facilities. She said it would appear to put the California Farm Bureau at odds with its desire to develop new water storage.
Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, challenged Fairbank's assertion.
"The very notion that they (Farm Bureau) would support something that would impact water storage negatively doesn't make any sense," Coupal said. "This (Homeowners Protection Act) is not about water storage. It is about preserving local governments' ability to seize other peoples' property and be able to turn it over to someone else."
Coupal said several water attorneys have analyzed opponents' claims and have drawn different conclusions. It is the Homeowners Protection Act, he said, that is flawed.
"We would recommend people read it for themselves," Coupal said. "It is a stretch, and this will not be the first time and it won't be the last time (people will say) if our measure passes, it will result in the end of Western civilization."
Marko Mlikotin said it is important that the Homeowners Protection Act be defeated as it contains a "poison pill." In the event both ballot measures are approved, a specific provision in the Homeowners Protection Act will wipe out the Farmland Protection Act in its entirety.
- Friday, November 23, 2007
Bob Krauter is the California editor based in Sacramento. E-mail: bkrauter@capitalpress.com.
click here for more information
|
