Eminent domain enters the political realm

For residents of the High Desert, 98 and 99 have long referred to the “Highway Stations” that play popular music. But all of California’s voters will have an opportunity to consider propositions 98 and 99, which, unlike the radio stations, are not playing exactly the same tunes.

The question for Californians is, which measure actually overturns the infamous Kelo v. New London decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that gave constitutional support to local governments that take private property to assist developers and enrich city coffers? Both 98 and 99 purport to end that practice in this state. Let us see.

Proposition 98 seeks to reaffirm the constitutional principle that eminent domain is the taking of private land for public use only. To that end, it not only sets forth definitions but puts teeth into regulations. For example, whatever public use local government takes the property for, that must remain its use. If that use is changed, the original owner must be permitted to repurchase it.

Moreover, the measure would authorize courts to hear challenges from property owners and broaden compensation to include relocation costs and even attorneys’ fees, if the seizure is successfully challenged. It also abolishes rent control, except for those tenants now benefiting from it (more below).

Existing authority to seize property being used for criminal purposes or which endangers the health of safety of residents would be unaffected, as would authority to establish public housing.

The big bone of contention, of course, as is clear from the television advertisements in opposition to Prop. 98, is its abolition of rent control which, the legislative analyst reports, exists in at least six major California cities. This reaction is not surprising, as rent control is believed to be a form of protection for low-income renters against purportedly greedy landlords.

Supporters of Prop. 98 seem as defensive about its abolition of further rent control as its critics are enraged, offering no defense for what is obviously a significant and controversial policy. But the same principle applies to both eminent domain and rent control.

We all understand that eminent domain that transfers property from one private property owner to another which serves no public use, e.g., roads, highways, parks, schools or government buildings, cannot be justified. But this is also true of laws that keep rents below market value, forcing the landlord to subsidize the tenant. This amounts to a “taking” for a private, not a public, use.

As near as I can determine, Proposition 98’s rent control provision is the main reason that Proposition 99 was devised and proposed. For the latter, too, seeks to restrict eminent domain to taking private property for only genuine public uses. Doubtless the unpopularity of the Kelo decision is as much the inspiration for this measure as for the competing one.

However, the legislative analyst makes this remarkable statement under the section entitled Fiscal Effects: “[T]his measure would not change significantly current land acquisition practices.” Naturally, supporters of Proposition 98 have seized about this statement to argue that the reform Proposition 99 offers is not authentic.

More likely, it simply means that 99 doesn’t have the additional disincentives to taking which are found in 98. Voters need to decide whether those extra measures, as well as an end to rent control, are necessary or not. I believe they are.

Hence, as for me and my household (paraphrasing Joshua), we are voting “yes” on 98 and “no” on 99.

As I write this column, the people of this nation are memorializing the men who have sacrificed their lives so that we might remain free. Memorial Day is also a tribute to our character as we continue in this noble tradition, particularly in view of the noisy minority that professes concern for those sacrifices yet would deny our servicemen the fruits of their heroic efforts.

There are many who believe that wars never resolve anything, but they are wrong. Because men fought, we are and remain a free and independent nation. The Revolutionary War made our founding possible, the Civil War kept us united, two world wars defeated and destroyed expansionist despotism, the Korean and Vietnamese wars checked communist aggression, and two Iraq wars ended a tyrant’s depredations. The Cold War terminated with the collapse of the Soviet empire.

More to the point, monarchy, slavery, nazism, communism and Islamism have either disappeared or been severely restricted. Had our fighting men not done their duty, we would share the oppression of the people we liberated.

The Constitution charges the federal government with, among other things, “securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Those on the front lines of freedom bear the brunt of that responsibility. In our civilian regime, it is vital that we the people select representatives, and especially the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, who understand the threats we face and appreciate the contributions of those in uniform.

No less than our fighting men, then, our national leaders must secure our liberty. No one but God gives us that liberty, but no one who is not willing to make the necessary choices and sacrifices can make it secure for all of us.

ABOUT THE WRITER
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of “ Taking Journalism Seriously: ‘Objectivity’ as a Partisan Cause” (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.