TUESDAY | May 27, 2008

No on Propositions 98 and 99
Fear is a dangerous thing.  This is especially true when it comes to California ballot initiatives, which play on our fears that the government will seize our homes at anytime. That is the case with Propositions 98 and 99, which deserve strong “no” votes.

The reality is that California’s eminent domain protections are among the toughest in the nation. Property must be “blighted” before they are taken and that test is not easy under California law. In addition, many of the state’s cities and municipalities already have laws that are more restrictive on the books prohibiting the use of eminent domain on single-family homes.

These very strict guidelines ensure that eminent domain is a means to rehabilitate rundown, blighted areas that desperately need redevelopment to create a safer community, new jobs and a broader tax base.  Without the careful use of eminent domain here in Los Angeles, the revitalization of downtown including L.A. Live and Staples Center would not have been possible.

Proposition 98 would prohibit the taking of private property, including homes and commercial property, for private use. That may sound great, but the term “private use” is defined so broadly that it would likely prohibit many public-private partnerships such as charter schools, hospitals, mass transit, highways and water resource projects—a critical tool if California is to address its $500 billion infrastructure needs.

Public arguments against Proposition 98 focus on its other major priority: phasing out rent control in California. Regardless of where you stand on that issue, rent control is a local issue and should not be linked to the Kelo decision on eminent domain by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005.

Opponents of Proposition 98 qualified Proposition 99 as a much less incendiary way to address the public concern over eminent domain. It is much more watered down than Prop 98, but it still raises the same concerns about its potential affect on public-private partnerships and important urban redevelopment projects.

Far reaching, one-size fits all land use regulations to be placed in the state constitution require a much more thorough discussion and approval process than via 30 second television ads and a couple of ballot punches in a voting booth. Municipalities—governed by and answerable to local residents—should have the sacred use of eminent domain.

Yes to Bernard Parks and Stuart Waldman
The L.A. Area Chamber endorses selected candidates in local and state races. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about our endorsement of Bernard C. Parks for L.A. County Board of Supervisors as the best candidate to address the needs of the Second Supervisorial District.

The Chamber’s L.A. Jobs Political Action Committee (PAC) also interviewed the three major candidates running for the 40th Assembly District in the San Fernando Valley and carefully evaluated their positions on issues affecting our local economy. The PAC endorsed Stuart Waldman as the best candidate to represent the 40th Assembly District in the state Legislature.

Don't forget to vote on Tuesday, June 3.

And that’s The Business Perspective. 

Gary L. Toebben
President & CEO
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

The Business Perspective is a weekly opinion piece by Gary Toebben, President & CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

by Gary Toebben, President & CEO, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

L.A. Business
THIS WEEK
View the latest issue of the Chamber's weekly e-mail newsletter.
Contact us to subscribe.