Politics
Propositions are in the same domain
Upcoming initiatives aim to curtail public agencies’ power to take private property away for another use.
By Ryan Vaillancourt
GLENDALE — As shoppers began turning out at the recently opened Americana at Brand, the mixed-use megaplex billed as the city’s chief catalyst for downtown redevelopment will stand as an example of the kind of project that might have been impossible to build under a new state law up for voter approval on June 3.
The upcoming primary election contains only two ballot initiatives, both of which are viewed as competing eminent domain reforms that aim to curtail public agencies’ power to take private property for another private use.
Proposition 98, the more stringent of the two reforms, would quash rent control statewide and prohibit public agencies from taking any private property and transferring it for another private use. In Glendale, where rent control isn’t a factor, the rent provisions are not of serious local concern. But the main thrust of the bill as it relates to redevelopment would have far-reaching local implications, City Manager Jim Starbird said.
“Under Prop. 98, the Americana couldn’t be done today,” Starbird said.
Backed by Californians for Property Rights Protection, a project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., the measure is one of many that have arose nationally in response to the controversial U.S. Supreme Court case in 2005 — Kelo vs. New London, Conn. — that upheld the city of New London’s takeover of residential homes to make way for a commercial development. The city invoked eminent domain on grounds that the project offered a greater public benefit than the existing housing.
Proponents of the Proposition 98 dismiss the notion that it would handcuff public agencies from revitalizing blighted commercial areas.
“Prop. 98 would prohibit a private-to-private transfer under the guise of eminent domain; however, there’s nothing in there that prohibits local governments or redevelopment agencies from working to broker agreements and deals with existing property owners or users of that existing property,” said Michael Shaw, legislative director for the National Federation of Independent Businesses, California, which is working to get the measure passed.
In order for supporters of the bill to make it law, they’ll have to outvote proponents of Proposition 99, an alternative reform measure that also aims to limit eminent domain for private transfer, but would only prohibit the governmental takeover of owner-occupied residential properties. The bill does not address rent control.
“Proposition 99 addresses the legitimate concerns that people have about abuse of the eminent domain process when it comes to private homes, and it isn’t laden with a lot of other issues, like Proposition 98,” said Assemblyman Paul Krekorian, whose district includes Glendale. “I did have some concerns about the breadth of the Kelo decision, and I think it’s important that we not ignore the risk that comes from unfettered eminent domain. . . . So I do think it’s appropriate that we try to address that in a balanced way, and I think Prop. 99 does that.”
The Glendale City Council will likely vote on a resolution addressing both the ballot initiatives sometime before June, Starbird said.
RYAN VAILLANCOURT covers business, politics and the foothills. He may be reached at (818) 637-3215 or by e-mail at ryan.vaillancourt@latimes.com.
The upcoming primary election contains only two ballot initiatives, both of which are viewed as competing eminent domain reforms that aim to curtail public agencies’ power to take private property for another private use.
Proposition 98, the more stringent of the two reforms, would quash rent control statewide and prohibit public agencies from taking any private property and transferring it for another private use. In Glendale, where rent control isn’t a factor, the rent provisions are not of serious local concern. But the main thrust of the bill as it relates to redevelopment would have far-reaching local implications, City Manager Jim Starbird said.
“Under Prop. 98, the Americana couldn’t be done today,” Starbird said.
Backed by Californians for Property Rights Protection, a project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., the measure is one of many that have arose nationally in response to the controversial U.S. Supreme Court case in 2005 — Kelo vs. New London, Conn. — that upheld the city of New London’s takeover of residential homes to make way for a commercial development. The city invoked eminent domain on grounds that the project offered a greater public benefit than the existing housing.
Proponents of the Proposition 98 dismiss the notion that it would handcuff public agencies from revitalizing blighted commercial areas.
“Prop. 98 would prohibit a private-to-private transfer under the guise of eminent domain; however, there’s nothing in there that prohibits local governments or redevelopment agencies from working to broker agreements and deals with existing property owners or users of that existing property,” said Michael Shaw, legislative director for the National Federation of Independent Businesses, California, which is working to get the measure passed.
In order for supporters of the bill to make it law, they’ll have to outvote proponents of Proposition 99, an alternative reform measure that also aims to limit eminent domain for private transfer, but would only prohibit the governmental takeover of owner-occupied residential properties. The bill does not address rent control.
“Proposition 99 addresses the legitimate concerns that people have about abuse of the eminent domain process when it comes to private homes, and it isn’t laden with a lot of other issues, like Proposition 98,” said Assemblyman Paul Krekorian, whose district includes Glendale. “I did have some concerns about the breadth of the Kelo decision, and I think it’s important that we not ignore the risk that comes from unfettered eminent domain. . . . So I do think it’s appropriate that we try to address that in a balanced way, and I think Prop. 99 does that.”
The Glendale City Council will likely vote on a resolution addressing both the ballot initiatives sometime before June, Starbird said.
RYAN VAILLANCOURT covers business, politics and the foothills. He may be reached at (818) 637-3215 or by e-mail at ryan.vaillancourt@latimes.com.
Copyright © 2008 - Glendale News Press