Prop 90 seeks to limit the state government’s ability to exert “eminent domain” on private property to benefit other private concerns.

(+) Eminent Domain has generally been understood throughout history as allowing the government to appropriate private property for the public good. Examples of this would include requiring landowners to give right-of-way for firefighters, letting the city widen a road, and so forth. The fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States stipulates that no such appropriations can be done without “just compensation” and “due process.” Using imminent domain to hand property over to private developers is something most people thought was beyond the pale until a recent Supreme Court decision. This proposition can largely be seen as a response to that ruling.

(-) Substantial loss. Prop 90 requires compensation be given for any statute, ordinance, or regulation that causes a “substantial loss” in the value of the property in question. What’s substantial, exactly? Prop 90 doesn’t say, and neither does any other part of the state constitution. As this is an amendment to the fundamental legal document of the land, I would hope for a bit more careful wording.

(+) Regulatory taking. I learned the term “take” as used here from my wife. Taking doesn’t necessarily involve establishing physical possession of something, but make simply be disturbing it. This is used in her field to describe what happens to wildlife when human activity kills, threatens, or bothers them. Prop 90 would force the state to pay out when it “takes” private property through regulation. A lot of such regulation is beneficial to the public, and in some cases (public health and safety) Prop 90 doesn’t come into play at all.

(-) Right of return. The proposed amendment contains some rather bizarre wording regarding the stated purpose for the taking or destruction of public property. Specifically it says

If any property taken through eminent domain after the effective date of this subdivision ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner of the property or a beneficiary or an heir, if a beneficiary or heir has been designated for this purpose, shall have the right to reacquire the property for the fair market value of the property before the property may be otherwise sold or transferred.

It seems to me that this means any land purchased by the government to, say, build an elementary school, couldn’t later be converted to use for a fire station, police department, high school, or any other purpose without first offering it back to the original landowner for a fraction of what its then-current fair market value would be. Remember: real estate value goes up, not down, in California.

(-) Farmers. Prop 90 basically means the state cannot ever reduce the amount of irrigated water going to a particular parcel. Farmers refuse to do just about anything that is remotely in the public interest unless there’s a subsidy attached to it, and have never been afraid to sue the government when they feel trod upon, so I don’t really see this proposition as being a substantial improvement in that domain.

Overall, this looks like a special interest bonanza. By special interest I mean a particular subspecies of landowner that is keen to keep the government off their backs at all times unless they’re showing up to hand over a check for doing just about nothing. On its face, the proposition addresses the concern that poor people’s homes will be taken from them to build luxury hotels and high-end condos, but there’s an awful lot of extra baggage here. I suspect it’ll pass, but personally I’m giving this a “no.”