Dueling
Props on Tuesday’s Ballot |
By Jorge Casuso
June 2 -- Two dueling propositions are the only measures
on Tuesday’s statewide ballot, but while both curb government’s
powers of eminent domain, the differences are being obscured by
the battle over rent control.
The more encompassing of the two, Proposition 98 would bar governments from
forcing owners of homes, farms and commercial buildings to sell their properties
so they can be turned over to private developers. It also would end rent control
when a unit is vacated.
Proposition 99 -- which includes a “poison pill” that would override
the other measure if it wins more votes -- only covers single family homes.
But a key purpose is to help defeat a measure that would further erode rent
control in cities such as Santa Monica and Berkeley.
Not surprisingly, the rent control provision has been the focus in a city long
dubbed “Soviet Monica” for its restrictive rent control laws. The
City Council, as well as the School and College boards have unanimously voted
to support Prop 99 and oppose Prop 98, which local officials say would have
dire consequences for the beachside city.
“It would have extremely serious consequences for Santa Monica and other
California cities,” City Attorney Marsha Moutrie told the council members
on April 29. “It would be a dramatic erosion of local control if it were
to pass.”
Members of Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights, the powerful tenants group
that has helped elect a majority of the members to the three elected bodies,
portrayed Prop 98 as putting rent control tenants in imminent danger.
“If rent control were eliminated, we would lose students,”
School Board President Oscar de la Torre said at the board meeting
May 15. “Talk about declining enrollment.”
Council member Kevin McKeown likewise raised concerns that tenants
would face a greater risk of being evicted if Prop 98 were to pass.
But despite the dire warning by SMRR officials, Moutrie advised the council
that tenants would be protected by existing anti-harassment ordinances and that,
if Prop 98 were to win, a lengthy legal battle would likely delay its implementation
for years to come.
Proponents of Prop 98 note that the 1996 State Costa-Hawkins Rental
Act already allows landlords to charge market rates when a unit
is vacated voluntarily or for non-payment of rent.
If anything, opponents contend, SMRR officials fear Prop 98 because it would
slowly strip power from the group, as well as from the Rent Control bureaucracy
bankrolled by registration fees from the rent-controlled units.
Prop 98 “attacks their power structure,” said Rosario Perry, a
local attorney who has challenged numerous rent control provisions over the
years. “They will lose fees and voters.”
If anything, Perry said, tenants would likely be offered large
payments of between $30,000 and $50,000 to vacate their units by
landlords who will be able to finally celebrate a sense of freedom
from the burden of rent control.
“Your rent control, especially in Santa Monica is a rich man’s
rent control,” said Trevor Grim, general counsel for the Apartment Association
of Greater Los Angeles, one of the sponsors of Prop 98. “If you compared
tenant income and owner income, in many cases you’d have tenants making
more.”
The rent control provision would be phased in apartment by apartment, as opposed
to setting a “drop down date” to end all rent control, as was the
case with a voter approved measure in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Grim said.
“We made this as mild as you could make it,” he said.
The rent control provision -- which is estimated to impact about
one in 35 California apartment and mobile home dwellers -- has shifted
the focus away from the eminent domain issue at the heart of the
proposition battle.
While landlords account for much of the $3 million in campaign contributions
to Prop 98, the League of California Cities, a major lobbying group for city
governments, has pumped about as much into Prop 99.
The league fears Prop 98 would erode government’s powers to eminent domain
commercial properties for private developments that are for “the public
good.” Prop 99 would only cover single-family homes.
Prop 98 is the latest in a series of initiatives across the U.S. that attempt
to combat the expansion of government’s powers of eminent domain under
a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
In Kelo vs. City of New London, the court ruled that a private home, church
or business can be forced into eminent domain by a government body or redevelopment
agency intent on providing the land to a private developer.
Until that ruling, government entities could only seize private-property
outside “blighted” areas for public uses, such as roadways
and schools.
|
