Statewide Coalition Vows to Stop the Death of Rent Control
The threat of a landlord-backed ballot measure intended to impede and destroy rent control, environmental protections and land use laws has united organizations that represent tenants, environmentalists and cities up and down the state.
Landlords and mobile home park owners provided most of the $2 million to circulate a petition written by extreme private property rights forces. Fronted by the Jarvis Taxpayer Association, they paint their Trojan horse as reasonable protection against unfair eminent domain laws. Their proposed amendment to the state constitution redefines forbidden government takings to include almost any law that may reduce the value of property.
Organizations of tenants, environmentalists and cities banded together to circulate petitions for a measure that will provide clear eminent domain reform for homeowners, without destroying the land use laws we rely on to protect us from uncontrolled uses of property. This simple measure responds to the main goal of the nationwide eminent domain reform movement by seeking to amend the state constitution to say that no government in California can take an owner-occupied residence to transfer to another private interest.
Regional organizations of tenants, mobile home residents and seniors gathered with elected officials in LA and San Francisco to rally against the owners’ measure. SMRR’s Denny Zane and Councilmember Kevin McKeown were two of six prominent speakers at the LA event held in front of the annual meeting of the Apartment Owners Association on Halloween. (View Video)
It is encouraging to note that, although we started a month later gathering signatures, our side got more signatures and turned them in within a few days of the landlords’. Many of our 1,100,000 signatures were collected by volunteers, which made it possible to spread the word person-to-person at gatherings of friends and allies. Huge numbers of people are clear on this issue and ready to help get out the word and vote. By the way, thanks are due to a hundred SMRR members who took out and returned petitions in our area.
Both measures will appear on the June legislative primary election, which would ordinarily have a low-turnout. If both pass, the one with the most votes becomes law. Since ballot numbers had not been assigned at the time of this writing, one way recognize the difference between the two is the language provided by the Attorney General to describe them:
Vote NO on the bad one (Proposition 98):
“GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property for private uses. Prohibits rent control and similar measures…”
Vote YES on the good one (Proposition 99):
“EMINENT DOMAIN. ACQUISITION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENCE.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Bars state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence, as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity...”