CRP Positions On June 3, 2008 Ballot Propositions

For questions or more information regarding CRP positions on these June ballot propositions, please contact the CRP Communications Office at 916-448-9496.

Download in PDF Format

Only one of the two ballot measures can become law, Vote Yes on Prop. 98 and No on Prop. 99.

Yes on Proposition 98 – Protects Everyone, All the Time

Proposition 98 is in direct response to the controversial U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London decision that sanctioned government’s ability to forcibly seize private property from unwilling sellers and give it to developers so that they can profit by building shopping centers to increase sales and property tax revenue for government.

Over 40 states have responded to the Kelo decision by passing eminent domain reforms, but not California!

Summary of Prop. 98:

The only measure on the ballot that protects all private property, including homes, businesses, family farmers and places of worship from eminent domain abuse (e.g. to build a shopping center, auto mall or industrial park).

If a public agency takes property under false pretenses, or abandons its plans, the property must be offered for sale to the original owner at the original price and the property tax would be assessed at the value of the property when it was originally condemned.

If property is taken for legitimate public projects, property owners are required to be fully compensated.

Government may not set the price at which property owners sell or lease their property.

Family farms and open space are protected from seizures by government for the purpose of selling the natural resources.

Proposition 99 – Vote No on Sham Reform

This measure is a sham that was placed on the ballot by politicians and redevelopment interests to counter Proposition 98. It includes a poison pill provision that strips Prop. 98 of all its comprehensive private property protections.

According to the State’s non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office Prop. 99, “is not likely to significantly alter current land acquisition practices.” Why? It doesn’t do anything.

Unlike Prop. 98, it purposely excludes private property protections for businesses, family farms, rental property and places of worship!

Includes numerous exceptions and loopholes, including one that would allow public agencies to circumvent the purported home protections by merely rezoning neighborhoods into business/retail use.

To learn about Prop. 99 visit www.thetruthaboutprop99.com.