" If you love private property rights and you want to stop government from intruding on them...Yes on 98. "

" I suppose musicluvr has pretty much summarized it, in a simple sort of way. Only I would add, can we accurately define "property rights", are you considering balancing "property rights" against property owner responsibility, and just what does the "government" gain from intruding on property rights, unless its to provide necessary infrastructure, income, services, resources, etc. for its employer (i.e. the electorate)? "

" No, if you love property rights - you'll vote no on 98 and wait until the two major and unrelated issues are seperated and each debated on their own merits rather than just in context with one another. Eminent Domain and Rent Control are two entirely distinct concepts and processes and as such need to be treated and discussed seperately. "

" Entity. I agree that Eminent Domain and rent control are complex terms, but they are not so different. I will illustrate. Eminent Domain is the anglicisim of the latin term referring to the government having control over all. Eminent domain in America was an accepted part of English law which our contry adopted when we won the Revolutionary War. It is further clarified in the 5th Amendment which states "...nor shall private property be taken for public use with just compensation". Rent control is a government edict restricting the rents a private property owner can charge, restricting the right to demolish the property and restricting the right of the owner to evict a tenant to occupy the property; without payment for the loss of income and rights of use in relation to market rents. It therefore is a taking of private property without just compensation. "

" Just because they both fall under the heading of "property rights" doesn't make it OK to lump them under one proposition. You're grossly over-simplifying the matter.

I'm not agreeing with all of the edicts of rent control and it may be in need of repair or removal, but there are certainly debatable points to the issue beyond "property rights". Rent control was enstated for a reason - to keep landlords from raising rents and throwing people out just in the name of excessive profit. For example: when the Olympics has gone to most *any* city without rent controls worldwide, what happens is landlords tend to start start evicting tenants in the area and quadrupling(or more) their rental rates, because they know they can get away with it - profits before people. That's ethically and morally wrong in mine eyes. Governments and laws exist for a reason - one reason is to provide protection and balance of power in situations where otherwise there would be little. What recourse would a tenant have in that case? The answer is, they've had none. People need places to live, particularly in today's environments where owning a home is beyond a lot of folks. Being a landlord is not just a cash cow, and comes with responsibilities to your tenants.

Otherwise, on one hand we've got the backers of 98 saying that 99 is going to make the government take away your property (and ignoring the disappearing rent control issue) and on the other hand we've got 99 backers saying that 98 is going to cause rents to skyrocket (and ignoring the eminent domain questions). Who do you trust? I trust *neither* and am voting against BOTH. "

" Entity, California law prohibits a proposition from dealing with more than one issue. As such, 98 has been vetted and approved by the Attorney General. It deals with one issue, property rights. "

" Entity: Prop 98 is very complex and oversimplification may be necessary for some people. You seem to be interested in it at a deeper level which is a good thing, but then you say you will vote "no" on both. I am sorry for that. I have been studying the issues and found a great deal of information at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assn. You may want to go to hjta.org. Hope to win you over. "

" Proposition 98 is a deceptive doomsday measure that a group of wealthy landlords spent millions to put on the ballot. These landlords want you to believe the measure is only about “eminent domain,” but Prop. 98 is full of hidden provisions that would hurt all Californians.

• Prop. 98 attacks renters by eliminating renter protections and rent control.

• Prop. 98 guts important environmental protections like laws we need to combat global warming, and protect our land, air, water and coasts.

• Prop. 98 jeopardizes the quality of our drinking water and our ability to secure new water sources to protect our environment and fuel our economy.

• Prop. 98 will result in frivolous lawsuits, higher taxpayer costs, and hurt our economy.

That's why a broad coalition including AARP, League of Women Voters of California, the Coalition to Protect California Renters, Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, Inc. (GSMOL), California Professional Firefighters, California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Teachers Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Chamber of Commerce and a long list of others all oppose Prop. 98.

Many of these same groups are also supporting a real eminent domain reform on the June 3rd ballot.

Proposition 99 is the straightforward solution we need to protect against eminent domain abuse.

Prop. 99 prohibits government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer.

Unlike the landlords’ Prop. 98, Prop. 99 is eminent domain reform with NO HIDDEN AGENDAS.

Please be sure you have the facts and vote NO on 98 and Yes on 99 on June 3rd.
"

" John Richards - I don't think the AG did a very good job in making that decision. Here's why.

While I do personally disagree with most eminent domain seizure of property, the rent control issue in 98 is too big to write off simply as "property issues", as it could have a pretty heavy socioeconomic impact. Eminent domain seizures, while bad, are far less frequent than renting a place to live by orders of magnitude - the weight of the two issues is strongly imbalanced.

Meanwhile there seems to be unhappiness about 99's lesser restrictions on eminent domain - leaving each proposition weak on the issue that the other is strong in. That to me means that both are broken.

I don't think I can vote yes on either one. "

" That’s the flaw in the logic...if someone owns the property it’s their constitutional right to do as the wish without an unreasonably burden. Fruit loops like to think property owners owe them for the privilege of ownership..everything they get for nothing is paid by property owners from public schools, fire departments, police departments and the ever expanding city and county buildings.
Yes on 98...
"

" Prop 98 initially will have NO effect on rent control. All existing rental agreements will be honored. It is only after an apartment becomes vacant that the rent amount returns to the fair market value. Sounds fair and straightforward to me. "

" Prop 98 only eliminates new rent control. Nobody is forced to rent property. This is a business transaction. If you don't like your landlord you can move. If you don't want to pay the rent he is asking move out. Not everyone can afford to live in Malibu or San Francisco, that is life. "

" I support Prop 98 because I beleive it is not fair to force a landlord to keep his prices level when his/her expenses are not controlled. If you want to help someone stay in a house they cannot afford that is your right but should not be forced to do it. "

" To Jot:
I don't understand -- nobody is forced to rent property??? Guess we all have the option to buy, huh? Overpriced Apartment: Love It or Leave It! Have you ever tried to look for a place to rent in, say, Los Angeles, New York, the Bay Area? I've moved around a lot, and have had the heart-wrenching experience of searching for apartments many times in my life, losing the "lottery" when more than one person was being considered, being unable to find places I could afford (especially close to wherever I worked at the time), having to move out in the middle of grad school semester because a house I & friends were renting was being sold, then having to spend my time two other times having to find apartments which I could afford only by recruiting roommates to share, being asked to leave a newly rented apartment because my girlfriend's brother, a black man, was helping me move my stuff in, renting a room in a house because I couldn't afford anything else even though I was working full-time (this was in N.Y.), etc. etc. etc. It's interesting because I have letters my father wrote to my mother in 1944, when he had gotten a job in Milwaukee, about trying to find a place to rent for the family to move there. We were apart the whole first year of my life, because landlords turned away families with children. This problem has been around a long time, and rent control, along with fair housing laws, has made a big difference. A friend laughed at me recently because I expressed sense of joy & hope on seeing a "for rent" sign on a house. And then there's older people. "

" No one has a right to rent a specific apartment at a price they can afford, in the same way that a prospective homeowner doesn't have a right to buy a specific house at a price they can afford. Why should someone be forced to subsidize your desires? Learn to adjust your appetite to what you can afford. Be prepared to live in a less desirable neighborhood if that is all you can manage on your income level.

When I first came to the Bay area, I could not afford to live in Napa, so I settled for Fairfield. It never crossed my mind to insist that landlords or taxpayers pay part of my bills. "

" to John Richards --
The point is, without some form of rent control, even crummy places are often hard to find at an affordable price, and landlords are free to charge whatever they want. In New York, I paid what I could afford to rent a room in a lower class neighborhood in Queens. I couldn't afford a studio apartment in Manhattan, where I worked. In L.A., I lived wherever I could find an apartment I could afford. Same in Oakland. It's not about living above one's means. It's about having affordable places available at all. Even slumlords can overcharge, and trust me they do if there are no constraints. Only those who haven't struggled to find a place to live think its a breeze for everyone. It's not, and Prop. 98 will make it worse in California. If Landlords are struggling so hard to make a living the way it is, maybe they should find another job. No one's forcing them to be landlords. Anyway, I don't think most of them are struggling. Where do you suppose they're likely to live? "

" Truth on the slumlords. They'll charge whatever they can get away with for an absolute pit when there's an imbalance of negotiating power, as is *always* the case when renting. Renter's rights are important - anybody who isn't loaded wouldn't be able to afford to live *anywhere* without them. Really, I support laws that strike the best balance between landlord control and the best interests of renters. The right to make a profit, but not to gouge. The right to a place to live, but not on someone else's dime. I still can't support 98 so far - or 99 for that matter. "

" If a landlord was to charge more than what the apartment is worth, units will go unrented, hence no income for the landlord. It's all self-correcting, and controlled by the law of supply and demand. Take a course in Econ 101 sometime, and it will become clear to you. Now in some localities rental units are in such short supply that the price gets bid up. That is normal. If you can't afford the rent there, you would have to move elsewhere, which is why I had to live in Fairfield rather than Napa for a while. "

" Your faith in the "invisible hand" is not shared; "the market" is only self-adjusting to a degree. History shows that corruption is inevitable when there is an imbalance of negotiating power, leading to a sharp line that keeps the "haves" having and the "have nots" without. At least a baseline of regulatory protection helps balance out the negotiating power to keep things equitable, particularly in something as important as housing. "

" Entity are you talking about the corruption that is happening with the current imbalance in negotiating power that public employee unions have over local governments? More and more pay and benefits yet huge "unfunded" liabilities remain and local governments going bankrupt (Vallejo). Isn't that a situation where we need more regulatory protection to help the balance of negotiating power? I mean, the financial health of our local government is at least as important as housing, right? "

" No, actually, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about - in this context, I'm talking specifically about renter's rights.

I personally see what's happening in Vallejo probably as more of a case of poor/mis-management of city services and resources, but I'd prefer to debate what's going on there in a different forum. "

" To musikluvr:
Yes. Financial health of our local governments AND housing. Both important. Prop. 98 fixes neither. Vote No on Prop. 98. It does nothing but fool the poor, feed the wealthy. "

" All...we're getting a little off topic here I think. There is no deception in Proposition 98 regarding rent control. The point of the measure is simple.

Prop 98 deals with some of the worst property rights abuses in California. It is the only measure that prohibits all property—homes, rentals, businesses, farmland and churches—from being taken by government via eminent domain for a private use, like an auto dealership or strip mall. The measure also phases out regulations that limit the sales and lease prices of land. If you are in rent-regulated housing and 98 passes, you can remain there until you voluntarily move out. No one will be evicted, and no one under rent control will see their rents increased.

Proposition 99 also includes a "poison pill" provision which states that if voters approve both measures but 99 receives more votes, that all the provisions in 98 would be nullified. This is deceptive politics at its worst, and voters must not be fooled.

Simply put, nobody loses their homes, and we can finally tell the long arm of government that enough is enough! That's the point of your YES vote on Prop 98 and a no on Prop 99. "

" to Sportdave:
What you call the "poison pill" in 99 is instead assurance that people will get exactly what you say is important -- nobody loses their home -- without all the extra stuff that's present in 98, which boils down to restrictions on local government's ability to ensure availability of housing and other regional amenities (and I'm not talking about big box stores or car dealerships. Local government has already toned down it's tendency to use eminent domain for that.) We don't need 98. If we are concerned about government taking our homes, 99 handles that. The whole issue of eminent domain monstrously taking over everyone's property is blown way out of proportion in the first place. The bigger problem is affordable housing, especially available housing for those who can't afford to own their homes, and who will likely not be able to afford apartments either should 98 pass. "

" Sport dave: your comment is very succinct, to the point and factual. Yours is what the public needs to read instead of the emotional politicalspeak misinformation posted by della just above yours. "

" "Emotional politicalspeak misinformation" Wow, that's a mouthful. Wish I had thought of it. It describes perfectly the Prop 98 website. "

" I like 98 but there is one thing I am concerned about. My original reading of it many months ago led me to believe that part of the impetus for this is for those who own mobile home parks, where a lot of seniors live, want to kick them out and convert the land into higher priced homes. With 98 they will be able to do this.

True or false, anyone know? "

" Entity, I don't understand your reference to "imbalance of negotiating power." Do you negotiate with Apple when you want to buy a new iPhone from them? I don't think so. You either pay the stated price or you do without. The same goes for renters. Landlords can't price their apartments above fair market value because the units would go unrented. "

" Napablogger: I think you got it dead on with your last comment. Perhaps others would benefit as well, but certainly the mobile home park people have the most to gain. It's interesting, because when I first read our local measure N, I thought to myself, "Mmmm, wouldn't this open it up for mobile home parks as affordable housing?" Only with Prop 98, they would no longer be affordable.
To John Richards: Your point is well-taken. Not everyone can afford an i-phone, however, and by your logic, not everyone would be able to afford housing. Thank goodness i-phones are not crucial to our standard of living and our so-called American way of life. Housing, on the other hand....There have been times in our history when housing was hard to come by (yes, even in crummy neighborhoods). You seem to be missing this point. And I'm not talking about Fairfield. It's possible there will always be times when housing is hard to come by for some, and times when it is truly scarce and overpriced (as in the home purchasing market at the present time). "

" Sorry, the government is not responsible for giving us 'affordable' housing. Not unless we turn into a socialist or communist country where cradle-to-the-grave assistance is the norm. If you can't afford even the cheapest rental apartment in Napa, your choices are:
1. Move back in with your parents (as my oldest daughter recently did).
2. Find a rental in a nearby city (Fairfield).
3. Move to another city or state where housing is cheaper.
4. Qualify yourself for a higher paying job.
5. Marry a spouse who can afford the lifestyle you desire.

Don't depend on government handouts to get you by. All it does is lower your self esteem. "