Concern about eminent domain spread like wildfire after a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision. The controversy has landed on the June 3 California ballot in the form of two initiatives, propositions 98 and 99.

In our view, both propositions should be rejected.

Proposition 98 was the first of the two, the one that rose most directly from reaction to Kelo v. New London. In that case, the Supreme Court allowed a Connecticut city to declare eminent domain to acquire a large and disused site encompassing part of its downtown and waterfront for economic redevelopment. The court, divided 5-4, allowed the conversion and stated specifically that economic redevelopment is a legitimate reason for the government’s use of eminent domain.

Property rights advocates seized on the decision’s approval of government takeover of private lands for a project that would benefit other private developers as an unconscionable abuse.

Proposition 98 would heavily restrict when government can use eminent domain. Yet it goes further, with language that might render rent-control laws — used in all major Bay Area cities and several others around the state — an illegal taking of private property. Given how vital rent control has been to keeping California cities affordable, this is misguided. Further, the measure might jeopardize rent control laws affecting mobile home parks, and those residents need strong legal protections.

Proposition 99 is the more moderate of the proposals. It, too, offers protections from eminent domain for private homeowners. It would do no harm to rent control. But it represents hardly any reform at all. It makes no changes to compensation to private property owners and does not address many of the concerns raised by Kelo.

Land use advocates see 99 as a cynical ploy, a watered-down measure to confuse voters and undermine the cause.

Frankly, we are not convinced that California needs an overhaul of land use protections. But if it does, neither of these measures fits the bill. Proposition 98 goes too far, undermining laws that have successfully preserved affordability for working families in expensive cities including San Francisco and Santa Monica, as well as assisting the many fixed-income seniors living in mobile home parks around the state.

Proposition 99 does very little at all.

Though sometimes it appears to be wishful thinking, we would prefer to see the state Legislature address this divisive topic and offer a more appealing and practical solution than either of the initiatives.

We urge a no vote on propositions 98 and 99.