03 Staff Report - Opposing Proposition 98 and Supporting Proposition 99N o
!ps NA~pS
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
APRIL 28, 2008
MEETING DATE: 5/512008
ITEM NO: 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION:
A. OPPOSING PROPOSITION 98, THE CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNERS
AND FARMLAND PROTECTION ACT (CPOFPA) ; AND
B. SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 99, THE HOMEOWNER PROTECTION
ACT (HPA)
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolutions:
a. Resolution opposing Proposition 98, the
Protection Act (CPOFPA) (Attachment No.
b. Resolution supporting Proposition 99,
(Attachment No. 2)
BACKGROUND:
California Property Owners and Farmland
1).
the Homeowner Protection Act (HPA)
Proposition 98, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA) is a
constitutional amendment that would make significant changes to the laws governing the use of
property, including the use of eminent domain and land use regulations. CPOFPA is sponsored
by the Californians for Property Rights Protection, a coalition of homeowners, family fanners,
small business owners, and other property owners led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation, and the California Alliance to Protect
Private Property Rights. This measure will be on the June 2008 ballot.
In response to Proposition 98, the No on 98/Yes on 99 Coalition, a group of homeowners,
businesses, labor, cities, counties, environmental advocates, and civic organizations, such as the
League of California Cities developed Proposition 99, the Homeowner Protection Act (HPA) to
provide constitutional protection for homeowners from the use of eminent domain to acquire
single-family homes for transfer to private developers. Proposition 99 is sponsored by the
League of California Cities ant alifor 'a Redevelopment Association. The League of
PREPARED BY: J UYAMA
Admi ' trative Programs Manager
N:IMCR1JHaruyama\Staff Reports\Proposition 98 Staff Report.doo
Reviewed by:
Town Manager
Town Attorney Finance CDD
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION:
A. OPPOSING PROPOSITION 98, THE CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNERS
AND FARMLAND PROTECTION ACT (CPOFPA) ; AND
B. SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 99, THE HOMEOWNER PROTECTION
ACT (HPA)
April 28, 2008
California Cities has requested that member agencies adopt a resolution in opposition to
Proposition 98 and consider supporting Proposition 99. This measure will be on the June 2008
ballot.
DISCUSSION:
The following section provides an overview of Proposition 98 and 99 and summary of ballot
measure arguments.
Ballot Measure Overview
Proposition 98
Under current law, public entities can acquire real property by eminent domain for a public use if
they have complied with legal prerequisites, including the payment of just compensation.
Proposition 98, a constitutional amendment seeks to change existing law to accomplish three primary
goals:
1. Prohibit public agencies from taking or damaging private property unless it is for a stated
public use, where public use is re-defined narrowly.
2. Broaden the definition of a "take" of private property.
3. Eliminate rent control and mandatory affordable housing regulations. (Note: The Town
currently controls rent increases in apartments and its one mobile home park.)
Proposition 99
This constitutional amendment limits state and local government's use of eminent domain in
certain circumstances. Specifically, the measure prohibits government from using eminent
domain to take a single-family home (including a condominium) for the purpose of transferring it
to another private party (such as a person, business, or association). This prohibition, however,
would not apply if government was taking the home to:
• Protect public health and safety.
■ Prevent serious, repeated criminal activity.
■ Respond to an emergency.
■ Remedy environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety.
■ Use the property for a public work, such as a toll road or airport operated by a private
party.
Additionally, the prohibition would not apply if the property owner did not live in the home or
had lived there for less than a year.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION:
A, OPPOSING PROPOSITION 98, THE CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNERS
AND FARMLAND PROTECTION ACT (CPOFPA) ; AND
B. SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 99, THE HOMEOWNER PROTECTION
ACT (HPA)
April 28, 2008
The full text of Proposition 98 and 99 is included in this report. (Attachment No. 3 and 4).
Ballot Measure Arguments
Yes on 98/No on 99
Supporters of Proposition 98 overlap with opponents of Proposition 99 who argue that the
current laws governing eminent domain infringe on private property rights. Proposition 98 is
supported by the Californians for Property Rights Protection, led by the Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, the California Alliance to Protect
Private Property Rights Committee, and the California Republican Party. Other supporters
include the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce (CHCC), Federation of Independent
Business, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, and Institute for Justice.
Proponents of the measure believe that more stringent restrictions should be placed on eminent
domain seizures and summarize the key provisions of the initiative as follows:
■ Private property may not be taken by eminent domain for private use under any
circumstances (i.e. to build a shopping center, auto mall or industrial park).
Property may be taken by eminent domain only for public use (i.e. freeway construction,
parks, schools).
■ Property may not be taken by government and then used for the same purpose that it was
used for prior to seizure. For example, if residential housing is taken, the government
cannot then use it for residential housing.
■ Family farms and open space are protected from seizures by government for the purpose
of selling the natural resources.
■ 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 farmers or business owners are evicted by eminent domain, they would be entitled to
compensation for temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business
reestablishment costs and other reasonable expenses.
■ Government may not set the price at which property owners sell or lease their property.
Opponents of Proposition 99 argue that constitutional rights should not be based on the type of
property that is taken by eminent domain. Advocates have expressed that there is "no
justification for protecting owner-occupied properties, but not rentals and investment properties,
and small businesses, but not large businesses." Opponents argue that Proposition 99 diminishes
constitutional rights depending on the use of the property and sets an unfavorable precedent for
other types of government intrusion on individual rights, most notably in the area of property
taxation.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION:
A. OPPOSING PROPOSITION 98, THE CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNERS
AND FARMLAND PROTECTION ACT (CPOFPA) ; AND
B. SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 99, THE HOMEOWNER PROTECTION
ACT (HPA)
April 28, 2008 -
No on 98/Yes on 99
Opponents of Proposition 98 overlap with supporters of Proposition 99, the Homeowners
Protection Act (HPA), which was developed in response to Proposition 98 and provides
constitutional protection for homeowners from the use of eminent domain to acquire single-
family homes for transfer to private developers. The No on 98/Yes on 99 Coalition includes the
League of California Cities, the National Wildlife Federation, California League of Conservation
Voters, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the California Teachers Association,
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and California Chamber of Commerce. Other
opponents of Proposition 98 include the Western Center on Law and Poverty, League of
California Homeowners, Consumer Federation of California, California Black Chamber of
Commerce, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, San Francisco Tenants Union, and National Multi-
Housing Council. According to the opponents of Proposition 98, the measure would:
■ Redefine eminent domain for private development
■ Eliminate rent control and tenant protection laws
■ Invalidate inclusionary housing requirements
■ Limit the enforcement of environmental protections and land use regulations
■ Prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire land and water for public water projects
■ Change the balance of power between judiciary and legislative branches of government
The attached matrix provided by the No on 98/Yes on 99 Coalition compares the two ballot
measures and outlines their impact on existing law (Attachment No. 5).
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that Council consider adopting the attached two resolutions opposing
Proposition 98 and supporting Proposition 99, respectively.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with taking action on this resolution. A summary of the
fiscal impact of Proposition 98 and 99 from the State of California Legislative Analyst's Office
(LAO) is below:
Proposition 98
The (LAO) reports that "the measure's fiscal effect is subject to considerable uncertainty and
would depend on (1) how the courts interpret its provisions and (2) future actions by
governments to modify existing policies, enact new ones, and buy property... Because
government (if the proposition passed) would have an increased incentive to acquire property
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION:
A. OPPOSING PROPOSITION 98, THE CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNERS
AND FARMLAND PROTECTION ACT (CPOFPA) ; AND `
B. SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 99, THE HOMEOWNER PROTECTION
ACT (HPA)
April 28, 2008
from willing sellers, property owners might charge government more for their properties and/or
government might buy less property than otherwise would be the case." The LAO also states
that another ambiguous financial aspect of the measure is what might happen if a local
government responded to the measure's elimination of rent control by "creating publicly funded
programs to subsidize affordable housing." This could impose a new burden on taxpayers, but
since the burden would be freely chosen, it is not a foregone conclusion mandated by Proposition
98. With these uncertainties and ambiguities described in the final analysis, the LAO determined
that many governments would probably have a "net increased cost" but that these costs "would
not be significant."
Proposition 99
According to the LAO, under current law and practice, government seldom uses eminent domain
to take single-family homes. When the government does acquire property via eminent domain,
the acquisition often is for a purpose that is permitted under the measure such as the construction
of a road or school. The LAO reports that Proposition 99 would not significantly change current
government land acquisition practices. However, in a very limited number of cases, the LAO
determined that the measure may result in government:
Savings-because government could not acquire a home that the owner did not wish to
sell.
Costs-because government might pay more to buy a home than would have been the
case if it could have taken the home using eminent domain.
The net fiscal effect of Proposition 99 is reported to not be significant.
Attachments:
Attachment No. l : Resolution opposing Proposition 98, the Property Owners and Farmland
Protection Act
Attachment No. 2: Resolution supporting Proposition 99, the Homeowner Protection Act
Attachment No. 3: Proposition. 98: California Property Owners and the Farmland Protection
Act
Attachment No. 4: Proposition 99: Homeowner Protection Act
Attachment No. 5: Comparison Matrix by No on 98/Yes on 99 Coalition
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS OPPOSING PROPOSITION 98
WHEREAS, Proposition 98, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act
(CPOFPA), a constitutional amendment ballot measure will appear on California's June 2008 ballot; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 98 would eliminate rent control and other renter protections, threaten
development of public water projects, stymie local land use planning, and impair our ability to protect the
environment; and
WHEREAS, provisions in the initiative would also preclude the use of eminent domain to
acquire land or water to develop public water projects that are needed to provide our residents, businesses,
farmers and economy with a reliable and safe supply of water; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 98 is opposed by the Association of California Water Agencies and
the Western Growers Association who warn that the initiative would impair water projects to protect water
quality and supply; and
WHEREAS, language in the initiative would prohibit the passage of regulations, ordinances,
land use and other zoning laws that enable local governments to plan and protect communities; and
WHEREAS, the California Police Chiefs Association opposes the measure because it would
threaten their ability to keep communities and the public safe; and
WHEREAS, leading environmental groups state that the provisions in the measure would
impair the ability of local governments to enact environmental protections such as laws that control
greenhouse gas emissions, preserve open space, protect coastal areas, and regulate development; and
WHEREAS, the No on Proposition 98 campaign is represented by the League of California
Cities, California State Association of Counties, League of California Homeowners, California League of
Conservation Voters, California Alliance for Retired Americans and other leading state and local associations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Los Gatos Town Council does hereby
oppose Proposition 98 on the June 2008 ballot and authorizes the use of the Town's name in campaign
materials by the No on Proposition 98 Coalition in opposition to Proposition 98.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California, held on the 5th day of May, 2008 by the following vote;
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 99
WHEREAS, in June of 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that
government could take a home through eminent domain to give to a private developer; and
WHEREAS, since that decision more than 40 states have reformed their eminent domain laws;
and
WHEREAS, California has not yet placed a prohibition on the use of eminent domain to take
homes for private development; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 99 would prohibit government from using eminent domain to take an
owner-occupied home to transfer to another private party; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 99 directly addresses the issues in the Kelo decision and does not
contain any unrelated provisions that will result in unintended, harmful consequences for California; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Homeowners supports this measure because it will
provide ironclad protections for California homeowners; and
WHEREAS, the Yes on Proposition 99 campaign is represented by a broad-based coalition,
including the League of California Cities, California States Association of Counties, League of California
Homeowners, California League of Conservation Voters, California Alliance for Retired Americans and other
leading state and local associations who support Proposition 99.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Los Gatos Town Council does hereby
support Proposition 99 on the June 2008 ballot and authorizes the use of the Town's name in campaign
materials by the Yes on Proposition 99 Coalition in support of Proposition 99.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California, held on the 5th day of May, 2008 by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
ATTACHMENT 2
PROPOSITION 98
07-0015
(California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act)
SECTION 1. . STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
(a) Our state Constitution, while granting government the power of
eminent domain, also provides that the people have an inalienable right to own,
possess, and protect private property. It further provides that no person may be
deprived of property without due process of law, and that private property may not
be taken or damaged by eminent domain except for public use and only after just
compensation has been paid to the property owner.
(b) Notwithstanding these clear constitutional guarantees, the courts
have not protected the people's rights from being violated by state and local
governments through the exercise of their power of eminent domain.
(c) For example, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New
London, held that the government may use eminent domain to take property from
its owner for the purpose of transferring it to a private developer. In other cases,
the courts have allowed the government to set the price an owner can charge to
sell or rent his or her property, and have allowed the government to take property
for the purpose of seizing the income or business assets of the property.
(d) Farmland is especially vulnerable to these types of eminent domain
abuses.
SECTION 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
(a) State and local governments may use eminent domain to take private
property only for public uses, such as roads, parks, and public facilities.
(b) State and local governments may not use their power to take or
damage property for the benefit of any private person or entity.
(c) State and local governments may not take private property by
eminent domain to put it to the same use as that made by the private owner.
(d) When state or local governments use eminent domain to take or
damage private property for public uses, the owner shall receive just compensation
for what has been taken or damaged.
(e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact the
"California Property Owners and Farmland Protection. Act."
ATTACHMENT 3
SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution is amended to read:
SEC. 19U Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public
use and when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first
been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for
possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain
proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money
determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation. Private
property may not be taken or damn eg d for private use.
b For u oses of this section:
1 "Taken" includes transferrin the ownership, occu anc or use of ro ert
from a private owner to a public a enc or to an person or enti other than a
public agency, or limiting the price a private _owner may charge another person to
purchase, occupy or use his or her real property.
(2) "Public use" means use and ownership by a public agency Ora regulated public
utility for the public use stated at the time of the taking, including public facilities,
public transportation, and public utilities, except that nothing herein prohibits
leasing limited space for private uses incidental to the stated public use,; nor is the
exercise of eminent domain prohibited to restore utilities or access to a pubic road
for an private property which is out off from utilities or access to a public road as
a result of a taking for public use as otherwise defined herein.
(3) "Private use" means:
i transfer of ownership, occu anc or use of private properly or associated
property rights to an y person or entity other than 1 public agency or a
regulated public utility:
(ii) transfer of ownership, occupancy or use ofprivate propegy or
associated ro ert rights to a ublic a enc for the consumption of natural
resources or for the same or a, substantially similar use as that made by the
private owner, or
(iii) regulation of the ownership., ccupancy or use of privately owned real
propertyor associated ro ert rights in order to transfer an economic
benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.
2
(d) "Public agency" means the state special district, county, city, city and county,
including a charter city or county, and any other local or regional governmental
entity_municipal corporation public agency-owned utility or utility district, or the
electorate of an public agency.
(5) "Just compensation" means:
(i) for.propeAy or associated prop= rights taken, its fair market value;
ii for property or associated property rights damaged, the value fixed bya
Jury, orb the court if a 'ur is waived-,
(iii) an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees from the public agency
if the property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered
by a public agency as defined heroin; and
(iv)ory additional actual and necessary amounts to compensate the
property owner for temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business
reestablishment costs, other actual and reasonable expenses incurred and
other expenses deemed compensable by the Legislature.
(6) "Prompt release" means that the property owner can have immediate
possession of the money deposited b the condemnor without prejudicing his or
her right to challenge the determination of fair market value or his or her right to
cballeng_e the taking as being for a private use.
7 "Owner" includes a lessee whose ro ertrights are taken or dama ed.
(8)T `Regulated public utility" means anynublie utility as described in Article XII,
section 3 that is re elated h the California Public Utilities Commission and is not
owned or operated b a ublic a enc Re fated ublic utilities are private
property owners for j)urposes of this article.
c In an action b a ro ert owner challenging a taking-or damaging of his or
her property, the court shall consider all relevant evidence and exercise its
independent judgment, not limited to the administrative record and without
deference to the findings of the public a ency. The property_ owner shall be
entitled to an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees from the -ublic agency_if
the court finds that the agency's actions are not in compliance with this section. In
addition to other legal and equitable remedies that may be available an owner
whose roperty is taken or damaged for private use may brim action for an
injunction a writ of mandate, or a declaration invalidating the action of the Dublic
90-
(d) Nothing in this section rp ohibits a public agency or regulated public utility
from entering into an agreement with a private property owner for the voluntary
sale of property not subject to eminent domain, or a stipulation regarding the
payment of just compensation.
,fie) if property is acquired bya public agency through eminent domain, then
before the agency may put the property to a use substantially different from the
stated public use, or convey the property to another_persanor unaffiliated agency,
the condemning agency must make a good faith effort to locate the nvate owner
from whom_the property was taken, and make a written offer to sell the_property to
him at the rice which the agency aid for the ro ert increased onl b the fair
market value of any improvements, fixtures,_ or appurtenances added by the public
agency, and_re_duced by the value attributable to any removal, destruction or waste
of improvements, fixtures or appurtenances that had been Muired with the
ro ert . If ro ert is re urchased b the former owner under this subdivision it
shall be taxed based on its pre-condemnation enrolled value. increased or
decreased only as allowed herein, lus any, inflationary adjustments authorized by
subdivision of Section 2 of Article XIIIA. The right to repurchase shall a 1
only to the owner from which the property was taken, and does not apply to heirs
or successors of the owner or, if the owner was not a natural person, to an entity
which ceases to legally exist.
Nothing in this section prohibits a ublic agency from exercising its power of
eminent domain to abate public nuisances or criminal activity;
(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or impair voluntary
agreements between a property owner and a public agency to develop or
rehabilitate affordable housing.
W Nothing in this section prohibits the California Public Utilities Commission
from regulating public utility_ rates.
i Nothin in this section shall restrict the ownes of the Governor to take or
dar a e private roe in connection with his or her powers under a declared
state of einergencV.
SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT
This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to
further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment
to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article II or
Article XVIII.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILIT'Y
The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section
or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or
applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this Act shall become effective on the day following the election
("effective date"); except that any statute, charter provision, ordinance, or
regulation by a public agency enacted prior to January 1, 2007, that limits the price
a rental property owner may charge a tenant to occupy a residential rental unit
("unit") or mobile home space ("space") may remain in effect as to such unit or
space after the effective date for so long as, but only so long as, at least one of the
tenants of such unit or space as of the effective date ("qualified tenant") continues
to live in such unit or space as his or her principal.place of residence. At such
time as a unit or space no longer is used by any qualified tenant as his or her
principal place of residence because, as to such unit or space, he or she has: (a)
voluntarily vacated; (b) assigned, sublet, sold or transferred his or her tenancy
rights either voluntarily or by court order; (c) abandoned; (d) died; or he or she has
(e) been evicted pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4) or (5) of Section 1161 of the
Code of Civil Procedure or Section 79$.56 of the Civil Code as in effect on
January 1, 2007; then, and in such event, the provisions of this Act shall be
effective immediately as to such unit or space.
5
PROPOSITION 99
(Homeowner Protection. Act) 0 T- 0 0 1 8
TITLE: This measure shall be known as the "Homeowners and Private Property
Protection Act."
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND INTENT
By enacting this measure, the people of California hereby express their intent to:
A. Protect their homes from eminent domain abuse.
B. Prohibit government agencies from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied
home to transfer it to another private owner or developer,
C. Amend the California Constitution to respond specifically to the facts and the
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court inKelo v. City of New London, in which the Court
held that it was permissible for a city to use eminent domain to take the home of a
Connecticut woman for the purpose of economic development.
D. Respect the decision of the voters to reject Proposition 90 in November 2006, a
measure that included eminent domain reform but also included unrelated provisions that
would have subjected taxpayers to enormous financial liability from a wide variety of
traditional legislative and administrative actions to protect the public welfare.
E. Provide additional protection for property owners without including provisions, such
as those in Proposition 90, which subjected taxpayers to liability for the enactment of
traditional legislative and administrative actions to protect the public welfare.
F. Maintain the distinction in the California Constitution between Section 19, Article I,
which establishes the law for eminent domain, and Section 7, Article XI, which
establishes the law for legislative and administrative action to protect the public health,
safety and welfare.
G, Provide a comprehensive and exclusive basis in the California Constitution to
compensate property owners when property is taken or damaged by state or local
governments, without affecting legislative and administrative actions taken to protect the
public health, safety and welfare.
SECTION 2: AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read:
Sec. 19. (a) Private property maybe taken or damaged for a public use and only when
just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into
court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor
following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and
prompt to] ease to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount
of just compensation.
(b) The State and local governments are prohibited from acquiring by eminent domain
an owner-occupied residence far the purpose of conveying it to a private person.
ATTACHMENT 4
(c) Subdivision (b) of this Section does not apply when State or local government
exercises the power- of eminent domain for the purpose ofprotecting public health and
safety, preventing serious, repeated criminal activity; responding to an emergency; or
remedying environmental contamination thatposes a threat to public health and safety.
(d) Subdivision (b) of this Section does not apply when State or local government
exercises the power of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring private property for
a Public work or improvement.
(e) For the purpose of this Section:
1. "Conveyance" means a transfer of real property whether by sale, lease, gift,
franchise, or otherwise.
2. "Local government" means any city, including a charter city, county, city and
county, school district, special district, authority, regional entity, redevelopment
agency, or any other political subdivision within the State.
3. "Owner-occupied residence" means real property that is improved with a single
family residence such as a detached home, condominium, or townhouse and that
is the owner or owners' principal place of residence for at least one year prior to
the State or local gQ-vernment's initial written offer to purchase the property.
Owner-occupied residence also includes a residential dwelling unit attached to or
detached from such a single family residence which provides complete
independent living facilities for one or more persons.
4. "Person" means any individual or association, or any business entity, including,
but not limited to, a partnership, corporation, or limited liability company.
5. "Public work or improvement" means facilities or infrastructure for the delivery
ofpublic services such as education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation,
emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood protection, streets or highways,
public transit, railroad, airports and seaports; utility, common carrier or other
sim ilarprojects -such as energy-related, communication-related, water-related
and wastewater-related facilities or infrastructure; projects identified by a.State
or local government for recovery from natural disasters; and private uses
incidental to, or necessary for, the Public work or improvement.
b. "State "means the State of California and any of its agencies or departments.
SECTION 3. By enacting this measure, the voters do not intend to change the meaning
of the terns in subdivision (a) of Section 19, Article I of the California Constitution,
including, without limitation, "taken," "damaged," "public use," and "just compensation,"
and deliberately do not impose any restrictions on the exercise of power pursuant to
Section 19, Article 1, other than as expressly provided for in this measure.
SECTION 4. The provisions of Section 19, Article I, together with the amendments
made by this initiative, constitute the exclusive and comprehensive authority in the
California Constitution for the exercise of the power of eminent domain and for the
payment of compensation to property owners when private property is taken or damaged
by state or local government. Nothing in this initiative shall limit the ability of the
Legislature to provide compensation in addition to that which is required by Section 19 of
Article I to property owners whose property is taken or damaged by eminent domain.
SECTION 5. The amendments made by this initiative shall not apply to the acquisition
of real property if the initial written offer to purchase the property was made on or before
the date on which this initiative becomes effective, and a resolution of necessity to
acquire the real property by eminent domain was adopted on or before 180 days after that
d ate. .
SECTION G. The words and phrases used in the amendments to Section 19, Article I of
the California Constitution made by this initiative which are not defined in subdivision
(d), shall be defined and interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the law in effect
on January 1, 2007 and as that law may be amended or interpreted thereafter.
SECTION 7. The provisions of this measure shall be liberally construed in furtherance
of its intent to provide homeowners with protection against exercises of eminent domain
in which an owner-occupied residence is subsequently conveyed to a private person.
SECTION 8. The provisions of this measure are severable. If any provision of this
measure or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions
or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SECTION 9. In the event that this measure appears on the same statewide election
ballot as another initiative measure or measures that seek to affect the rights of property
owners by directly or indirectly amending Section 19, Article I of the California
Constitution, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in
conflict with this measure. In the event that this measure receives a greater number of
affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and each
and every provision of the other measure or measures shall be null and void.
w
O
V
O
O
0
o,
v~
a
0
a
a
V
O
a
0
O
V
a~
AG
00
a~
O
a
O
O
a
O
O
°
O
o
0
t
113 '(~t
cd
~ ~
a
~ •
~
°
O
a
O c
d
a
72
^
'+O+
~
~
U
~
d
~ O
U ~
O
1
~i{
c
V
°
.
z
o
z
Q°
■
■
~
'o
U
A 'C1
U
O b O 113
°
td °
L"
p
U
P4
0
P4
~2
4
4
P, w
-
oA n
i a~i
k
i
o
d
ti
=
a
i
o
°j
c
o 'a a
o
~ m
3 0 ou
a
i
Y°
00 a
O 0
o
U
O a~
d
dA!
O+
o.
bJ)
G
m°°
ai o
o s. i1
W o
42
8,
6
-0 1;4
j
a
00
°Cd 7-4 0
o
0Cdu
d
moo C
o~
woo
,
. C's
co
cj\
a) N
0 o
0
0 0°
° 3. o o•
O
O
O
U
o
o
O O
.
'd
O
C-~s
a, 00
M
■
■
■
■ ■
■
■
Ix
z
z
o ~
~H
O
z
o
x a
A( U
~
~
°
H
a o
oho
o
a
N
~
o
z
°~~H
Boa
a
w
4
w~`~
W
W
wA
A•,
WF~
~i
F
z
F
d,
au
~
o
G
75
~1
o
bf}
O
O
w
~
~
v
p
Gl
°
O
x
U
U
z
z
R
N bl} : ~
i
~
+ii vi
4" O
0 o
O~ y
ate
~ y
U v
o rl
~
'
%
y Y
O
.
V 4b f"
m -.Fs
N
S
78
❑
Cd
c
(D
~
p F. N
C7 r+ +
L~
°
N R
R
[
0
U
a
+
vt
r
+
a
3
i
.
°N
~e
ocil
-
ci y d
O
41
° c
R
V
U
p a a
o .Oi .Q f d
°
C d g p
w
m
t~. i
o
°
cs bi)
-rs
o ° p
fl
°
o
" y p .
° +r
CU
P.
° .
s
t3
~
o a> °p ,
A
'G`
~
v
o
+
> o
~ 04 aq
G\
° N
yy
~
by O p
V b~
vi
C
R A F7
R
.
~
• ~
cd ?
L)
i
,
7, -41 by C G
'y
C
H rn
0
~
,
•
O
.
r' rN bll
C4 V
N
~
'L
" '
~
'
~
y
~
G
E +
.
71
+ R .
.
.
+
r
CG G
i
(ON
Q
0 an
cn
A
4
U
.C O Q" ca
tU
O
43
Q
cC O ^t=`
cd
R
V
el
u
~
A
C
v
.
O
. m
'
cd R vs
O H
A
w m U
vi
p ~ 4 .
G3
cd U
O ~
O
cd
bA
"
.Q R O O
~+R Rr
rn cd C °
~
}y
i
U U
r--, 0.
O
°
O y d R
U
O O R i.
G q
id O O
Q
o-- r. G
o
" by
U
N o Qi
O y ~A 4
o Q,
v
Gf1 R
o
c
te
.0 E °
c~
W
bb
"
ul
~ o t
°
'F N w
G .~S O
c
d "D O 10 4,1
1
00
00
e
d d y-Z
i R
a
s-
~0 s
p
is c~
cd
0 J5 =
U b U
s
o ct 0
e
o
U
~
H
1
a~
d
s
W
m 6 Ow
C/] .
~ w rn
Cf)
L~
Gf)
z
an
o 0
~
~
a
a
a
W
WA4).4
w
w QCo
o
lu q
v cu U o
300
t"o ~k;si
O
.
08
Q\ i~
0,0
~ 4V
She d? 'o
-00 C,
c
U N. r
~
a
G
~
c
d
0 G cU a~i
c
+
4
o
~
b
d)
d)
0
u
U
~s rr
•
~ .a
V
+
ca a
z
rr
X (D /v v1 U d) U fN- ON
a
O D
y, p
4 CI
°
cd 0
o
c
s
o
bA
•
n
d
0
U Oq
00
U
ci
R
O
er1)
s -k
'
O
7 d -
~UU++
lu
00
7. U
w
L
p
U3
N •U z
t~ti`
IR -8
0! bA
C
.A
N V .O
O7 .O ie
Gd
U
L
d
O
~
~
p
V N ~O
Oy tl "ni O
~y
O Gl
_
O t.
V
`
S-1
R1 A.
w • ~
°
h
F•I
-`~-I
•
- p O
O
m .o
~
o
a
cd
u Cad
00
o a
_
u o
o~
: 0
°
•
t ~l
:3
C5
o
Li O
i
N
O F
CO
• y
O
a
" o
Cr'1 4) ¢i ' U F
SOr A
,
D
A
L') b
N O
es
9 F V 'C t
W V
° a
o
c
Q
rn a ~
o
w
Z
m
Rt
L2 L,
ts
C cd
p.
. tr.
cd
i
4-j
C) ;t
0
1
1
,
,
1
,
O
O
iv.
cad
S7.'ti3
C
p,
U
U
p
U
v u
a~
s.
N
F i
a~ .G
o
a cri m
w o
113
cu
`ti
to
-
Z
y
0
s~ "
cS W
+ a 0 v~ d
Ln
w
-
(u
a)
bl)
O O" v o
ti v
U
~a o
~
Z
'~rn
°
lo~ .9
3
U O . r,
,O `d cC N
J4 a
P, cd t~ C4
I~ U
t- V]
Q,-
O Z3
o
Ci n O
V~ . p
U ti LL
.r
0
o
W
H
x~
w
aw
a~
a,
U
U
~ o
4F.r ~
4
d
O
x
N
3
0
4.
O
N
U
0
U
O
z
0
p-[
N
O
U
CG ~
~ O
o. 3
rn ~
0 0
ro.o
O
COO IOL4
O
ts
U
cd
cd
q
N
4
■
O v
O F."
U
Lt O U O
'
Cd
N O
Ed
^
00
/
O
c~
vi
p
00 r~
N ~
~
0
V° i
o ° o
LU) on
;J
O
~ V a)
7 O
o w °
V
Y o a "I ; p,
~ o U cd -5 o~
a b H r
N bq
cd
04
Cd
O
p
~
O
•
O
N
y
y
O
~
N
z
~ ~Pq~FjOZ' rnW~ O
o ox`s OH
UP) 0
04
Q0~aaau ado
n
c
n
N Q
T0.
C O
,N
N p
V
O O
p D
o~
~ o
O ~
N
N ~
O .O
CD z
E
E
U'C
Q 4
Q U
~a
O C
QI VJ O
cu CO
O b ~
p cn
m LL- q
Ca
`m ••V N (O
O.
O 0
E C
_ ? N ~ U
"~O p
of U m
m ro o o
o E m cu
CL •m E cu o
oU E pa
c6
p a U CO cD
am -o I
=i- - 2 m E
D
0
lII N
va
ca '
N N aD
C U Q)
co - CL c
-703
~ O.El J
O "a N
Y C
U r
Q fD
CD E
C
O O
a- Lr)
m (p
p
Q -
0 VY
N C
= am
S2 E
o~
CU
U ~
rn o
N
m
c
a~ n
E
o•
z
a Q
.o ~
00
~ U
(6 ~
a- N