ACA 8 Goes Down to defeat - The fight for eminent domain reform continues

By Mike Madrid

(Tuesday September 11, 2007) Shortly after 9pm the California State Assembly fell short of giving Californians eminent domain reform on a party-line vote of 45-30 (Assembly members Galgiani - D, Parra - D, and Horton - R abstained from the vote). The defeat of the legislation now means that the battle for eminent domain reform moves to the statewide ballot where two major associations are looking to advance their respective versions of reform before the voters.

Californians for eminent domain reform, a broad based coalition of local governments, environmentalists, and business organizations are in the process of securing enough signatures to qualify their measure for the June 2008 ballot. Their measure protects single family owner occupied housing from "private to private" transfers, meaning no one living in their home can have eminent domain used against them and have their property then sold to a private developer.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Farm Bureau are also advancing a measure that seeks to both limit the use of eminent domain for all property and eliminate rent control throughout the state. The measure has come under harsh criticism from ACWA (the Association of California Water Agencies), leading Republicans in the legislature and high-ranking officials in the Governors administration for provisions that eliminate the possibility of eminent domain being used for water storage and delivery in California. Californias drought and chronic water problems have made this a centerpiece of the Governors and rural Republicans' agenda. In fact, on the same day as ACA's defeat, the Governor called for a special legislative session to convene on water issues.

The competing measures set the stage for an interesting political showdown between the two organizations. The League of California Cities, the primary sponsor of the Californians for eminent domain reform measure has a proven track record of sponsoring and passing, as well as defeating ballot measures in California, most notably a similar eminent domain reform measure that masked a "regulatory takings" provision similar to the current Jarvis measure (Proposition 90). The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, while a potent name with many conservatives in Sacramento, has shown little success at fundraising and sponsoring statewide ballot measures in recent memory. The California Farm Bureau hasn't been this actively engaged in a ballot measure since the "Big Green" initiative in the early 1990's.

While the legislative part of the reform effort appears to have ended, the iniative phase is just ramping up. The Howard Jarvis measure has raised over $1 million with almost that same amount needed to qualify the measure. Fundrasing has slowed dramatically for the measure after the damaging water flaw was uncovered. It appears donors are reluctant to contribute to a measure that will likely have significant opposition from the political, business and agricultural community - especially after comments from Governor Schwarzenegger's administration publicly expressed concern.

Both initiatives will have until early to mid November to submit nearly 800,000 valid signatures in order to appear before the voters in June 2008.

 

Comments

[Jon Fleischman]

Ultimately I think that Republicans weren't able to get onboard with ACA 8 because it embraced a 'tiered' system of applying property rights.

The Republican position is that everyone's property rights are equal -- the homeowner, the small business owner, the large business owner, or the farm owner. Similarly, property rights should not be less or more based on whether you occupy your property.

ACA 8 (as does the League initiative) sets out this tiered system that is anethema to property rights advocates. I believe that because a universal standard to govern the restrictions of the use of eminent domain was not being proposed across-the-board, regardless of the ownership or use of th property, Republicans could not then really negotiate further.

Unforunately, despite clear requests to make this change, negotiators never came up with language to do so.

The result was...predicatable.