|
 Proposition 98, also called The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, would prohibit state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property for private uses, but would consequently ban government from imposing important environmental regulations on land and property use because of the ambiguous language of Prop. 98. The measure prohibits government from regulating the use of privately owned property if it economically benefits one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner and does not provide an exemption for government procurement or regulation of private property for the health and safety of the public.
 Proposition 98 is full of ambiguous language that is open to wide interpretation by the courts. Almost all restrictions on developments and land use provide economic benefits to someone whether through increased property values or benefits to local retail stores who profit from restrictions on locations of “big box” retail giants.
If passed, Proposition 98 would severely limit the government from regulating emissions standards on oil refineries or power plants (because the land they operate on is for “private use”). It could also prevent restrictions on development in protected coastal areas and prevent government from imposing protections for wildlife and wetlands. It could prohibit local governments and other public agencies that approve development or other private projects from requiring implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Furthermore, it would require governments to pay polluting power plants and refineries to regulate their land use or procure the property they exist on.
This measure would also:
- Reduce government ability to take property for redevelopment, affordable housing, and public ownership of water or electric utility services.
- Prohibit government from securing public control of utility services by acquiring private water and other utility systems and placing them under government ownership.
Proposition 98 is bad for California because it would severely restrict the ability of state and local government to impose new regulations to protect and preserve our natural resources and environment.
New Survey Released by PPIC (33K PDF file)
The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) conducted a survey, which shows voters
are inclined to reject Proposition 98.
Read the Survey Report>>
Senator Feinstein Opposes
98 and Supports 99 (links to PDF)
April 24th, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein announced
she is opposed to Prop. 98 and supports Prop. 99
on the June ballot. According to Senator Feinstein,
Prop. 98 is “reckless and would tie the State's
hands in dealing with a wide range of critical
issues.” Prop. 99 on the other hand, “is
a better alternative” according to the Senator.
Read
the Statement >>
Learn More about the No on
98 Campaign
Wealthy landlords spent millions to get Prop. 98
on the ballot to eliminate rent control and other
important renter protections like the fair return
of deposits. 98 could also stop future water projects,
destroy local land-use planning, erode environmental
protections and lead to higher taxpayer costs.
Learn
More >>
|
