Proposition 90			00.01 10/11
	Opinion
	Submitted as: "The Protect Our Homes Act."
	Proposition 90 does not prevent private property in California from being taken or damaged using eminent domain.  It does require that, if the property must be taken or damaged using eminent domain, it shall be done only for a "stated public use" and only if just compensation is paid to the owner.
	"Public use" is limited to use by the agency that exercised the public domain, and specifically excludes the transfer of the property to the ownership of any other private entity.
	This offends the sensibilities of that segment of government which considers itself competent to build planned communities, built of Lego™ modules of just the right businesses, just the right housing, just the right transportation and just the right parks, created by just the right businessmen - those who can make the best presentations and have the best connections to the planners.
	This segment of government is basing their case for opposing 90 on what we have to agree is its flaw; it fails to limit itself completely to the matter of property seizure by public domain.  In particular, it adds "downzoning" as a damage for which compensation can be claimed.  Regardless of whether one considers zoning to be a valid method of city management, it has been in extensive use for a long time.  Opening it to legal challenge is bound to cause additional expense for the cities.
	However, this one provision can be legally contested and declared void (and may well be), without affecting the eminent domain part of the Measure.  We consider that part important enough to justify temporarily accepting the zoning language.
	Vote YES on 90.
	[Back to All Initiatives]