Inside Props. 98, 99

SACRAMENTO — Ballot proposition numbers should be retired like athlete jersey numbers. No. 3 -- Babe Ruth. No. 42 -- Jackie Robinson.

Proposition 13 -- property tax relief. Proposition 98 -- school funding guarantees.

Hall of Famers all.

But lately it has gotten confusing with the ballot props. Because the state Legislature has refused to retire proposition numbers -- the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. tried with No. 13, but Democrats refused -- we now have a new and strange Prop. 98. Coincidentally, it is brought to us by the Howard Jarvis organization.

The new Prop. 98 is about eminent domain and rent control.

It's complex and may seem like a yawner. But it's a very big deal -- worthy of its historic number.

The measure would greatly reduce the power of government to seize private property by eminent domain in order to transfer it to a private party, such as a profiteering developer. It also would phase out rent control, no small matter.

There's another, much more subdued ballot rival, Prop. 99. It would provide limited restrictions on government's power to grab single-family homes, including condos, for transfer to another private party.

Actually, these will be the only two propositions on the statewide ballot June 3. Moreover, they'll be the only statewide items of any kind on the ballot. Everything else will be congressional and legislative primaries and local elections.

Theoretically, that should produce a low voter turnout and help Prop. 98 because renters -- who would lose out under the measure -- historically have not flocked to the polls.

But the last statewide survey by the Public Policy Institute of California, in March, found Prop. 98 being supported by only 37% of likely voters.

Meanwhile, rent control was considered "a good thing" by 53%. And Prop. 99 was backed by 53%.

Both measures were inspired by a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed the overbearing city of New London, Conn., to seize a small, neat riverfront home owned by Susette Kelo and transfer it -- along with her neighbors' houses -- to a private developer so it could generate hefty tax dollars.

California property owners, however, enjoy more protections against bullying governments than do people in Connecticut. For one, a California property must be found to be blighted before it can be condemned for economic development.

But sponsors of Prop. 98 say "blight" is loosely interpreted and California's law isn't strong enough.