Along with the propositions proposed by cities across the state of California, there are actual California propositions on the ballot which could effect anyone living in said state.
Proposition 98 proposes two amendment changes.
The first change has to do with how eminent domain is handled. The amendment states that property can only be used for a stated public use. If the government changes its mind and wants to use the taken property for a different purpose then they would first have to offer the original property owners a chance to purchase the property.
The amendment also states:
(1) the property can not be taken and transferred to another private owner;
(2) the property can not be taken to be used for a similar purpose as the property was originally used for;
(3) and the property can not be taken to have its natural resources consumed.
What this all amounts to is that the government better be able to pony up some more dough if they think they can get their grubby little paws on the property of California residents.
The second part of Proposition 98 deals with the firestorm issue of rent control. Rent control keeps the rent affordable for the elderly, low-income families, and college students. San Francisco renters–all 2/3 of the City’s population–benefits from rent control with a steady annual increase of 5-7%. Unfortunately, some renters abuse the rent control system. Once they’ve reached a certain income and are able to afford a higher rent; instead of putting the apartment back into the pool for the before mentioned groups benefit, they hold onto the property because its too good of a deal to let go.
Proposition 98 will end rent control in the state of California for any rent controlled property enacted on January 1, 2007. Those apartments under rent control before January 1, 2007 would eventually get phased out. Once the tenant leaves the apartment or the landlord does the relative moving in trick to kick them out, the apartment will no longer have rent control.
A vote of Yes champions the cause for all property owners but crushes the will of renters.
A vote of No keeps things status quo.