Monterey County Board of Supervisors

District 1

Fernando Armenta

District 4

Ila Mettee-McCutchon

District 5

Dave Potter

California Assembly

Assembly District 27

Bill Monning

State Senate District 12

Should State Senator Jeff Denham be recalled

NO

California Ballot Measures

Proposition 98

MCHA supports substantive reform of the eminent domain powers of government and better protection of the rights of all property owners to be treated fairly and receive a market price for property taken for public use.  This proposition offers the substantive reforms MCHA favors while preserving the ability of government to acquire property needed for public works projects, streets and roads, schools, parks and critical water projects.

Proposition 98 will establish the following protections, all of which are important to MCHA:

§      Guarantees that when government seeks to seize commercial, residential, church or agricultural property it will pay fair market value for the property and for the market value of any water or mineral rights associated with the property.

§      Guarantees that when government takes business property it will not only pay fair market value but will also pay the costs of interrupting the business, and the costs of relocating and restarting the business.

§     Guarantees that government cannot take private property except for a stated public use, such as streets, roads and highways, water projects, schools, parks or other public works projects.  Prevents government taking private property to transfer to another private owner.  If the stated public use is abandoned, government must sell the property back to the owners from whom the property was taken.

§      Guarantees that government cannot set the price of the use of private property.

YES

Proposition 99

MCHA believes this measure, written as a counter-measure to Proposition 98, does not include the substantive reforms of eminent domain MCHA favors.  The only protection this proposition offers is for some residential property some of the time; it does not provide any protection for business or commercial property, for agricultural property, for churches, or for any residential property other than owner-occupied homes under certain circumstances.  It does not guarantee property owners will be paid a fair price for property taken.  It does not guarantee property can be taken only for public use.  In short, this proposition is a very limited and very weak substitute for substantive eminent domain reform; worse, it contains a “poison pill” provision that would invalidate the important substantive reforms in Proposition 98 should this measure get more votes.

NO