SR-20080429-8C~~
~;tYaf City Council Report
Santa Monica`°
~'~~ ~a8
City Council Meeting: ""-~'~-
Agenda Item: ~, ~' ~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Kathryn Vernez, Assistant to the City Manager for Community and
Government Relations
Subject: Resolution opposing Proposition 98: Limits on Government Authority:
Initiative Constitutional Amendment; and supporting Proposition 99
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. adopt a resolution opposing Proposition 98: Limits on Government Authority:
Initiative Constitutional Amendment; and supporting Proposition 99: Eminent
Domain: Acquisition of Owner-Occupied. Residence Constitutional
Amendment;
2. direct staff to send copies of the resolution to Governor Schwarzenegger,
California State Senator Kuehl, California State Assemblymember Julia
Brownely and the League of California Cities; and
3. direct staff to educate the public on these Council positions via the website
and appropriate links to other governmental agencies where information is
available.
Executive Summary
Proposition 98 on the June 2008 ballot is a measure that would eliminate rent control
and renter protections, threaten land use planning and jeopardize laws that protect the
environment including efforts to ensure a reliable water supply of clean safe drinking
water. The impact on City laws and regulations would be enormous and the list of City
activities put at risk is long. Proposition 99 also appears on the June 2008 ballot and is
an eminent domain reform measure that will constitutionally protect homeowners
without the adverse consequences of Proposition 98.
1
Discussion
Proposition 98
Proposition 98 would amend Article I, Section 19 of the State constitution, which
regulates the government's condemnation of private property through the process of
eminent domain. This process entails a governmental agency "taking" private property
fora "public use" upon payment to the owner of "just compensation."
Historically, governmental agencies have exercised this power in order to secure
property for traditional public works, such as roads and schools. However, over time,
court decisions have authorized expanded use of the process to include government
facilitation of private development which will benefit the community generally by
fostering urban redevelopment. Thus, for instance, in recent years, government
entities have exercised their power of eminent domain to acquire property, including
homes, for private developments, such as retail outlets, which would benefit the public
by locally enhancing economies and tax revenues.
Property rights advocates have responded to this trend by proposing initiatives
restricting condemnation powers. In November of 2006, California's voters narrowly
rejected one such measure, Proposition 90. It would have prohibited the use of eminent
domain and severely restricted local power to control land use.
Proposition 98 was developed in response to the failure of Proposition 90. like its
predecessor, Proposition 98 would prohibit the use of eminent domain for urban
redevelopment. It would also expressly invalidate rent control ordinances throughout
the state. Further, it would amend the California Constitution to add a provision allowing
property owners to sue to obtain compensation for or invalidation of regulations that
impose costs on property owners, even if the regulated activity constitutes a nuisance,
threatens the public health or safety, or harms the environment. Additionally,
Proposition 98 would impose a sweeping prohibition against regulation of the use of real
property enacted "in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private
persons at the expense of the property owner."
2
The potential impact of Proposition 98 upon Santa Monica is enormous. In general, it
would severely restrict the City's power to promote the general health, safety and
welfare through the Rent Control Law and through land use, environmental, and other
regulations effecting real property. The extent of the measure's impact is difficult to
predict because Proposition 98's language is broad and general. Judicial interpretation
would certainly be required. And, if the measure passes, a protracted flood of litigation
is inevitable. However, since the Initiative's purpose is clearly to expand private owners'
rights, it is likely that courts will interpret the measure to expand the class of
impermissible regulatory takings and thereby limit local powers.
Moreover, whether challenges to local regulations would be limited to future enactments
is also uncertain. Proposition 98 does not specify. Therefore, if it passes, existing local
Taws may be subject to challenge. Whether or not the measure operates solely
prospectively, there will be years of uncertainty and massive litigation costs.
As to rent control, Proposition 98 would prohibit rent level controls as to new tenants
occupying their units after passage of the measure. And, many current protections
mandated by the City's Rent Control Law would be at risk. For instance, just cause
eviction protections may be prohibited by Proposition 98. Likewise, Ellis Act protections
such as relocation requirements and extended occupancy periods for the elderly and
disabled may be prohibited. Also, removal permit requirements may be invalidated by
the proposition. And, it may also invalidate limitations on the owner occupancy
exemption, which now requires a 50% interest in the property to qualify for the
exemption.
The impacts on other City regulations would also be enormous. Because the City is
small, dense and fully developed, preserving qualify of life requires constant balancing
of competing interests. This is an ongoing challenge which the City meets by carefully
administering extensive regulatory processes which apply policy formulated through a
public process in a manner that protects property owners' rights. Thus, for instance,
3
the City regulates the location, density, design, height and extent of development.
Likewise the City ensures community welfare by imposing development fees to address
impacts and engaging in long-range planning. In the long run, these and other
regulatory processes protect and enhance the value of all private property within the
City. Nonetheless, all of these City activities -widely recognized as appropriate and
necessary -may be subject to challenge under Proposition 98.
The list of city activities at risk is long indeed. In addition to the traditional zoning
activities noted above, the City protects its invaluable historic resources through its
landmark process. And, the City protects unique coastal resources through various
regulations. The types of laws and regulations that could be impacted include a wide
range of environmental protections including those that curb global warming and protect
open space, public water projects that involve "consumption of natural resources" thus
possibly precluding statewide public water projects. These activities are put at risk by
Proposition 98.
In summary, while the exact impact of Proposition 98 on Santa Monica is impossible to
predict, general consequences appear certain. The measure would mandate a phase
out of local rent control laws and, depending upon judicial interpretation, could eliminate
many tenant protections enacted by the voters, the City Council and the Rent Control
Board. And, by depriving the City of its ability to strike and adjust the delicate balance
between individual property rights and the common good, Proposition 98 would divest
the City of its ability to protect the health and safety of its residents and the quality of
their lives.
Proposition 98
Proposition 99 also appears on the June 2008 ballot. It is an eminent domain reform
measure that will constitutionally protect homeowners, without the adverse
consequences of Proposition 98. Proposition 99 is supported be a broad coalition of
homeowners, business, labor, cities, counties and environmentalists who also oppose
4
Proposition 98. (Attachment B)
This measure will prevent government from taking a home through eminent domain to
be transferred to a private developer. This reform provides protections for California
homeowners, and unlike proposition 98, it would not eliminate rent control. and renter
protections or cause the other adverse consequences of Proposition 98.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no fiscal impact from the recommendations in this report and no additional
budget authority is required to educate the public as recommended.
Prepared by:
Approved:
Ka~hryn Vernez, Assistant to the City
Manager for Community and
Government Relations
Forwarded to Council:
P. L~arR6nt Ewell
City`- anager
5
sS , I ~,
c~~
'- Renter Advocates/Mousing Provider
Senior ' Housing Catdonea -
Ca6forrea titxtsbrg ConsorMun tCHC)
HARP California Ca'r6tion (w Rtaal Mxti>p
Ca6tOntia At6ance fa Retimd Americans C;a6forrda Rural Legal Assistmxe F-Onrxlatk~n
Olrter Wonx~as League of CJliiontia Coa6Gtx1 for Ecawnrc Survival
Gay ParnMrs Ca6iomia ~ Coalition to Protect Ca6ianra Renters
Gardortda Seraw Ad+rocates League
' Tenants Together
San Fratx
nco Gay Panthers Eviction Defense Cdiabwatrve
Senor Action Neh+rork A(ior<lab(e Hatnx~, Coalition of-San CXepa
Put)!fc Safety coalitiontA
Ca6iomia Police C.ticfs Associat~t Caxiio rte h,quiFnos local 1012
Ca6farrda Foe Ctiefs AssOCkuron Courxd of Tenants- Los A~eles
Calarxrba PrcNessianal Faeuglxers E+ictinn Deiense Nen+rork
CiNiSLitnet Frst Commurnty housing
Corsunaer Federaton d Cali(orna Housing prstice Campaign
Consrxtaerz Coalition of CaGiorrda Hous6ag Rights Center
Business hx{traTaxn Urutkn
Ca6frxnia Chamber of Commerce prst Cause gakLarxf
Catietria Blac!c Chamber ai Commerce L'mco6a i'lace Tenants Association
53ctm Vaiey leadershp Goup Oakland Tenants LArrxt
San rvwrcos C;l'.rotdaer of Ctxnmerce Parf<mereed Residents' Associatiot
Agticultttte St-?eterk Fi[xrsirg Committee
Y4estem Goxers As+aciatan San Diego Houseng Fectaatirm
Education San Diego Renters Lamxt
San Frarxkco CtwrxN of C.onununrty F1ou5im (hgardzatirun
CaGforrtia Teachers Association Svt Frarx'sco Terwnts l..tuaa
Ca6ttxrua ScFrool6Oards Associatim Santa AKUtiC,vY., foc Renters' Rights
Assex:kaikna of Ca6iwraa Schoo[ Admvtistrators Tenant 4ssociat:'nas CaaGtiart or` San karxisco
EnvitOnme[ital TerxSerloia t{oushag Chair lTFX')
.National Wik@ree Federation Venice Cnntnxraty Huusing Corpwatbn
$ienr t7ub CaIH«rua Public !n{~reStjComrnunit}~
Califona League of Cexrservaiion Voters League of VWnaen 4bters al Ca6fonva
Natural Resotaca Defense Crxtixd W~stem Center on Law and Poverty
Ca6fOniW CrxuxT of land Trusts CaGfomia Ntirxaa! Orgartizaikxa for YVbmen
The Toni for tOdaGc Laoxi Ga6Fanda Pamrnrsl~r
WiN Heritage Fxaroaers Ca6iwrra Alkuxe
Defenders of VVi[9tie Strategic AcYVCUas for a first ECCxxNrrv
Errvhtxxvtental Defense Nngressive Jew'sh Aiiarxe
Planrmag arxi Conservation League AnlerKaric for t?enxxra[k Arian IADA? Sauthem CaUiorrai Chapter
Audubon t:akitxria National lawyers Quid- LOS Ars Chapter
Ex9ar>5'erecl Fkakntats League Bengal Heiglxs NeighMxtxxxl Center
Ca6iorrda C}ak Faaadafioa Comnxsuty Adux;acy Center
Geerilaeti. Aiiarxe - loner Cav Lav Center
Heakln~ Homes Cd4aboratrve Los Angeles CoaGtiwn ro Eni ht®tger and Hcunek:.uaes<_
MJr~x15an5 iw ttC ErxFannunt LOS Rng~ t.gnrixllbt}' ACtral NelWOrk
and RespatsinleCaxenxrient Los Angeles Cw*arxxity Legal Cenrer arxi EducaUanal
Sonoma County CaKervaiwn Aciiot Maacle aide Aetiat Conmittee
AS54CIa170n5 One Stop hnmvgration C:oura5c~a
League of CaG(oniw Goes (As City
CaPo'omia State Asscxiation of Cotuaeies People's Ctk2E
Ca6&xrtia Special Districts Rssocwatbn Prhie at tVwk San Francisco
Ca6tania Chapter o! the Anatxican 6'kuxting Association Sara Francisco Namaag arxt Udwt Research AsSCxkatipn (SPURT
Calitantia Rectevelotmtent Association lttiorr de Vechxn
with Puf~ic 6~fficials
CaStortaa CFerrch hnpact Fran Pavkry - Frxnmr Ca6twraa State Assenafylyrnentber
t,4 Voice -Pico
St. Anthorv fourxiatiaa
HOn1eR`A`nEFS
League of Caitwrua Homeowners
Golrkva State .4larxrixture<I-1-bnae Owrxm League, hx.
tGSMCJL)
Ca6iorr>;7 Molxte biomes Resourcearxl Ac.Can.ASSaciation
CoaF6on oLMObde Home Owners- Ca6iorrra
Resident Owned Parka tx. CROP)
Aita Laguna n4ahi~ dome Park Residents Conrniltee
Ana2rlCan Canyon Manufactured home 0lvrxa's Coa6Gon
Butte COimty Motile-Hrxnce (hvrxrs Association
Cantempo Morin tionBe9wtler5 AsstxiatrOn
Cayoy htobTeMnae Positrre Action Conanriaee
EMPAC tEaaxlito tvlo6de/Marx,tactured Home PAC:F
t;,SMOL Chapter Kt3
CSA4CA Chapter Yn
GSMOL Chapter L79
CSMOL Chapter L~(HI
GSMOL Chapter 820
G5~4tOL Chapter ~1
f,SMCX Ciwpter Bl
tome Ch+aiers Actxtg Together FU.T:
Hanaeo+vners Assaiazipa or Cameron Mobile Estates
Los Rarxheros Association, hc.
,41oMle Horne Owners Coalilirna
MoF~ie Parks W'es[ Hanteavners Aswciation
Alotnielwnre Resiie+vs Affiance of NevacFa County
.4kwn[ain Spruagz Haneowraers Association
NeigtdaoritOOd Friends
New Frontier tianiewvrrer Assor_iaCron
Ocearxirle Aiarartac[ured Fionaes AssoCintK)n
Dabs Verdes Slxxes Homeowners AssociatkNa
San M1larcos.n-inae Resi[fents Associaa0on
San Raiael .Moh3e tkxne Estates I-kuraernvrrers
Association
Santa Ana htptile Honor Owners Association
Snnonta Catnrtv Mobiehonae Ch+ners Associalrcm
~c'l)t7r
SEIU CaGioma State Courxi
State t&u7dhng wx1 Constnxtian Trades Cotmc3
American FederaUaa of State, Counts and ,4kmzgtat
Empbyees {AFSC,41E;
Anaerkan F-ederaCSOr of State, County and :VLuticgnal
Em{nlO}ees (AFSCht@ Los Angeles Retiree Chapter :if>
American Federation of State, CwnR• arx3 M1karcyaal
Fyn{abyees (AFSC;vfEi ?712
6rternatiaaal ~otherixxxl ni 6cctrical Workers
San FratxSCa Latxu Cnrmcd
Koreatrnvn hunigrarat Workers Nurxe
4laret Coun[Y BtriHing and CansiRxrkrn Trades Cauxil
People Qganizerf to. Wht Employment Rights (POVVER?
Ethnic
Natonal Coakiwt of Hrspu%c Orgarezafiw>S
Black, Avian, nihiarm• arxi Fthtic Renaissuxe CDC
Sarth Atian Nehvork
~Iffit'_L
Assoc'sa6On vi Ca6twrra 1Vater Agerxies
Sogcxrl Beek Water L°Msirict
Vsta hrigation 1Ts[rict
~ -C 'fag/a g
No on 98 -The Attack ®n Renters, Seniors, Vi/orking
Families and the Environment
Yes on 99 -The Homeowner Protection Act
Proposition 98: the Landlords' Deceptive Attack on Renters.
• Prop. 98 would strike a devastating one-two punch that would crush California renters including millions of
seniors, widows, veterans and young families.
• First, Prop. 98 eliminates important renter protections, like laws protecting renters against unfair evictions.
Second, Prop. 98 eliminates rent control.
• Prop 98 gives landlords new powers and incentive to kick out renters, vacate the unit and eliminate rent control
protections so they raise rents.
• Prop. 98 also eliminates renter protections like laws requiring the fair return of rental deposits.
Wealthy Landlords Put 98 on the Ballot for Their own Financial Gain.
Prop. 98 is the worst kind of dishonest, special interest proposition there is. Wealthy apartment and mobile
home park owners spent millions to get Prop. 98 on the ballot.
More than 80% of funding behind Prop. 98 comes from landlords. These landlords don't care about eminent
domain. That's just their smokescreen to try to trick voters into abolishing renter protections and eliminating
rent control.
Hidden Agendas Hurt the Environment, Water Quality and Supply, and Our Economy.
The problems with Prop. 98 don't stop with abolishing renter protections. Hidden provisions:
- Gut Environmental Protections, like laws we need to combat global warming, and protect our land, air,
water and coasts. EVERY leading environmental organization in California OPPOSES 98.
- Jeopardize the Quality of our Drinking Water and our ability to secure new sources. of water to protect
our environment and fuel our economy. That's why the CA Chamber of Commerce, Western Growers
Association and Association of California Water Agencies OPPOSE 98.
- Result in Frivolous Lawsuits, Higher Taxpayer costs, and Hurt our Economy.
Prop. 99 -Real and Powerful Eminent Domain Reform With NO HIDDEN AGENDAS.
• Prop. 99 would prohibit government from taking our homes to transfer to a private developer.
• Prop. 99 protects homeowners from eminent domain, with no hidden provisions.
Proa. 98 is opposed by srouas like:
• AARP
• League of Women Voters of California
• California Professional Firefighters
• Tenants Together
• Coalition for Economic Survival
• Coalition to Protect California Renters
• Golden State Manufactured Home Owners
League
• National Wildlife Federation
Prop. 99 is supported by ¢rouos like:
• League of California Homeowners
• Tenants Together
• California Alliance for Retired Americans
• California Fire Chiefs Association
• League of Women Voters of California
• National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations
• Coalition for Economic Survival
• California League of Conservation Voters
• California Fire Chiefs Association
Paid for by No 98IYes 99, Californians to Stop the Prop 98 Attack on Renters and in Support of Prop 99, the Homeowners Protection Act. A committee of
seniors, homeowners, taxpayers, renters, educators, business, labor, environmentalists, local government and public safety, League of California Cities
(Non-Public Funds) and Califomians for Neighborhood Protection: Yes on Prop 99, Noon Prop 98, a sponsored committee of conservationists and labor
1121 L. Street, Suite 803 -Sacramento, CA 95814 - 916.443.0872 -www.No98Yes99.com
www.rvo7ares7y.com
Reference
Resolution No.
10284 (CCS).