HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/2006, C7 - RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSITION 90, AN INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 1 1
1
1 I
council "'�°w �0 3 6(V
j acEn& Repoat �N�
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSITION 90, AN INITIATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution opposing Proposition 90, an initiative Constitutional Amendment relating to
government acquisition and regulation of private property.
DISCUSSION
Background
At its meeting of September 18, 2006, the City Council asked that a resolution of opposition to
Proposition 90 be brought before the Council at its next meeting. While state law prohibits the
expenditure of public monies in ballot measure campaigns, local legislative bodies may go on
record at a public meeting expressing an opinion on a ballot measure. Opposition to Proposition
90 is consistent with the City Council's current legislative platform.
On the November 7, 2006 ballot, San Luis Obispo voters will have an opportunity to vote on
Proposition 90, an initiative Constitutional Amendment relating to government acquisition,
regulation of private property. Specifically, Proposition 90 aims to amend the California
Constitution in the following ways:
• Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to
promote other private projects or uses;
• Limits government's authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer,
environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve
public health or safety;
• Voids unpublished eminent domain court decisions;
• Defines "just compensation";
■ Government must occupy condemned property or lease property for public use;
• Condemned private property must be offered for resale to prior owner or owner's heir at
current fair market value if government abandons condemnation's objective; and
■ Exempts certain governmental actions.
Of particular note is a provision in Proposition 90 relating to regulatory takings. The provision
allows a property or business owner to claim and recover from public agencies the amount of lost
or diminished value due to a regulation or law enacted by the public agency..
c�7
I
Resolution Opposing Proposition 90 Page 2
Impacts of Proposition 90 on Local Governments
Proposition 90, which purports to provide for eminent domain reform, poses both a considerable
threat to local government's capacity to govern and a drain on local resources. Under the taldngs
provision, local governments will be liable for a variety of damages attributed to local regulations
or law. This severely hampers the ability of local governments to legislate for the good of the
community. For instance, regulations to protect neighborhoods, control development and
promote environmental protections may simply prove too costly, resulting in the potential decline
of community values. Conversely, Proposition 90 forces the City and taxpayers into the
untenable position of paying claims submitted by property owners and businesses, which may
amount to millions of dollars. The City of San Luis Obispo is not in a financial position to make
large pay-outs,.nor would the City Council or the San Luis Obispo citizenry find this the best use
of public funds.
The City of San Luis Obispo has staunchly and consistently supported local control over local
issues. For this reason opposition to Proposition 90 is appropriate. The proposed constitutional
amendment appears to be an attempt to take control from San Luis Obispo residents and their
democratically-elected officials.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution
GAAgenda-Ordinances-ResolTrop 90 Eminent Domain-Agenda Rpt.DOC
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OPPOSING PROPOSITION 90 AN INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
RELATING TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION AND
REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo voters will find Proposition 90, an initiative Constitutional
Amendment relating to government acquisition and regulation of private property, on the
November 7, 2006 ballot;
WHEREAS, Proposition 90 purports to be a vehicle for eminent domain reform, placing
limits on public agencies' ability to seize properties and setting higher reimbursement standards
for property owners;
WHEREAS,Proposition 90 contains an ominous but easily overlooked takings provision
that effectively usurps local governments' ability to legislate and levies a high financial penalty
by allowing property or business owners to file claims against public agencies for any
diminished or lost value due to laws or regulations enacted by the public agency;
WHEREAS, the takings provision is tantamount to stripping control of important
policies regarding environmental protections, development, consumer protections, and
neighborhood protections from City residents;
WHEREAS, Proposition 90 may result in thousands of frivolous lawsuits, additional
bureaucracy, and jeopardize essential City services that may lose already reduced funding due to
potential City pay-outs to property owners and businesses;
WHEREAS, Proposition 90 will undermine the authority of the local community and
local voters; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the prohibition of expenditures of public monies in ballot
measure campaigns, local legislative bodies may go on record at a public meeting expressing an
opinion on a ballot measure;
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that it hereby
opposes Proposition 90.
On motion of , seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
C �-.3
Resolution No. (2006) ATTACHMENT I
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of - , 2006.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J P. Lowell, City Attorney