L.A. Times on Prop. 98: 'Cynical and devious'

The L.A. Times today strongly criticizes Proposition 98, which would bar the government from taking  private property by eminent domain for the ultimate purpose of private development. Proposition 98 would also phase out local rent-control ordinances, which The Times views as a separate issue best settled locally: "Statewide abolition of rent control must not sneak its way onto the books as a hidden addendum to an ostensible eminent domain reform. Including it in Proposition 98 is cynical and devious -- and reason enough to reject the measure."

The Times notes that a company run by Sam Zell has donated $50,000 in support of Proposition 98. Zell, chairman and CEO of Tribune Co., which owns The Times, also chairs Equity Lifestyle Properties, which owns 27 mobile home parks in California, some of which are subject to rent control. It was Equity Lifestyle Properties that made the donation to Proposition 98. In other words, the Times editorial page has crossed its new owner, and made a point of informing its readers it was doing so.

The Times gives a half-hearted endorsement to the other "eminent domain" question, Proposition 99, saying the measure is flawed because it protects only property owned by individuals, and not business-owned property.

Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com

Prop. 98 debate: Is rent control worth saving?

A number of smart people have been encouraging me to post on the dueling eminent domain propositions, Proposition 98 and Proposition 99. Because I could not get an appointment for an elective root canal today and was turned down in my bid to volunteer for jury duty, it appears a political discussion cannot be avoided (Aside: there is an election coming up, on June 3, in California).

Naturally these are somewhat complicated propositions, and there is a slim chance that over time I will do justice to the subject. Slim. But not now, not here. My question is this: is rent control worth keeping?

Proposition 98 would outlaw new rent control laws and phase out the old ones. From the Legislative Analyst's Office summary: "The measure generally prohibits government from limiting the price property owners may charge others to purchase, occupy, or use their land or buildings. This provision would affect local rent control measures. Specifically, government could not enact new rent control measures, and any rent control measure enacted after January 1, 2007, would end. Other rent control measures (those enacted before January 1, 2007) would be phased out on a unit-by-unit basis after an apartment unit or mobile home park space is vacated. Once a tenant left an apartment or mobile home space, property owners could charge market rate rents, and that apartment unit or mobile home space would not be subject to rent control again."

Good idea or a bad idea? Make your case. E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com.