response to its adversary, 98, whose opponents, like Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights, said used the issue of eminent domain as a front for ending rent control.
But Prop. 98 backers, which include apartment and property owners like the Action Apartment Association in Santa Monica, say that 99 does not go far enough to protection private property against eminent domain, saying that it doesn’t protect homes and leaves out businesses and places of worship.
“It’s very clear the voters wanted eminent domain protections,” Carl Lambert, the president of the Action Apartment Association, said. “Unfortunately, 99 does very little to protect them.”
Prop. 98 backers attributed their loss to the confusion caused by the placement of Prop. 99 on the ballot, both appearing nearly identical on the face with the exception of some differences that includes environmental protections and rent control. Since both measures were on the same ballot, the one that received more “yes” votes passed.
“The pro rent control faction resorted to underhanded tactics like putting a confusing initiative on the ballot,” Lambert said. “It was specifically designed to confuse the voters and they outspent us 6-1.”
Approximately 39 percent of voters gave the thumbs up to Prop. 98, as opposed to 62.5 percent for Prop. 99, which received more than two million yes votes to 98’s one million.
“My faith in the electorate has been proven valid,” Patricia Hoffman, the co-chair of SMRR, said. “I just think that it’s fabulous the voters figured out 98/99.”
“Because 98 was so badly written and was so duplicitous, the voters just saw through it,” Hoffman said.
Prop. 98, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, would’ve slowly phased out rent control over time, allowing units that fall under the Rent Control Ordinance to be priced at market rate once they are vacated.
The measure’s supporters say that rent control provisions are archaic and were instituted during World War II as a program to deal with the housing shortage. Backers also point out that rent control is illegal in 44 states and California is one of three that permit it.
But opponents said that 98 had several consequences, including jeopardizing environmental protections and limiting the state’s ability to build water projects.
“This is clearly a tremendous victory for those who are committed to preserving and producing affordable housing and protecting our environment … and con-trolling clean drinking water,” Larry Gross, the executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival, said.
The Los Angeles-based organization is a tenant group that pushed for rent control in Los Angeles and West Hollywood.
Prop. 98 supporters said on Wednesday that they hoped to work with the pro-rent control faction to help close some of the loopholes in 99 to include businesses, family farms and places of worship.
“Throughout the campaign, Prop. 99 proponents repeatedly assured voters that after election day they would address the measure’s shortcomings through the legislative process,” Jon Coupal, the president of the Howard Jarvis T a x p a y e r s Association, said. “We would gladly join such efforts with the governor and legislation to protection all homes and all private property.”
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which crafted 98, said it will considering qualifying another proposition if the legislature does not act.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 5, 2008. Read the original PDF.