• Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act of 2006. The first of the McClintock/Norby/Coupal measures, this initiative would make sweeping changes to the calculation of just compensation. It defines the terms "taken" and "damaged" to include any action that reduces the use of property in whole or in part and would require compensation for these actions. It also includes a prohibition regulating resale and rental programs that would effectively transform most inclusionary housing programs into compensable takings. Additionally, it includes a limited reacquisition right and requires attorneys’ fees when a court or jury awards a value that is higher than the original offer.

• California Property Owner Protection Act. The second McClintock/Norby/Coupal measure focuses more on the means of compensation, providing that condemnation for economic development must be conditioned on the owner’s permission. The measure also goes beyond that, by applying additional conditions to ALL eminent domain actions. It includes provisions for an owner’s perpetual right of reacquisition, requiring attorneys’ fees when the agency’s original offer is lower than a court award, and makes these changes retroactive to June 23, 2005, (the date of the Kelo decision).

• The California Eminent Domain Limitations Act. The McNea/Hipona measure requires a jury to determine just compensation before a taking of private property through eminent domain, and prohibits taking private property for economic development purposes. It includes within the definition of "economic development" takings, "to increase tax revenue, tax base, employment, housing density, or general economic health."

Measures Could Undermine Housing Efforts, Encourage Sprawl

The likely effect of these proposals - if they qualify for the ballot and are approved by the voters - could be to significantly limit efforts by cities and redevelopment agencies to revitalize blighted areas, thereby condemning many economically stressed neighborhoods to a continuing downward spiral. The measures could make it much harder to build in-fill projects, and thus could force new housing growth into surrounding open space and farmland.

Taken as a whole, these measures all forward a substantial reconstruction of eminent domain that would significantly undermine the ability of the state and local governments to make public investments in roads, schools, housing and other essential infrastructure. In other words, they go well beyond the issue raised in Kelo, which was the extent to which land could be taken as part of a broader economic development plan.

The League of California Cities will not consider adopting a formal position on these or other measures until they have actually qualified for the ballot. (See "How an Initiative Gets to the Ballot," below.)

How an Initiative Gets to the Ballot

Filing initiatives with the Attorney General (AG) is the first required step leading to qualifying a measure for a statewide ballot. The AG’s office has to prepare a "title and summary" of the primary points and purpose of the initiative which are returned to the sponsors and sent to the Secretary of State. This language is then used to print petitions that will be circulated for signatures by registered voters. Signatures collected will then be filed with appropriate county officials who determine the total number of valid signatures on the petitions and report that to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State will then determine whether the total number of signatures is sufficient to qualify the initiative for the ballot. The sponsors’ goal will likely be to collect about 1 million signatures to assure enough valid signatures are on the petitions to qualify any of the measures.