PROP. 90 HAMMER CAN'T FINE-TUNE LAW.

Byline: BOB SCOTT Local View

LIKE many initiatives before it, Proposition 90 -- an effort to fix problems with eminent domain after the Supreme Court's controversial Kelo vs. New London ruling -- applies the sledgehammer treatment when just a tightening of the screws would do fine.

The initiative is being sold by its proponents as eminent-domain protection against government tyranny. Clearly, action is needed to protect the most basic tenets of property rights against government abuses. Had Proposition 90 proponents limited their measure to a simple reform of eminent-domain law, many thoughtful Californians would rightfully jump on the bandwagon.

Rather than craft a straightforward and simple fix to eminent-domain rules, the drafters of Proposition 90 opted to go further -- inserting other far-reaching and unrelated provisions into the California Constitution. These unrelated provisions would establish a new class of lawsuits in California and serve as a trial lawyers' bonanza, costing taxpayers billions of dollars each year while hindering economic growth and job- creation.

Buried in the text of Proposition 90 are provisions that allow virtually anyone to sue, claiming a new law or regulation has resulted in ``substantial economic loss'' to his or her property. Even the most worthwhile laws could trigger lawsuits and potential government payouts -- all at the taxpayers' expense.

Those who are concerned about continuing the economic growth of the past three years should be particularly worried about Proposition 90. Its hidden provisions create a new cause of action that allows a few individuals to sue to stop new housing and new businesses that would benefit the entire local economy and community. There is tremendous potential for such frivolous lawsuits to bring the land-use and business-approval process to a halt because it would take years for courts to sort out what actions are compensable and at what price.

If Californians are unconvinced of the need to reject Proposition 90, they need look no further than our neighbors to the north. In 2004, voters in Oregon passed a measure very similar to Proposition 90. Since then, more than 2,200 claims totaling more than $5 billion have been filed. Oregon newspapers report the sheer number of these claims has swamped local planning officials. Oregon is only one-tenth the size of California. Just imagine what would happen here!

Moreover, Proposition 90 requires unreasonable payouts whenever agencies acquire property for public works. If land were acquired to expand a regional airport, Proposition 90 could require a payout to the property owner based on the value of the land with the airport on it, including future revenues from restaurants and other merchants in the facility.

This new definition would result in windfall payouts to a few property owners, at the expense of all other taxpayers, or make infrastructure projects prohibitively expensive. Proposition 90 has the potential to derail the infrastructure gains in Propositions 1A-E by significantly increasing the costs of sorely needed improvements, particularly to our transportation system.

It's unfortunate when a legitimate problem in search of a straightforward solution is hijacked by an overzealous, misguided and costly agenda. But that's exactly what's happened with Proposition 90. The potential for abuse is so widespread, it's almost impossible to quantify the bottom line for taxpayers. We hope we never have to find out just how costly it really is.

Californians deserve protection from eminent-domain abuses, but Proposition 90 would create far more problems than it purports to solve. It deserves to be soundly rejected by voters on Nov. 7.