Cities Fear Impacts Of California's Prop 90

"In California we can't take a single-family residence for economic purposes; it has to be only for removing blight or other public purposes. So the Kelo decision didn't expand any authority in California, and it didn't increase the threat to homeowners. But the proponents are riding in on that red herring and using public concern to pursue a myriad of other efforts to limit government regulation and control in California. Prop 90 would do so in a way that will significantly constrain our ability to do good urban planning in communities across California, and it will make it much more expensive, if not impossible, for cities, counties, and governmental entities to assemble and acquire land with the objective of eliminating blight and encouraging development in blighted areas in California."

"Because Prop 90 prohibits conveying property to a non-governmental owner, it virtually removes eminent domain as a tool to be used by redevelopment agencies. Redevelopment agencies do not use eminent domain a great deal, but when you are attempting to encourage a developer to invest in an area that may be blighted, you have to have some way to assure the developer that if they invest their time, money, designs, and land-use entitlement process in assembling land, that you have to have the ability to assemble a site for them."