The two propositions on the June 3d ballot, 98 and 99, are not "either/or" and they both should be defeated; they are not related to each other. Well, they are related by their authorship: a New York lawyer determined to destroy the ability of a local government to use eminent domain for redevelopment of land and improvements within their municipalities. (The Connecticut example was a dire and seemingly cruel seizure of homes so that a private developer could build a mall.) A planning commission with backbone and a city council independent of developer influence could have prevented that travesty. As he tried to do in last November's election, the New York lawyer has placed his incidious, developer enrichment scheme on the ballot next week Prop 99, however, in attempting to prevent [Connecticut's experience] from recurring, would force a city that refuses to use eminent domain on the developer's behalf, to pay that developer for future, lost income potential of the project. That would bankrupt cities and towns if they refuse to use eminent domain when a developer wants to change the nature of a neighborhood or other area of town.

Prop 98 purports to be an alternative approach to eminent domain. Do not be fooled. The purpose of Prop 98 is to make all rent controls in the State of California illegal. Not all cities have rent control ordinances and where they exist, landlords tend to be lagging in making needed maintenance and repair of their multi-resident buildings. On the other hand, without rent control, tenants would have no protection from landlords who would raise their rents by 20 percent per year, until every poor or poorly paid renter has to move somewhere else. Again, the developers are behind this proposition because it would enable housing units to be sold for other uses without consideration of the tenants affected.

As means for taking care of our community members, all of them, both 98 and 99 tear at the fabric of our local abilities to take care of our own, to nurture healthy, neighborly and stabile communities. Vote NO on 98 and 99.