Commentary: Why Farm Bureau opposes Proposition 90

Issue Date: September 20, 2006

By Nancy McDonough

Proposition 90 is a constitutional initiative that is intended to "protect our homes" from the threat of government taking in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. Farm Bureau has long been a strong supporter of private property rights, and this initiative affords some protections, particularly with respect to eminent domain. Unfortunately, however, it goes far beyond eminent domain reform, with its negative consequences outweighing the positive.

While farmers and ranchers seek relief from California's onerous regulatory climate, in which they must contend with many costly and restrictive regulations, often involving the inability to use portions of their land, Proposition 90 is not the solution. This poorly written initiative, with its far-reaching consequences, will likely aggravate, rather than mitigate, the risks and costs of farming in California.

Although Proposition 90 might appear to be the solution to protecting property values and the ability to farm, it is not. It would freeze California's planning and zoning laws, the Williamson Act and local zoning ordinances as of November 2006. By redefining "damage to property," people could sue any time a law or regulation is passed that they claim devalues their property, creating a disincentive for counties to expand the Williamson Act or modify local general plan policies intended to protect farmland and farmers' right to farm.

It is imperative that the economic viability of agriculture be protected. Much of this is accomplished through the land use planning process. Proposition 90 will bring this process to an abrupt halt. The new and extraordinary costs that will be incurred under Proposition 90 will make it much more difficult for counties to regulate land use to prevent uncontrolled development next to our farm and ranch operations.

Farms depend on facilities such as canals, reservoirs, electric lines, roads, rail lines and ports to grow and market our crops. By redefining "just compensation," Proposition 90 will also make it much harder for local agencies to build new facilities or improve existing ones. The costs will be prohibitive.

Revenue would have to be generated to administer and pay for damage claims and the massive and costly litigation that will certainly result if this initiative passes. This will require new or higher taxes or a significant reduction in local services. Also, fees for government "givings," such as roads, water facilities and basic infrastructure, and protections from incompatible non-farming uses on surrounding properties, may be assessed in some manner to offset the payments for the "takings."

Restricting neighboring properties from engaging in incompatible uses adds value to agricultural land. The removal of such protection will not, however, result in compensation for the loss of production capability because the value of the land will increase as development encroaches on the fields.

For farmers and ranchers, Proposition 90 creates more problems than it solves. While providing redevelopment reform to protect our homes and farms, it threatens our ability to continue farming.

(Nancy McDonough is CFBF General Counsel. She may be contacted at nmcdonough@cfbf.com.)

Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item. Top