We have an election tomorrow in California and about the only things anyone cares about on the ballot are Propositions 98 and 99. In case you live in my state and in case you're confused, I'll make it real simple for you. We kinda/sorta need a law in this state that will restrict the government's power to seize your land under the auspices of "eminent domain" and give it to some private developer who wants to build a mall (or something else) in your area. This is necessary because of a 2005 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that made it easier for governments to do that. This was, by the way, a rare time I thought the Scalia side of the court — which opposed the expansion of Uncle Sam's powers to seize your property — was in the right.
If Proposition 98 was just about that, it would arguably be a good law. (The argument against it would be that it goes too far and would inhibit some justifiable uses of eminent domain) Alas, various landlords' associations saw an opportunity to piggyback some other items from their wishlist onto this just cause. They added a couple things but the biggie is that the law would strip local governments of their ability to enact and maintain rent controls. There's a case to be made against rent controls but they oughta be decided at the local levels and not abolished on a statewide basis.
Proposition 99 was written to trump 98. It's a better law to control eminent domain and it doesn't address the matter of rent control. It should pass. 98 should not.