Proponents want voters to believe Proposition 90 is simply about eminent domain reform. But the truth is that Prop. 90 goes well beyond eminent domain reform and contains extreme provisions that will threaten efforts to conserve land, preserve open spaces, and protect the environment. For example, Proposition 90 redefines "damages" so people could sue any time a new law or regulation was passed that they claimed devalued their property, including laws or local zoning decisions intended to protect open spaces and our environment.

Prop. 90 would change Section 19(b) and add the following subparagraph (8) to the California constitution:

Except when taken to protect public health and safety, "damage" to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limitations on the use of private air space. "Government action" shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation.

Here's why Proposition 90 would be bad for land trusts and conservation efforts. Prop 90 would:

• Dismantle any rational framework for land-use planning and project approvals, including approvals for land conservation purchases, open space and land trusts. Prop. 90 is so poorly drafted that it will take countless years of litigation and court review to sort out what actions are compensable and at what price. Local and state agencies will become paralyzed waiting for the courts to sort it all out. As a result, Prop. 90 will stymie any responsible land-use planning and delay all land-use transactions – including land trusts and purchases for conservation. In Oregon, where a somewhat similar measure was passed, nearly 2,000 claims totaling more than $3 billion have been filed. Oregon newspapers report the sheer number of claims has swamped local planning officials and has hindered their ability to handle other basic functions like land-use approvals.

• Erode future laws and regulations that require environmental mitigation, such as mitigation credits, and mitigation "banking" that benefit land trusts. If Prop. 90 becomes law, local and state agencies would likely be financially unable to pass laws to require new off-site environmental mitigation (such as mitigation credits or mitigation banking) that project developers now partner with land trusts to accomplish. As a result, local land trusts will lose a significant source of transactions that help make land conservation efforts and land trusts fiscally feasible.

• Cripple local government actions to protect open spaces, assemble land for trusts or enact responsible zoning ordinances. The new and unreasonable payouts required under Prop. 90 will make it much more difficult to adopt General Plan Updates or amend local zoning ordinances to preserve open space and/or prevent uncontrolled development.

• Destabilize land prices. The inability to enforce zoning and other land use rules will lead to increased speculation and inflated property values for land – resulting in higher costs for land acquisitions for conservation and land trust.

• Prevent voters and state and local agencies from enacting environmental protections. Prop. 90s provisions would severely restrict the ability of voters and local and state agencies to enact and enforce basic laws that protect our coastline, preserve open spaces and farmland, protect air and water quality, and protect environmentally sensitive areas. The measure makes pollution a property right, forcing the taxpayers to pay to stop pollution.