As we reported our March story, “The new face of eminent domain,” two opposing ballot initiatives, both limiting the use of eminent domain, were up for vote in California in June.

Proposition 98, a wide-ranging bill known as the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, was supported by eminent domain activists, including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Californians for Private Property Rights and the Castle Coalition. Proposition 99, the Homeowner and Private Property Protection Act, was a more limited approach favored by the League of California Homeowners and League of California Cities.

Last month, Proposition 99 passed with 62 percent of the vote. Under the provisions of this act, government cannot use eminent domain to seize an owner-occupied property in order to transfer it to a private developer.

Opponents of the measure say it provides inadequate protection for renters, churches and small business owners, and vowed to carry on the fight to the legislature.

“If the legislature fails to act, we will consider qualifying another ballot measure,” says Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “Since California is among the biggest abusers of eminent domain in the country, our coalition cannot abandon efforts to restore private property rights in California, and will continue to hold government accountable for eminent domain abuse.”

Ken Willis, president of the League of California Homeowners, says Proposition 99 won out because it was clear and concise, and not weighed down with other issues such as rent control and environmental regulations.

“There were too many issues involved in 98,” Willis says. “The authors obviously tried to make it confusing. But if you make ballots too confusing, people tend to vote against them. Sometimes democracy works. I think the people of California lucked out on this one.”

Have a comment about this story? E-mail us at mailbag@angieslist.com.