The Business Alliance has not taken a position on either proposition.
Upcoming Ballot Propositions 98 & 99 both attempt to curb abuses in Eminent Domain (ED), but are radically different.

Opponents of Proposition 98 say that it is a Trojan horse, intended to fool voters into ending government-imposed rent control in the cities that impose rent control, under the guise of reforming eminent domain land seizures in the state. Critics also claim that 98 goes too far in limiting bona-fide uses of ED for needed public benefit projects like roads and water lines. EID Counsel Tom Cumptston gave an example of the flaws of the proposal in which an open EID reservoir that was replaced by an enclosed storage facility. Under 98, anytime the land was converted from its original use, which land would have be offered back to the original seller, at the original selling price, before it could have been converted to another use. If the seller wanted it back, EID would then have to look for a replacement facility. This would create a costly, time-consuming process, which would be funded by EID ratepayers and would result in the same eventual outcome.

Opponents of Proposition 99 say it is a Trojan horse initiative intended to fool voters into thinking they are voting for real eminent domain reform, when in fact they are voting for a measure that slightly, if at all, changes California's current eminent domain situation. Prop. 99 allows apartments, commercial property or rental homes to be taken by government entities from private owners and given to other private owners. This leaves open most of the state's current eminent-domain options. Property rights analyst Timothy Sandefur, who works for the Pacific Legal Foundation, says, "The fact is that Prop 99 would not protect anyone in California from eminent domain abuse. It would not apply at all to small businesses, which are the most common victims of eminent domain. It would not protect people living in apartments at all. It would not protect farms, or churches. It would only protect 'owner occupied residences.' And in fact, it would not even protect them, because the small print in the initiative eliminates such protections in almost every case of eminent domain abuse."