SACRAMENTO -- Following last year's disastrous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, states and municipalities began enacting laws to preserve their own interpretations of the Fifth Amendment right of eminent domain. The Supremes ruled, 5-4, that the government could seize private land and hand it over to a private developer if the developer's presence might create a sort-of maybe intangible benefit through higher tax revenues. The Supremes, however, said in their ruling that this was a broad application of the federal Fifth Amendment and states, if they wanted a narrower interpretation, could acheive that through their own state constitutions. A flurry of activity followed.

Now, California is trying for an amendment to the state constitution that would prevent the state from using its power of eminent domain to seize private land and hand it over to private developers. Sounds great, right?

But stick around for page three of Proposition 90, cleverly titled the "Protect Our Homes Act." Who doesn't want to protect homes? But what this proposition does and what its proponents say it does -- or rather, don't say it does -- are very different. Proposition 90 does indeed define "public use" and prevents the taking of private property for any uses that are not "public," but it goes one further:

Whenever government takes or damages private property for a public use, the owner of any affected property shall receive just compensation for the property taken or damaged. Just compensation shall be set at fair market value for property taken and diminution of fair market value for property damaged. Whenever a property owner and the government cannot agree on fair compensation, the California courts shall provide through a jury trial a fair and timely process for the settlement of disputes.

The key word is "damages." Under this proposed amendment, "damage" could be condominium conversion, low-income housing conversion, or even rent control. It could be environmental or zoning regulations. Anytime the state does anything to affect the value of private property, the owner of the property could sue the state and demand compensation. Who is this good for? Lawyers, of course. It's also good for owners who don't like the state muscling in on their property, demanding things like condo conversion and rent control.

Proponents of Prop 90 focus exclusively on its regulation of eminent domain, using lots of scare words to make voters think that their property will be taken tomorrow without Prop 90. The measure is opposed by a wide variety of groups, from the California Fire Chiefs Association to the Chambers of Commerce of every large city in California. Prop 90 is supported by lots of individuals and lots of Republican groups. Their tagline is "Protect our homes," but whose homes are we protecting? The word "home" is key: it frames the debate as one between the nameless, faceless State and your kindly grandmother, whose house will undoubtedly be bulldozed to make way for a Wal-Mart. The reality is that your grandmother is no danger; rather, landlords are in danger of continuing to have the government place restrictions on property rental. These restrictions ultimately benefit renters, but they keep landlords from making as much money as they could.

While it would be a good idea to have a state constitutional amendment clarifying eminent domain in California, this ballot initiative is a poison pill, a piece of legislation written with a hidden agenda in mind. A law prohibiting public seizure for private benefit could have been written without language in it that would permit landlords and their lawyers to spend the next ten years in court with the state, arguing over what "damages" are and how much money the landlords -- or, more likely, the lawyers -- ought to get.