By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer

February 21 -- A possible measure aimed at limiting government's ability to take private property could determine the fate of rent control in Santa Monica and across the state, spurring a ballot brawl come 2008.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association plans to launch a signature drive to qualify the amendment, which not only would restrict a government's power of eminent domain, it would phase out California's rent control laws that have been on the books for nearly 25 years.

"We've already submitted the title and summary to the Secretary of State and are now just waiting for a response approving it," said Jon Coupal, president of the HJTA, the group perhaps best known for helping pass the landmark Proposition 13 restricting property taxes in 1978.

The measure would be put before voters if the Jarvis Taxpayers Association can gather more than 800,000 signatures within 150 days after the Secretary of State approves the title and summary.

Dubbed the California Property Owners Protection Act, the initiative, and especially the provision eliminating rent control and making the law retroactive, is beginning to stir activists in Santa Monica and across the state.

"It's really a perverse measure," said Denny Zane, co-founder of Santa Monica Renters' Rights, which helped usher in local rent control nearly 30 years ago. "It would abolish rent control in the near future and have a devastating effect on hundreds of thousands of renters."

While the State’s ten-year-old vacancy decontrol law allows landlords to raise rents to market rates in most vacant units, the proposed measure would be particularly harmful for longstanding residents, Zane said.

"For many renters that have been in place for years the measure would double or triple their rent," Zane said.

The measure, the former mayor argued, would only exacerbate the state's affordable housing crisis.

The California Alliance to Protect Property Rights' web site run by the Jarvis Foundation and other backers of the initiative argues that while there is "a public benefit to affordable housing… it is an infringement on private property rights to place this burden solely on an individual property owner."

Over three years, the proposed measure would "phase-out traditional rent regulation programs," while "allowing public agencies to develop affordable housing options that do not hinder an individuals' right to fair use of their property," according to the web site.

While local property owners who have fought against rent control in Santa Monica and across the state support the Jarvis measure, some said they are not sure how successful it will be at the polls.

"We are cautiously optimistic," said Gwen Wunder, executive director for the Santa Monica-based Action Apartment Association. "But until the money is on the table for the measure, we don't know how it will fare."

In addition to funding hurdles, Wunder predicted the measure may not get the necessary support if it takes on rent control.

"This will probably go down in flames if the measure keeps in the rent control provision," she said.

That does not mean members of Action won’t take steps to learn more about the initiative. Jarvis representative Kris Vosburth will speak about the measure at an upcoming Action meeting March 5, Wunder said.

Still Zane and activists across California consider the ballot drive a real threat.

"Anytime… interests plan a devastating ballot measure, (SMRR) takes it seriously," Zane said. "I certainly do believe it's a big concern and a challenge to leaders across the state… if it passes."

A further concern for rent control advocates and those who oppose the measure is that the law would be retroactive.

"Any action by a public agency" passed before the (2008) election that "results in continued damage to private property" will be "null and void," according to the new initiative.

The Santa Monica Rent Control Board is assessing the proposed measure and has no comment at this time, said Tracy Condon, the board’s spokesperson.

The proposed amendment is similar in its aim to Proposition 90, the eminent domain measure narrowly defeated by voters last November.

From environmental groups to the League of Cities, opponents convinced it would hurt governments' ability to zone effectively and battle urban decay spent more than $12 million to defeat the ballot measure.

Proponents pumped nearly $4 million into the measure -- which was opposed by 52.5 percent of the State’s voters -- in an effort to halt what they saw as governments' abusive taking of private property.

Backers of that 2006 proposition say they are mulling over a second, and separate, stab of their own, although they have yet to take formal action with the Secretary of State.

"There are a lot chess pieces in play on the board right now," said Kevin Spillan consultant for "Yes on 90." "Let's just say there are efforts being made and leave it at that."

Spillan said his group -- backed last year by the deep pockets of New York billionaire Howie Rich --- has reformed as "Protect Our Homes Coalition" and is not coordinated with the Jarvis Foundation.

"We are not a part of the Jarvis initiative," Spillan said. "Our (proposition) would not affect rent control."

While the Jarvis group has received no financial backing from supporters of the other possible eminent domain measure, it would not shun it, Coupal said.