Our view: In the name of limiting eminent domain, ballot measure would prevent any new zoning in state.

Government shouldn't be able to just take your land willy-nilly without paying you what it's worth. That's an easy call. But should government really forfeit its ability to do any and all zoning? Should government really stop trying to preserve historical houses, or endangered species, or fire-safe communities?

That's the hidden threat of Proposition 90, a statewide ballot initiative whose backers say would limit the government's power to seize land through eminent domain. But it goes way past that sensible goal, and would halt any new zoning effort in the state and shower many millions of taxpayer dollars on landowners and speculators intent on squeezing governments trying to do the people's will.

Californians must vote no on Prop. 90. It is arguably the most dangerous initiative on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Last year's troubling Kelo decision by the U.S. Supreme Court swung the pendulum of power too far to the side of governments, essentially enabling public agencies to take private property and turn it over to private developers on the flimsy excuse that higher tax revenues represent a "public benefit." But California law already requires government agencies to follow the stricter "public use" justification, and allows property owners to have a jury decide what's "just compensation" for their land.

Prop. 90 would swing the pendulum way too far to the side of property rights. Landowners could and would sue for not just the actual market value of their land, but the vast profit potential any parcel could have in the future were it not constrained by new laws, rules or zoning guidelines. Only uses directly relating to "public health and safety" -- two of many terms in Prop. 90 sure to be defined by lengthy, costly court battles -- would be eligible for eminent domain.

Efforts to protect undeveloped land and endangered species, like San Diego County's long-awaited General Plan 2020, would be dead in the water, as developers could and would demand untold millions for the potential value of unbuilt cities on undeveloped land.

Habitat preservation isn't the only community value that would be priced out of existence: Prop. 90 would effectively halt communities' ability to protect historical buildings, to limit undesirable businesses like adult-oriented stores and liquor stores, to manage urban sprawl and fire protection and to provide affordable housing.

It's no surprise that most of the money behind Prop. 90 was donated by a New York real estate mogul; wealthy special interests love to exploit California ballot propositions to advance their agendas. Here they have hijacked a worthy cause -- limiting eminent domain -- and threatened the ability of governments to do their constituents' bidding. If you vote on nothing else Tuesday, please vote no on Prop. 90.