Proposition 90 -- The Ends Justifies the Means
I'm not a big fan of "end justifies the means" type arguments. In fact, one basic rationale for my belief in limited government is that government can always find a superfically laudable goal for its regulation, but the means almost always does more harm than the "good" the government was supposedly advancing. I'm a little torn on proposition 90 for that reason. The most important aspect of the proposition from my perspective is its potential impact beyond "direct condemnation" (where the government affirmatively acts to take property and compensates the property owner). The problem of governments condemning private property is serious, but property rights are more threated from regulation which is not compensated. The requirement to compensate is at least some constraint on government action.
Under current law, it is almost impossible to obtain compensation for regulation, even though it may deprive the property owner of almost all the value of the property. There is no doubt that the adoption of Proposition 90 will have some short term negative consequences. It will be costly in the beginning, as property owners and public entities litigate over its scope and meaning. However, it will put a chill in arrogant politicians and bureacrats who show no regard for property rights.