Not even the presumed "liberal" San Francisco Chronicle gets it. The reaction to the proposed California "Protect Our Homes" referendum is very mild and they're quoting the Reason Foundation, for God's sake. That's because liberals have largely bought into the "private property rights" meme since the Kelo SCOTUS decision about eminent domain.
There are nasty implications to the private property rights "protections" that are being proposed across the country in Kelo's wake. Under the guise of protecting rights many of the proposals, including California's, would limit land use powers. Wording similar to the Oregon referendum, which hammers land use planning and zoning, is embedded in the language of the California referendum.
Even-tempered Jack Kemp gets it. In this mild mannered piece he cautions against going to far with the private property right protections.
While Kelo has had a positive impact at the state level, it has also stimulated members of Congress to pursue a national remedy. Their intention is worthy - to ensure the protection of private property rights. But we must always be wary in our complex federal system that a well-intentioned national solution not have damaging impact on important state functions. There is no more basic state and local responsibility than land use planning, and federal regulation and restriction should be done with the utmost care to avoid unintended consequences.
Private property rights "protections" will hogtie local and state governments and ironically restrict property protection against the interests of businesses like mining and land development where the two frequently collide. Environmental laws are especially vulnerable. I'm not so sure about the "worthy" intentions of Congress that Kemp refers to. And I'm pretty sure any consequences will be very intentional.