Your Oct. 20 article, "Could passage of Prop. 90 hinder the city's redevelopment efforts" suggests that all Prop. 90 does is make it more difficult to exercise the power of eminent domain. If only that were true.

Prop. 90 also would also make it virtually impossible for a government to enact any new laws protecting the environment, workers, or consumers. Prop. 90 is one of the most dangerously radical initiatives in California history.

The initiative would require government to pay a property owner whenever a new law results "in substantial economic loss to private property." By Prop. 90's own illustration, "downzoning" is covered.

If, in response to neighborhood protest over a proposed 1,000-home subdivision, a city rezones the area to permit 500 homes, the city would have to pay the developer the value of the 500 "lost" homes. Few cities could afford to do that, so the neighbors will lose.

Or suppose a business finds a loophole in existing laws that would permit it to build a nightclub near a residential neighborhood. Could the city close the loophole? No way, it would have to allow the nightclub or pay the business not to build it.

It is no answer that the initiative would leave in place existing laws. We elect our politicians to protect our interests as circumstances change.

For example, if, several years from now, inflation has eroded workers' wages, normally we might expect an increase in the state minimum wage such as the one the governor signed recently. After Prop. 90, would the Legislature risk a lawsuit from McDonald's or Wal-Mart demanding tens of millions of dollars because of "substantial economic loss to private property?"

Don't bet on it. Proposition 90 is touted as "Save Our Homes," but its flip side is "Destroy Our Neighborhoods." Richard Rothschild Simi Valley