Eliminating eminent domain sounds good on paper but is a pretty dumb idea anyway, since there is such a thing as the public interest. Probably a better idea to limit application of eminent domain by arriving at a consensus of what constitutes "the public interest."Well, that's what California's prop 98 does. It doesn't eliminate the use of eminent domain; it limits it to the use of public projects. Government needs to build a road where your house is? They can use eminent domain. Setting up a nature preserve? Sure. But if they want to take it because Target wants to go there (and doesn't want to be bothered to pay you what you think your house is worth)? No go. Your town wants to get rid of some affordable housing to replace it with a fancy new development so that your town isn't burdened by poor folks and instead has rich folks paying more taxes? That would be a no-go as well.
There's also a competing measure which looks like it exists merely to convince people not to vote for the first measure; Prop 99 doesn't have any effect on rent control, and limits its very limited protections to homes lived in by their owners. That business which has been in your family for three generations? Nope, not protected.
Whether prop 98 is reasonable, or is merely an attempt to exploit the public reaction to the Kelo decision in order to eliminate rent control, that's a different question. (If it wasn't for the rent control stuff, I'd vote for it in a second. With that in there, I'm still thinkin'.)