What I don't oppose is using the land for infrastructure that we all need and use.
If you do, fine. But you'd make a much more convincing argument if you weren't hypocritically using the highways built through the very process you decry.
If you do not oppose the taking of private land for use in infrastructure you need to revise your comment that ED has no place in America, it does.
The initiative does not prohibit ED for public projects.
From LAO:
Taking PropertyYES on Prop 98 -- NO on Prop 99.The measure prohibits government from taking ownership of property to transfer it to a private party—such as a person, business, or nonprofit organization. In addition, government could not take property to use it for (1) a purpose substantially similar to how the private owner used it (such as public operation of a water or electricity delivery system formerly owned by a private company) or (2) the purpose of consuming its natural resources (such as its oil or minerals). These restrictions on government’s authority to take property also would apply to cases when government transfers the right to use or occupy property (but does not take ownership of it). None of these restrictions would apply, however, if government was addressing a public nuisance or criminal activity or as part of a state of emergency declared by the Governor.
Under the measure, government could continue to take property for facilities that it would own and use, such as new schools, roads, parks, and public facilities. Government could not take property for one purpose, however, and then use it for a different purpose unless it offered to sell the property back to its previous owner.