[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers
Daily Email Summary

View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics
Event Calendar
July 2009
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 *
<< (add event) >>

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally

MBA Member

Blue CA Ad Network
Join Our eMail List
Email:

Photobucket

The Return of Prop 90!

by: Brian Leubitz

Wed Oct 17, 2007 at 11:03:12 AM PDT


Well, it looks like it's going to happen. The Right wingers aren't ones to give up just because they got rebuffed once.  They're at it again, and, if you believe them, they've got the signatures to get on the ballot:

Today, Californians for Property Rights Protection announced that the campaign has collected well over 700,000 signatures needed to qualify the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act for the June 2008 ballot. In order to qualify the eminent domain reform ballot measure, supporters must collect 694,354 valid signatures by November 26, 2007. The campaign is on track to submit more than 1 million signatures before this deadline. Link here

More on this proposition over the flip and why this is, yet again, a trojan horse.
Brian Leubitz :: The Return of Prop 90!
You see, the Howard Jarvis folks don't really care all that much about eminent domain, because it doesn't really affect that many of their kind of people, or truthfully, any kind of people. But, it sounds really bad, and it polls well for them.  So, they use it as a trojan horse. That's what they did with Prop 90, and that's what they are doing this time.  This time, it is rent control that's on their mind. I think it would also eliminate many of the "below market rate ownership" programs in San Francisco and across the state.

Why rent control? Hell's if I know, but it's what they are going after. They draw some tangential link by making some right to do whatever you damn well please with your property.  So, here's some snippets. Read the whole thing here.

Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution is amended to read:

SEC. 19(a) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) "Taken" includes transferring the ownership, occupancy, or use of property from a private owner to a public agency or to any person or entity other than a public agency, or limiting the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Return of Prop 90! | 56 comments
I saw them at the Farmers Market on Sunday .. (0.00 / 0)
...trying to pass themselves off as "protecting farms" -- which appeals to those of us to frequent farmers markets. What a sham.

(Steve Maviglio/Speakers Office)

It does protect farms (0.00 / 0)
How, you ask?

1. ALL private property is protected
2. Property may not be taken for the same use as the current owner
3. Property may not be taken for the purpose of selling the natural resources appurtenant to that property
4. If farmers or business owners are evicted by eminent domain, they would be entitled to compensation for temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business reestablishment costs and other reasonable expenses

If that's not protection, I don't know what is

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
Protection would be not allowing them to be booted off the land regardless of compensation.  So that addresses your last point.  What you've described is mitigation.  The merits of either can be debated, but they aren't the same thing.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
[ Parent ]
It only allows (0.00 / 0)
them to be "booted off the land" if for PUBLIC use. It protects farms from eminent domain abuses such as Conaway Ranch

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
But your comment focused on mitigation, not protection. There's a difference. Like I said, the merits can be discussed, but the difference is relevant.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
[ Parent ]
How is it mitigation? (0.00 / 0)
It protects farm owners from other people wanting to take the property through the force of government. How is it not protection?

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Protecting farmland vs. Protecting farmers (0.00 / 0)
You're talking about protecting farmers, including their ability to sell off the farm as a subdivision. 

How does this measure protect farmland, which is what people care about?  It doesn't.  In fact it makes it harder to protect farmland.

[ Parent ]
Not true (0.00 / 0)
ortcutt, that was a straw man argument on both ends. I will briefly explain why

"You're talking about protecting farmers, including their ability to sell off the farm as a subdivision."

No I'm not. I'm talking about restricting the government's ability to take farmland and give it to another private party.

"How does this measure protect farmland, which is what people care about?  It doesn't.  In fact it makes it harder to protect farmland."

This proposal still allows land-use and zoning regulations. It only prohibits property regulations that transfer a specific ECONOMIC benefit to one or more PRIVATE persons. Land use regulations are for the PUBLIC benefit

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Are you seriously telling me... (0.00 / 0)
that no one is going to claim that their property is damaged (because of land use regulations) because of government regulation and therefore the state has to pay compensation for that regulation?  The definition of "private use" is ridiculously broad in this thing.
[ Parent ]
They could (0.00 / 0)
but it won't hold weight. This proposition doesn't talk about compensation for damage.

The relevant private use part:
(iii) regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner

Land use regulations don't transfer an economic benefit, nor any benefit, to private persons. They benefit the PUBLIC, in an unexcludable way

Another suggestion is to compare the AG description of this, and the AG description of Prop 90. For starters:

The official fiscal impact on CPOFPA, as issued by the Legislative Analyst's Office, concluded that, "the fiscal effect on most governments probably would not be significant."  Far different from what the LAO said about Prop 90:  "These costs are unknown, but potentially significant on a statewide basis."

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
they cornered me at Trader Joe's (0.00 / 0)
in Santa Monica.  I heard her out just to see what the pitch was... they're going full-on anti-developers around these parts (which will probably get some sigs).
[ Parent ]
They (0.00 / 0)
really are setting this up for a renters v. homeowners battle.  The percentage of folks who own rental properties is not that high.

Unfortunately, it's not like the affordable housing folks have a lot of money to fight this battle.

Since when do (0.00 / 0)
rent controls actually help the poor? I can quote one of my very liberal friends about why they're totally counterproductive

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
What (0.00 / 0)
does ideology have to do with being right or wrong?

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
[ Parent ]
Not the point (0.00 / 0)
You're right, it doesn't, and I'm the first to say that

My point was that given his staunch liberalism, one would think he's in favor of rent controls. But no, he wrote a paper about why rent controls are bad from a liberal perspective

Any view he shares with conservatives is for liberal reasons

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
But he could be entirely wrong.  I'm not saying he is or isn't, but the perspective from which one reaches a conclusion doesn't have anything to do with the validity of said conclusion.  Thus what this guy thinks about other issues is a non sequitur.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
[ Parent ]
And you are (0.00 / 0)
quite right about this. If only everyone understood that

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
More VF2005 "Logic" (0.00 / 0)

I can quote one of my very liberal friends about why they're totally counterproductive

Oh.  If one of your very liberal friends says it, it must be true.  How could I ever have doubted it?

[ Parent ]
ortcutt (0.00 / 0)
I said this yesterday, but not to you, and I'll say it now: whenever someone resorts to a personal attack or straw mans me, I'm going to call them out on it and then I'm done responding to that subset. If I do it, I want to be called out

You engaged in straw men, especially given that I had the opportunity to explain what I meant in another subset

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
I'm not attacking you.  I'm lampooning your ludicrous style of "argumentation". 
[ Parent ]
Straw man (0.00 / 0)
is not a personal attack. That's ad hominem. Straw man is misrepresenting what the person said

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
However (0.00 / 0)
You have a tendency to label as "straw man" any commenter which points out the implications of your statements.  You used to complain about people putting words in your mouth but now you say straw man instead which is a nice script-flip but does not change the reality that simply extending your arguments to their logical conclusion is not inherently a straw man situation.  While sometimes there are straw man arguments in response to you, there's a definite wolf-crying syndrome at play as well.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
[ Parent ]
I have a tendency (0.00 / 0)
to point out straw man to anyone who takes a nugget of what I say, and then misrepresents the context of it to the extreme which contains the nugget in completely different context, in order to make me sound easily refutable

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
As a subset of the whole (0.00 / 0)
yes. Is that the bizarro-straw man maneuver?

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
[ Parent ]
I find it funny (0.00 / 0)
that the same people who argue in favor of rent controls also argue for the ability of government to evict the less fortunate and replace them with more wealthy people under the guise of "providing a public benefit" via eminent domain.

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
You're projecting a lot (0.00 / 0)
into the observation that affordable housing folks don't have a lot of money to fight a prop battle.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
[ Parent ]
I don't understand (0.00 / 0)
how does that address the contradiction I laid out?

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
I wasn't addressing the contradiction (0.00 / 0)
I was pointing out that you're punching at air.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
[ Parent ]
I am going to (0.00 / 0)
hold back on my emotions here and explain it simply:

Wishing this was like Prop 90 doesn't make it so. The only regulations this prohibits are PROPERTY regulations which transfer of a specific ECONOMIC benefit from the property owner to one or more PRIVATE persons

This still allows land use planning, zoning, or environmental laws. Those are done for the PUBLIC benefit. This still allows workplace laws and consumer protections, those are not regulations specific to the property

So, why rent controls, you ask?

The ability to choose a price on which people are allowed to use your property is one of the most important "sticks" in the bundle of property rights we have. Aside from eminent domain, a way the government can take your property is denying that. And actually, it's worse than eminent domain, because at least with eminent domain people get compensated

Important to note: All current rent controls stay, as long as the current tenant does. Section 6 reads:

The provisions of this Act shall become effective on the day following the election ("effective date"); except that any statute, charter provision, ordinance, or regulation by a public agency enacted prior to January 1, 2007, that limits the price a rental property owner may charge a tenant to occupy a residential rental unit ("unit") or mobile home space ("space") may remain in effect as to such unit or space after the effective date for so long as, but only so long as, at least one of the tenants of such unit or space as of the effective date ("qualified tenant") continues to live in such unit or space as his or her principal place of residence. At such time as a unit or space no longer is used by any qualified tenant as his or her principal place of residence because, as to such unit or space, he or she has: (a) voluntarily vacated; (b) assigned, sublet, sold or transferred his or her tenancy rights either voluntarily or by court order; (c) abandoned; (d) died; or he or she has (e) been evicted pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4) or (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 798.56 of the Civil Code as in effect on January 1, 2007; then, and in such event, the provisions of this Act shall be effective immediately as to such unit or space.

And lastly, it's NOT a trojan horse. Prop 90 was a trojan horse. ACA 8 and the League of Cities initiative are trojan horses. The proponents of CPOFPA are very clear about their intent to go after rent control as well. Property rights are a big part of the conservative platform, so I reject your notion that they don't care about eminent domain

The Silent Consensus

That stick don't exist (8.00 / 1)

Anyone who buys property in a rent-controlled city and thinks that 

The ability to choose a price on which people are allowed to use your property is one of the most important "sticks" in the bundle of property rights we have

is an idiot and probably shouldn't be buying property.


[ Parent ]
Sure it does (0.00 / 0)
They OWN the property. Leasing it is an OPTION, not a requirement. If they are unwilling to lease it for a price < $x, then they don't have to.

Here's a right that doesn't exist: to live in any house, in any where of your choosing. Maybe in Utopia it does, though

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
No straw man here (0.00 / 0)
Good, so you agree.  Being able to lease is an option, not a right.  And if a person decides that they don't want to comply with rent control rules, they don't have to rent their property.  They can live in it or leave it vacant.  But if they want to rent it, they gotta comply with 'da law.
[ Parent ]
End result: (0.00 / 0)
less homes for the poor the rent controls try to help.

Leasing is an option, not a requirement. If they want to allow other people to use their property, they should have the right to set whatever price they want. They should not have to let people use it for less

The solution to high rents is more rental homes, which brings them down through supply and demand and competition, not less rental homes

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
And I agree (0.00 / 0)
they need to comply with the law, but that doesn't change that it's a BAD law and needs to be changed

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
This "Son of Prop 90" is actually a lot worse. (6.00 / 4)
I wrote about this initiative several months ago:

http://www.beyondchr...

Rent control is important and must be defended.  It puts the brakes on gentrification, it allows communities to thrive, it promotes long-term renters who "think" like homeowners, and it helps upwardly mobile tenants save up money so they can make a down payment on their first home -- while the cost of real estate gallops upwards to unspeakably grotesque levels.

PAUL (0.00 / 0)
that article you wrote was about the FIRST draft initiative they filed. A lot of what you talk about in there is not relevant to the current proposition:

1. Where does this new one say "in whole or in part."

2. Where does this one even redefine "damages" I might add

3. Where is this retroactive? It doesn't even go into regulatory takings

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Rent controls (0.00 / 0)
are a prime example of the phrase, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

When you make prices artificially low, SHORTAGES APPEAR. And guess what, those places that aren't rent controlled have an increase in prices. I know liberals don't like hearing this, but no builder will build when they won't be able to have the fruits of their labor.

Further, it results in the landlords having a captive audience in the rent controlled houses. Result: no reason to pay for maintenance or do anything to help the tenants quality of life there.

Also, what's stopping a rich person from taking advantage of it? Actually, it happens

So we limit the options for the poor, nothing stopping richer people from limiting it even further, and the options become crappy because the houses deteriorate

Rent controls: wrong solution for a real problem

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
You want better solutions? (0.00 / 0)
Public housing for one, is better: It's not telling an owner how little they can charge for someone to use their property. Instead, the government is doing it for their own houses

If housing the poor benefits the public, which I think it does, then the public should pay for it, not a few landlords when it's NOT THEIR FAULT. Are we going to rip off landlords by a lot, or the public by a little?

Also, the rich aren't able to take advantage of public housing. Public housing is therefore a better way to be sure the poor are the ones receiving the benefits

Or, you want a rent control program that worked out well:

The government could hire private builders, and then the builders could go get a private loan with a lower interest rate by telling the lenders that if they themselves fail to repay the loan, the U.S. government guarantees the repayment. There would be rent controls, but the builder would receive compensation through the lower interest rate, and the rent controls would end after the builder completed the payment. If the builder did not make the payments, he or she would lose rights to the house and the government would pay off the loan and take control. This was done during WWII and it worked out well, the government didn't have to pay a penny

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Build (0.00 / 0)
Well, building isn't a problem in SF. The rent controls apply to buildings already built, and it's not like there's a lot of room to build new buildings (and anyway, rent control, per se, doesn't apply). So, at least in SF, rent control works just fine, thank you very much.

Well, that was fun... Brian Leubitz
[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
By the way (0.00 / 0)
stop calling everyone in favor of comprehensive eminent domain reform a "right winger." Maxine Waters, Lou Correa, BERNIE SANDERS, Mike Machado, Dean Florez are not right wingers, and they support comprehensive eminent domain reform

The Silent Consensus
Lou Correa, Mike Machado, Dean Florez (0.00 / 0)
Those guys are actually right-wingers.  Are they really your poster-children for liberals who support this?  As for Maxine Waters, she's a loose cannon.  Who knows how she decides to vote on anything?
[ Parent ]
No they're not (0.00 / 0)
ortcutt, you didn't engage in straw man against me, so this one isn't a problem.

Having said that, they are not right-wingers. If you were to have the words "compared to me" in front, you'd be right

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
By the way (0.00 / 0)
That'll be an option as soon as you stop staking out your position as anti-liberal.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
[ Parent ]
Okay fine (0.00 / 0)
I am more liberal than not (for every person who thinks I'm conservative, you will find 1-2 people who think I'm liberal). It's the centrists like me who face the most opposition, because they face opposition from people on both sides

The reason some liberals are pro-eminent domain abuse simply baffles me. In this case, they are doing all they can to help big box stores and corporate franchises come in and replace small business

I know many liberals who agree with me on eminent domain, and for liberal reasons: protect the little guy, and right to privacy.

So my position isn't anti-liberal. My position is pro-privacy, pro-property rights, pro-constitution*, pro-freedom, pro-voluntary transactions with no negative externalities, pro-individual rights, anti-theft, and anti-corruption

*Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Amendment V: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Amendment XIV: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
The basic extremism (0.00 / 0)
What one would probably not gather from this exchange is that there of course already exists a very firm set of protections for property owners in the eminent domain process, and that is of course the United States Constitution.

To believe that the Constitution is an insufficient guarantee is to take a radical view of property rights. It assumes that not only does one have a right to own property, but to derive the maximum amount of income possible from that property no matter what method is used to attain it. That extremist view was not held by those who authored the Constitution, or by courts that have for 200 years been interpreting that Constitution, or by those who have been making law under that Constitution.

And if one has that extremist view of property rights - that private ownership of property is not or should not be subject to any controls or limits of regulations - THEN you will see eminent domain in the same category as rent control, as environmental laws, etc.

The Howard Jarvis Association is such a group. And that's why they use eminent domain as a wedge to push unpopular and unfair ideas like ending rent control - not just because they enjoy Trojan Horses (though they surely do) but also because it fits their extremist logic.

Most Americans instead believe that the public should be able to legislate the use of property, within reasonable bounds. Very few Americans have agreed with the extremist view that any regulatory act is a "taking" - as the rejection of Prop 90, I-933, and Howie Rich's other efforts last year proved.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

My response (0.00 / 0)
"What one would probably not gather from this exchange is that there of course already exists a very firm set of protections for property owners in the eminent domain process, and that is of course the United States Constitution"

Yes, the constitution has a set of protections. Doesn't mean the courts are enforcing, and in fact they have been disregarding them

"And if one has that extremist view of property rights - that private ownership of property is not or should not be subject to any controls or limits of regulations - THEN you will see eminent domain in the same category as rent control, as environmental laws, etc."

Agreed. This initiative is not that though

"Most Americans instead believe that the public should be able to legislate the use of property, within reasonable bounds."

Yes, and most Americans believe eminent domain shouldn't be allowed for private use

"Very few Americans have agreed with the extremist view that any regulatory act is a "taking" - as the rejection of Prop 90, I-933, and Howie Rich's other efforts last year proved."

This initiative isn't Prop 90. This doesn't prohibit regulations for the public benefit

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
P.S. (0.00 / 0)
You argue that the constitution already has a firm set of protections as a good thing, and argue that eminent domain shouldn't be limited. You can't have it both ways

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Rent control (0.00 / 0)
Now to rent control. The notion that rent control actually hurts renters, that they're better off without rent control, is a theory that only makes sense in an Economics Department seminar room. In lived reality rent control has been proved to be the far greater aid to renters.

The argument against rent control - one that we've seen employed in these comments - is that it creates a disincentive to build new rental housing stock, creating a demand crisis and driving up rents. But California rent control laws have been nearly totally eviscerated since Costa-Hawkins passed in 1999. And yet rents are STILL sky-high, are STILL unaffordable, and very little new rental stock has been added in California in the last 8 years, certainly not enough to meet the demand.

It's not just in SF where this is a problem - the Central Valley and Southern California experience this crisis too. In Seattle, where rent control is barred by state law, a massive building boom has done nothing to increase the supply. The theory has failed. The absence of rent control has done nothing to aid renters through supply and demand.

Instead renters face unaffordable rent increases. Paul Rosenberg has written today about the California Budget Project study that demonstrated the actual cost of living to Californians is far higher than the federal poverty line. Much of that comes from housing costs, hurting renters in particular.

Any of us who rent have felt this first-hand. I was hit with three $100 increases in my rent in the year before I moved down from Seattle. Here in CA I'm thankful we've not had any rent increases so far, but I fully expect one anytime.

Renters do not have the earning power to absorb these hits. Renting is an inelastic market. It does not quickly respond to demand pressures. Those who face huge rent increases have two choices - pay or move. Because rental units are in such short supply, moving is not always an option.

And thus the need for rent control. Rent control *works* because its intended purpose is to protect renters from being bankrupted.

Further, it's democratic. This is ultimately what I do not understand about the anti-rent control argument. Why is it wrong for voters to regulate the market in which they live? Why is democracy bad when it comes to business? Why should an abstract theory be given precedence over our sovereign rights as citizens and as voters?

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

You should post these two comments on the front page. (0.00 / 0)
They are worth reading for everybody, not just those who make it all the way down to the end of this bizarre thread.

Well, that was fun... Brian Leubitz
[ Parent ]
Good idea (0.00 / 0)
While I'm at it I'll hunt down some stats.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave
[ Parent ]
re: Rent control (0.00 / 0)
The solution to high rents is to have more rental properties and competition, not rent controls.

"Further, it's democratic. This is ultimately what I do not understand about the anti-rent control argument. Why is it wrong for voters to regulate the market in which they live? Why is democracy bad when it comes to business? Why should an abstract theory be given precedence over our sovereign rights as citizens and as voters?"

I will answer this for the last time. We don't live in a pure democracy where tyranny of the majority rules. We live in a constitutional democracy, where majority can rule, and individuals are endowed with certain inalienable rights. Property is an inalienable right, most famously pointed out by Locke. Part of property rights are the right not to sell or lease, all or part of it, at less than a mutually agreeable price. If they are required to sell or lease for less than a mutually agreeable price, then they don't really own their property. Rent controls fly in the face of that

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Hm (0.00 / 0)
"The solution to high rents is to have more rental properties and competition, not rent controls."

Could you point to a real-world example of this being proven to be true?  I'd like to compare that experience to the experience of California over the past decade.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK

[ Parent ]
Upon further research (0.00 / 0)
I am slightly wrong. I realize that in places like SF and NYC, they can't build new homes easily. However, I still say rent controls are not the solution, and in fact, in places that have rent controls, rents are about double as high (look at NYC for example)

Listen to this for a reason: I have a 20 apartment complex (no I don't really, this is just an example). 5 of them have been there for a long time and only pay $350/month, and the rest have people moving in shortly. I still need to pay for the garbage man, building maintenance and cleanliness, etc... so what am I going to do? I'm going to have rents a lot higher for the rest of them in order to compensate for the 5 who are living below market rent. The second one of those 5 moves out or dies, I'm refurbishing that apartment, and the rent is going WAY UP. Even worse, I can refurbish and give everyone 30 days to vacate, and then when they want to come back, uh oh, rent is suddenly unaffordable, and then they have no place to go. If they outlaw that, I will start an arms race and find a new way

For San Francisco, you can read this article: http://www.sfweekly....

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
So (0.00 / 0)
There are no instances that you know of in which rent prices were reduced via a strategy of increasing the number of rental properties and competition?  I'm aware of the theoretical basis for both arguments but I've only seen the one side in real-world application, so I was wondering what the opposing experience has been.

"We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
[ Parent ]
Off the top of my head... (0.00 / 0)
no, though I'd like to know of a situation where supply HAS increased and it hasn't reduced the costs. I realize that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but could it be that it hasn't been tried?

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
The Return of Prop 90! | 56 comments
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads

Support Calitics:

Advertisers

California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch
Blog Network:
Topics:
Blog Networks
Powered by: SoapBlox