(Also posted at dKos. – promoted by SFBrianCL)
Prop 90, the so-called “Protect Our Homes” Act, aims to curtail the use of eminent domain in the state of California. The problem is that Prop 90 goes much further than that. In today’s SF Chronicle, Ray King, a Montana columnist rips the initiative to shreds. Let’s go issue by issue on the flip:
- E.D. as a smokescreen for the gutting of governmental regulation.
The marketing on this initiative revolves around eminent domain, and much of the initiative text deals with that. However, in the span of a few paragraphs, Prop 90 manages to totally change the purpose and structure of our government.
Reforming eminent domain is partly a smokescreen. The multistate campaign has a bigger target: It aims to choke off governments’ ability to pass land-use regulations affecting millions of property owners.
The libertarian Reason Foundation of Los Angeles revealed the strategy in an April policy paper that recommended pushing “Kelo-plus” initiatives to capitalize “on the tremendous public and political momentum generated in the aftermath of the Kelo ruling. …”
So why the stealth? Could it be perhaps that they are trying to hide something? No…never, huh? Another point to all this sneakiness is the supposed groundswell of support, as indicated by all the donors that have given to the initiative to see it get on the ballot. The problem with that? Yeah, the money given to support Prop 90 comes from a few wealthy donors:
This anti-regulation campaign is not as populist as it would like to appear. A few big financial backers have provided almost all the campaign money so far. The pro-Prop. 90 campaign raised and spent about $2.4 million through the end of June. Of that total, $1.5 million came from Howie Rich of New York, who grew wealthy in real estate and owns apartments across the country. He funnels his political money through his Fund for Democracy, which is based in his home. Following the money trail, an additional $600,000 of Prop. 90’s war chest came from a Montana group whose supporters include a Chicago-area Libertarian group called Americans for Limited Government, where Rich is chairman of the board of directors; and $200,000 came from Fieldstead & Co., an Irvine conduit for Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson, Jr., a savings-and-loan heir who also backs efforts to establish a “Christian nation” and oppose gay marriage and stem-cell research. (SF Chron 8/20/06)
For those of us who don’t feel the need to do math in our heads, that’s $2.3 million. Out of $2.4 million. From 3 donors. Yup, that’s a real ground swell. What do these groups expect to get from this money? Well, let’s look at what they are really hiding.
- Prop 90 aims to drastically curtail government regulation…to the detriment of society.
What is the “plus” in these initiatives? Libertarians and property-rights activists believe that many common government regulations on real estate, such as zoning and subdivision limits, take away property value. Therefore, they say, government should either compensate the owners or back off.
{snip}
Libertarians and property-rights activists persuaded Oregon voters to approve Measure 37 in 2004. Oregon had the nation’s toughest land-use regulations, and some loosening-up was needed, but Measure 37 blew huge holes in Oregon’s system. It allowed many longtime landowners to escape regulations for protecting landscapes, the environment and neighborhoods.Despite delays in Measure 37’s implementation caused by court fights, Oregon property owners have already filed about 2,700 Measure 37 claims, aiming to develop about 143,000 acres. The claimants demand that governments either waive land-use regulations or pay nearly $4 billion in compensation. In almost all of the 700 or so claims settled to date, governments have waived the regulations. (SF Chron 8/20/06)
So, look what a similar initiative in Oregon did for the state: 2700 Claims. $4 Billion. 143,000 more acres devoted to rampant development. Sounds like a great plan. In another example cited in King’s op-ed, a farmer wanted to subdivide his farm for 280 houses on a plot that was zoned agricultural. Because of Measure 37, the state was essentially unable to afford the defense of the zoning and eventually just gave up. In the end, the real loser with Measure 37 has been the people. The government is a resource for pooling political power. It enables a large majority to prevent activities on the land of others that it deems inapproriate for the area. It’s a great thing. Would you really want your neighbor who owns 5 acres to build a giant junkyard on your land? No, and that’s where zoning and other governmental regulations come in.
- Winning the fairness issue
: As King notes, we must win the “fairness” argument;
To defeat Prop. 90, California’s advocates for planning and neighborhood rights will have to win on the fairness issue. They need to find compelling examples of people who are helped by land-use regulations. They need to communicate to voters that one person’s rights can be another person’s ruin, and that strong regulations often raise property values rather than lower them.
Government needn’t be our enemy. Our government should work to improve the common good. And with but a few exceptions, it does that. A reasonable argument could be made that our eminent domain laws could benefit from some tightening here and there, and that reforming eminent domain is a reasonable goal. But we can’t let the Prop 90 forces use fear to push through a measure which would so profoundly hobble the government as it proceeds along its basic purposes, to regulate the use of land.
Prop 90 beats the government over the head and kicks it in the shins a couple of times for good measure. The backers of this initiative aim to create a state where development knows no bounds and the pursuit of individual wealth trumps the greater good. And after what we’ve seen in Oregon, it’s time to rebuff them. It’s time to say that we will not accept any more of these government deconstruction initiatives any more. It’s time to say No to Howard Rich and his cronies. It’s time to stand up for our State.