Brian here at Calitics (http://www.calitics….) asked me a few months ago to put my thoughts together on why I thought Prop. 90 was worthwhile. Honestly, before they removed my postings and asked me not to post on the subject I knew little about the specifics of the proposition, but since he asked I took a greater interest and found answers to many of the questions he was searching for.
Brian argued to me that Prop 90 was dangerous because it would lead to lawsuits and that so called regulatory takings would have to be compensated. After looking into the issue more though I learned that it is these regulatory takings that makeup a vast majority of eminent domain abuses.
While I respect their right to disagree and of course their right to have on their site as they wish there are other points to consider and stopping discussion has never been a good way to win a political argument.
Either way. I have written the following post.
*************************************************
Though it may be true that the vast majority of funding for Proposition 90 is coming from a select few well-moneyed donors, it is also true that judging said proposition solely based upon those who funds it is a short sighted and knee-jerk method of evaluation. Just because you are not a fan of Windows XP does not mean that the donations of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation should be held suspect also.
Proposition 90, though imperfect, addresses three undisputable facts of life here in California:
• State and local governments have undermined private property rights through excessive use of eminent domain power and the regulation of private property for purposes unrelated to public health and safety.
• California courts have unjustly allowed local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to turn property over to private developers.
• Whenever a property owner and the government cannot agree on fair compensation, there is (at current) absolutely no method of insuring a fair and timely process for the settlement of disputes.
The chief objection among those who oppose Proposition 90 is the notion that the extent to which the proposition inhibits governmental regulation is ultimately more detrimental to Californians than it is beneficial.
Many argue that Prop. 90 overly curtails zoning regulations, opens the door to too much land development and would result in massive tax increases in order to cover governmental compensation of private property owners. But those arguing this viewpoint have not considered the fact that government could answer many of these concerns by 1) giving property owners incentives to voluntarily carry out public objectives 2) reducing the scope of government requirements so that any property owners’ losses were not substantial 3) link the new law or rule directly to a public health and safety (or other exempt) purpose.
The simple fact of the matter is that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of Californians under the 5th amendment are being trampled upon – and more often then not, it is the poorest among us who suffer most from this. In the face of this truth, there are still those who categorize eminent domain restriction as a dangerous deconstruction of government instead of a necessary guarantee of a basic American freedom. There can be no other choice in this debate, and you have a chance to state your position by voting in November.