It seems Arnold Schwarzenegger has gotten one right (from SF Chronicle Blog, h/t EFSully). Today Arnold has sent a letter to the media stating his opposition of Proposition 90. It seems it dawned on him that there is an election a week from today and perhaps he should look at the ballot.
The full text of the letter is on the flip, but suffice it to say that he finally came to the conclusion that Prop 90 would make implimentation of Don Perata’s bond package impossible. It would create massive loopholes that would decimate environmental litigation and create massive giveaways for land speculators.
For once, Arnold got it right. But hey, don’t think I’m going soft here Arnie. Why don’t you take a look at what jessica’s law really says, and then get back to me about whether that’s a good idea. You know, like your special election “good ideas”.
Private property rights are a foundation upon which this country was built — a vital piece of the American dream and the United States Constitution. That’s why I, like so many Americans, was disappointed by last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirming the right of a city in Connecticut to condemn a private home for the sole purpose of economic development. The Court also reaffirmed the role of individual state and local Legislatures to establish policies governing how eminent domain is carried out for “public use.”
To protect California property owners, I signed legislation this year that provides added safeguards for our homeowners and small businesses and further restricts how eminent domain is used for re-development. And I am committed to working with the Legislature to do even more.
On November 7, California voters will have an opportunity to vote on Proposition 90. I have carefully analyzed this measure, however, and have come to the conclusion I cannot support Prop 90. Let me tell you why.
The proponents of Prop 90 added provisions that I believe will undermine basic government laws that protect our home values, safeguard our environment and allow for the building of safe roads, schools and other essential infrastructure. According to a variety of independent fiscal analyses, some provisions in Proposition 90 threaten to increase costs for taxpayers by billions of dollars each year.
That’s why Proposition 90 has attracted opposition from a unique coalition that includes property rights advocates, taxpayer watchdogs, farmers, environmentalists, police and fire officials, small businesses and homeowner groups. Some 50 California newspapers have also come out against this ill-advised initiative.
Proposition 90 would change our state constitution to allow any landowner, business or enterprising trial lawyer to sue the government and its taxpayers any time a state or local agency passes a law that someone claims has resulted in “substantial economic loss” to their property.
The measure is so broad and poorly drafted that I fear it will result in a barrage of frivolous lawsuits from individuals and property owners who claim the most rudimentary new laws have caused them economic harm.
Its provisions would allow lawsuits and potential payouts of taxpayer dollars over new laws and regulations intended to protect open space and the environment; laws and regulations intended to protect consumers; and laws and regulations designed to restrict undesirable businesses in our neighborhoods.
In Oregon, where a similar measure was passed in 2004, more than 2,600 claims have been filed seeking more than $6 billion in compensation. Many of these claims are unfounded and from speculators simply looking to cash in on the public’s dime.
Rebuilding our schools, roads, levees and housing is a critical priority of my administration. Unfortunately, Proposition 90 also includes language that would make rebuilding our system or public infrastructure prohibitively expensive. When agencies must acquire property to build vital public works projects, current law provides for just compensation based on fair market value of the property. Proposition 90 makes changes to this system that would require inflated payments, at taxpayer expenses.
For these reasons, while I can sympathize with the intent of those who support Prop 90, I have no choice but to oppose this initiative.
