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. 

According to the LA Time’s new feature “Mothers Milk” (http://www.latimes.c…)$349,944,580 has been raised to date for the 2006 CA state elections and initiatives.

On Tuesday $1,781,285 was raised.

While these numbers are staggering they point to a systemic problem. Politicians and the interests in Sacramento have an agenda. It is not the agenda they talk about in their television ads or direct mail pieces. It has nothing to do with education funding or taxes for the rich. It has to do with obscure regulations, rules, and laws which few have hardly ever heard of. It involves tax write offs and loop holes that corporations, HMO’s, doctors, lawyers and developers can use to leverage their advantages.

Yet even with all of the corruption, backslapping and political payoffs occuring in Sacramento (see the terrific ads from the Alliance for a Better California)the public and especially “influentials” have been reluctant to introduce campaign finance reform with teeth.

We finally have the chance with Prop 89.

While the measure is complex it would increase taxes on corporations to raise roughly $200 million for the public funding of campaigns. In addition it would decrease donations to legislative campaigns from $3,300 to $500 and for statewide races from $22,300 to $1,000.

Most importantly though, Prop 89 looks to limit the spending on the direct arm of big business, the initiative. Every cycle we see oil, pharmaceutical and health care companies poor millions and millions of dollars on initiatives they say are meant to solve this problem, or help another yet are really narrowly designed to help themselves. In fact it would limit direct donations to $10,000 per initiative.

While the legal standing of this is still unsettled it is something we should leave to their lawyers and the courts and not let it effect our thinking in the voting booth.

Real campaign finance reform is needed, and unless drastic steps are taken no change will ever occur.

(The founders of this site are vehemently against prop. 90, and have asked that if I post on this subject to directly address the issues they made in the past or how it directly relates to CA. I will not be able to rebut every point as I am not a lawyer, but I feel this demonstrates nicely the point I was attempting to make in the past. In the days to come I will try to express my take on some of the other concerns they have)

The most vocal opponents of Prop. 90 have argued that while eminent domain reform is needed the initiative either goes too far or is poorly worded, depending on the take you get.

The problem with this argument is they try to accuse it of being a secret plot by developers to loosen enviornmental restrictions and the like. The initiatve can not be both clever and poorly worded.

So why is the language regarding changes in value in the initiative at all? Well there is an example in LA that demonstrates it perfectly. The city has offered a price for 11 homes and 14 businesses they are looking to buy so they may turn the land over to developers.

The only problem, the homeowners and businesses do not want to move. They have done their part, paid their taxes and been good neighbors, yet the city is telling them that doesn’t matter and they must go!

So what is the city doing to force their hands? They are threatening to condemn the buildings, making them virtually worthless and forcing the occupants to move.

Included below is a full description of this scenario:

In July 2001, the Garden Grove City Council approved two new hotel projects along Harbor Boulevard, with at least $4.2 million in public financial assistance, for McWhinney/Stonebridge Corp., a Colorado-based development group that previously received tens of millions of dollars in assistance for building other hotels in Garden Grove. For one of these new hotel developments, the City has threatened to condemn 11 homes and 14 businesses unless the targeted owners agree to sell at the City’s prices. The City has already bought three other homes standing in the way of the hotel, and now is using heavy-handed tactics to force the other owners out. Assistant City Manager Matt Fertal takes an especially dim view of the right of property owners along Harbor to use the free market to determine what price developers should pay to take their land from them. According to Fertal, “[Owners] think that just because they’re on Harbor and hotels are coming, that it increases the value of their property, but it doesn’t. Commercial [developers] only care about the cost of the dirt on the land. We’re offering to pay for the structure at the appraised value and the land.”1In other words, the rightful owners don’t deserve to profit from their investment; instead, any profit will go to the City’s favored corporate developers. And for the people who actually want to keep their homes or businesses, at least one city leader couldn’t care less. (via http://www.CastleCoa…)

So the next time someone tells you that people should not be compensated for regulatory changes, you tell them about this story.

The new commercial from Arnold asks, “Where does Phil Angelides live? All he talks about is President Bush.” Well, it seems that Governor Schwarzenegger is in President Bush’s home state today raising money at the Four Seasons Hotel in Austin.

According to the Texas Insider story “Proceeds go toward Schwarzenegger’s re-election, with no money rippling to Texas candidates.” Now are these Texas Bush Republicans truly concerned about California, our teachers, student and health care workers or are they in lock step support of Arnold, like their boy Bush?

According to ArnoldWatch “Schwarzenegger has corralled more than $97 million in donations since 2003.”

Let me say this first, Phil Angelides is a good nominee. His integrity, his background, his experience and his intelligence all suit him well to be the next great Governor of our state- but if he continues to run the campaign that he is victory is not likely in November.

This is where progressives like us come in. We must make the high paid campaign consultants accountable- we must make them think outside of the box and run a creative, on message and forceful campaign.

Arnold is rapidly climbing in the latest polls and without a clear reason to both vote against the incumbent and for the challenger Angelides will not win.

At MyDD lojo has written an ad watch of one of the ads that the Angelides campaign ran.

He leads by saying, “Phil Carrick (of Morris, Carrick and Guma) is Phil Angelides’ Media Consultant and he should be fired immediately.”

Check out the ad yourself:

With everything that there is to use against Ahnold this is the best they can do? To get the attention of a reader a spot must be edgy, on point and have a clear narrative. Other than the goofy music and graphics a television viewer will remember nothing about this ad.

Lojo from MyDD goes even further, “The ad looks like a 1970 Aaron Spelling production.  Crazy weird, airy (cheap stock) music.  And, most importantly, they make their opponent — Arnold Schwarzenegger! — seem boring. I guess they’re showing him on a motorcycle to remind people of his crash, but c’mon.  They’ve got the best material in the country and they come up with this.”

Others leaving comments are similarly harsh:

Matt Stoller- Oh. My. God.
Daniel J- Phil is running one of the worst campaigns I’ve seen in a while.  Kathleen Kennedy Townsendian, you might say. That’s bad. 
John Mills- This is so bad I can’t stop laughing.  Is he really running this thing on TV? 

While I do not believe that this ad is still on the air it is an example of how a cookie cutter media campaign can derail an entire campaign. It demoralizes supporters, emboldens opponents and serves to solidify pre-existing notions of what pundits, reporters, etc already think about the campaign.

One poster, dday, who says he works with the new website GovernorPhil.com says, “That’s a ridiculously bad ad.”

He reassures that the ad is no longer on the air and suggests that instead of a goofy response to Ahnolds claims that Phil would move the state backward he should have “used what he uses in his stump speech, turning the charge completely around on its end by saying “Yes, I want the state to go back to having the best education system in the country.  I want the state to go back to fiscal sanity, I want the state to go back to rising wages and opportunity for the middle class.””

Despite these blunders by campaign consultants victory is still within reach, but we must make sure that Angelides runs a hard hitting, fast moving campaign and not let his high paid consultants get away with the same cookie cutter material they have been using.