Read about it here
The scoop: Last year, Sacramento forced the doors closed on K Street’s Tex Mex restaurant. While the city gave millions of dollars in incentives to an upscale chain restaurant just blocks away, Tex Mex’s owners were never offered the opportunity to stay and improve their business.
UPDATE by Brian: Please use the open threads (which we will try to post more regularly) for one line links. Here is the current open thread. This thread has been closed.
Any defenders?
I think we overloaded the term limits thread, it won’t load on my computer anymore. Please continue it here, starting with wu ming’s comments
Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Constitutional Amendment
Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property for private uses. Prohibits rent control and similar measures. Prohibits deference to government in property rights cases. Defines “just compensation.” Requires an award of attorneys fees and costs if a property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by the government. Requires government to offer to original owner of condemned property the right to repurchase property at condemned price when property is put to substantially different use than was publicly stated. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased costs to many governments due to the measure’s restrictions. The fiscal effect on most governments probably would not be significant.
For the Legislative Analysis: http://lao.ca.gov/ba…
I could go on and argue in favor of property rights, but I did that in my rant against ACA 8. I don’t want to be repetitive
Instead, I am going to talk about the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, and why this initiative is the right way to go.
*This gives equal protection to ALL private property. People’s constitutional rights are not increased or decreased based on the kind of property they own
*This still allows property to be taken for public use. It still allows to take property for public use and contract out
*Along with not being allowed to take property for private use, government also may not be taken for the same use as the current owner (i.e. taking an apartment complex and replacing it with public housing)
*Government may not take land for the purpose of selling the natural resources
*If the government takes the property under false pretenses or abandons its plans, the owner may repurchase it for the original price and have its tax assessed at the value where it was originally condemned. So they can’t take property, abandon their plans, resell it to them as a backdoor way to increase people’s taxes.
*If farmers or business owners are evicted by eminent domain they are entitled to temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business reestablishment costs and other reasonable expenses
*Governments may not limit the price at which the owner may lease or sell their property. However, all tenants currently living in a rent-controlled home may still do so
*Nothing in this proposed ballot measure prohibits or limits legitimate land use decisions, zoning, work place laws, or environmental protections
The 3 bold points are the ones I will address. So number 1:
1. *Government may not take land for the purpose of selling the natural resources
Some have argued that this will prevent the state from using eminent domain for water storage. Fortunately, that claim doesn’t hold water (no pun intended)
The prohibition on taking property “for the consumption of natural resources,” relates directly to the property being “taken.” Where property is acquired in order to construct a water storage or conveyance facility, the “public use” to which the property is put is for a water storage project or conveyance facility. It’s not for the consumption of natural resources appurtenant to the property acquired
“but the water will eventually be consumed.” Okay, if that was the test, then I guess the public agency could “take” land and perhaps water to construct a reservoir as long as it wasn’t for “consumptive” uses, like recreation or wildlife enhancement
Another example of why the test is not whether non-appurtenant resources are “consumed” is where a public agency already owns land over a geothermal energy source and a geothermal power facility. Granted, this would prohibit taking the property to which a geothermal source is appurtenant. However, with the logic of those who say it would prohibit taking property for water storage, this would prohibit taking property for transmission lines.
This allows eminent domain for public use. Public use is defined in this as, ” use and ownership by a public agency or a regulated public utility for the public use stated at the time of the taking, including public facilities, public transportation, and public utilities…” Water storage facilities ARE public facilities (Tower Acton Holdings v. Los Angeles County Waterworks Dist. No. 37 [2002])
The prohibition on taking property for the consumption of natural resources is for those appurtenant to the land that’s getting acquired, NOT non-appurtenant natural resources which are acquired separately and may be stored at the acquired property
Who does all this come from? Stuart L. Somach
2. *Governments may not limit the price at which the owner may lease or sell their property. However, all tenants currently living in a rent-controlled home may still do so
First let’s start off with why rent controls are bad. They cause a shortage of housing (builders don’t build knowing they won’t be able to reap the fruits of his labor), resulting in the landlords getting a captive audience, and then no incentive to pay for maintenance or do anything that enhances the person’s living. The foreign minister of Vietnam in 1989 said it best, “Americans could not destroy Hanoi, but we have destroyed our city through very low rents. We realized it is stupid and must change policy.”
If housing the poor provides such a public benefit, then the public should pay for it, not just the landlords. Means-tested housing vouchers are a better way to go
Rent controls are in a sense worse than eminent domain, because at least with eminent domain they pay you. Rent controls are transferring a specific economic benefit from the property value from one owner to another (NOT to the public) without just compensation. They OWN the property, it is their right to set the price at which they are willing to let other people use it
That aside, all tenants currently living in a rent-controlled home may continue to do so. The repeal of rent controls take effect ONLY after they have lawfully vacated, and state law prohibits evicting tenants merely to increase rents
3. *Nothing in this proposed ballot measure prohibits or limits legitimate land use decisions, zoning, work place laws, or environmental protections
This does prohibit, “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.”
Examples of that are rent control and mandatory inclusionary housing. Regulations, where a specific ECONOMIC benefit is TRANSFERRED to one or more PRIVATE persons at the expense of the property owner might be affected
Land use, zoning, and environmental regulations are done for the PUBLIC benefit, and do not contain a transfer of a specific economic benefit
Wishing this was like Prop 90 doesn’t make it so. If this delved into regulatory takings like Prop 90 did, the summary would look a lot more like this:
Bars state/local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects, uses. Limits government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental, workplace laws/regulations. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual government costs to pay property owners for losses to their property associated with new laws and rules, and for property acquisitions. These costs are unknown, but potentially significant on a statewide basis.
CPOFPA doesn’t have anything like that. The fiscal impact for this one instead says, “The fiscal effect on most governments probably would not be significant”
As Brian put up in the quickie, ACA 8 has been amended. The amendment protects churches and other houses of worship from eminent domain abuse, it is as follows:
The State or a local government shall not acquire by eminent domain for conveyance to a private person any real property that is used exclusively by the owner for religious worship, if that property is exempt from property taxation pursuant to subdivision…
ACA 8 now goes to the Assembly floor and still remains a piece of shit. I am not going to support something that increases and decreases people’s constitutional rights based on the kind of property they own.
Do you not think property rights are important? Well, maybe a little enlightening will help. Without property rights, all other rights are meaningless. If the government could take your home at any time for any reason, regardless of whether they pay compensation or not, would you be more or less likely to use your first amendment rights to criticize the government? Probably a lot less. We have no free press if no one can own a printing press. We have no freedom of religion if no one can own a house of worship. I could go on and on and on, but you get the idea
The 5th Amendment is clear: “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“
It says FOR PUBLIC USE! It doesn’t just say you they need to pay just compensation; if the property is taken, it has to be FOR PUBLIC USE! It also doesn’t say “nor shall residential property…” It says PRIVATE PROPERTY. It doesn’t distinguish the kind of property. And don’t tell me that that’s too specific for the constitution. Just look at the 4th Amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”
And don’t try the “unless they’re on welfare” argument on me. I’ve responded to that before, and click the link if you wanna see it
So, now with the constitutional parts out of the way. Can someone explain to me why taking away the roof over my head is so much different from taking away what pays for the roof over my head?
Brian has repeatedly cited “only 2 in the Bay Area in the last decade.” Only 2, my ass. That statistic is exclusively talking about homes, and to the extent that the government has had to resort to eminent domain. To claim what he is claiming is like counting the amount of robberies by how often the gun gets fired. It’s the fact that the gun is pointed at the person’s head that’s the problem
A “sale under threat of seizure” is not a voluntary sale. It’s just as bad as seizure, but it’s not counted in the statistic.
Second, eminent domain abuse overwhelmingly happens more with small businesses. And again, taking away what pays for the roof over my head isn’t much different from taking away the roof over my head. And again, property is property, our constitution makes no distinction in the 5th Amendment.
Now I hear you saying, “It’s not seizure, people receive just compensation. No one’s property rights are being violated”
First off, just compensation my ass. They send in their own appraiser, whose lowball estimate is final unless you want to spend your savings (if it’s your business they’re condemning, which is most likely) challenging them in court. And the second you touch the money, YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE AMOUNT!
Second, even if they paid “just compensation,” that misses the big picture. Property rights include the right to say NO. That’s gone in eminent domain. If they OWN the property, it is theirs to sell or not to sell as they please. And if you don’t think so, here’s a check for your home, and pack your things because I’m moving in on Monday. You wanna resist? Okay, I’m gonna send in thugs to force you to sell for this amount
The government should then be there to protect you from the thugs. Now the government IS the thugs.
When De La Torre says, “Eminent domain is a legitimate government function,” yes it is a legitimate government function FOR PUBLIC USE!
ACA 8 ingrains eminent domain abuse into the constitution. It allows eminent domain for private use if it’s “part of a comprehensive plan to eliminate blight.” THAT’S THE EXACT PROBLEM WE HAVE NOW. THE PROBLEM IS THAT BLIGHT IS TOO VAGUELY DEFINED THAT IT CAN APPLY TO ANYTHING! THIS DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THAT, BUT RATHER IT INGRAINS THAT ABUSE INTO THE CONSTITUTION
“Local governments know better than us as to what is blighted and what’s not. Our deference is to them” That’s like letting the accused decide whether he’s guilty. Need I say more?
*Apartment buildings and rental properties are not protected
*Farmland isn’t protected. (and they actually say “Farmland is already protected from being taken by eminent domain for redevelopment.”) Already protected, my ass. Tell that to the owners of Conaway Ranch (look it up if you don’t know what it is)
*This makes little change to current law, and locks in the abuses in the Constitution
*This increases and decreases people’s constitutional rights based on the kind of property they own
I will repeat the 5th Amendment one more time: “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“
If you would like for it to say “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without a majority vote of the people or due process of law; nor shall private property be taken without just compensation” then go through the legal channels to amend the constitution. At least they’re doing that with the flag burning amendment. Don’t pretend it says that now
Nothing says “California” like the coastline. We love our beaches. We love the ocean. And when we live so close to the ocean, we love to see it from the house. But what happens when your precious ocean view is taken away from you? What happens when your “personal space” with that lovely ocean view is INVADED?
“… [T]hat’s a real invasion of our personal space,” says Anne Kolp, who bought her home more than three years ago believing that the vista would never change. “It looks like a huge ship coming out of the ocean.”
(From OC Register)
Believe it or not, this is what the War of Shorecliffs is all about. In a small community in San Clemente, people are fighting over property rights, and what that exactly means. Do we have a right to build a second story to our house? Do we have a right to a permanent ocean view? Do we have a right to preserve the “bucolic” feel of the neighborhood?
San Clemente is just one of many coastal cities that’s grappling with this conundrum. OC’s southernmost city has an ordinance banning second story add-ons in Shorecliffs. On the other end of OC’s coastline, Seal Beach repealed its ban on three story homes. In San Diego County, Solana Beach voters recently passed an “anti-mansionization” initiative. A similar measure was approved by the city council of Manhattan Beach, in Los Angeles County. The entire Southern California coast is grappling with this issue. But is there a fair solution for all of these coastal communities? Do all coastal homeowners have the right to an ocean view?
Follow me after the flip for more…
San Clemente resident Robert Strutt wants to add a second story master bedroom suite with a wraparound deck to his lovely Shorecliffs home. He says that he just wants to add more “living space” to his home, and he wants to take advantage of his fabulous ocean view. However, the neighbors don’t want Mr. Strutt to add that second story. They’re afraid that his taking advantage of his ocean view would lose them of theirs. That’s what led to this.
“If Robert is going to go up, that’s a real invasion of our personal space,” says Anne Kolp, who bought her home more than three years ago believing that the vista would never change. “It looks like a huge ship coming out of the ocean.”
But Mr. Strutt thinks his privacy and property rights are being intruded by nosy neighbors who don’t want him to improve his own home.
For his part, Strutt says he modified his plans to be less intrusive and that he has a right to build on his property.
“My privacy is as important to me as it is to them,” Strutt said.
OK, so Mr. Strutt believes that his right to a second story is being violated by the new ordinance banning second stories in Shorecliffs. However, his neighbors believe that Mr. Strutt would be violating their right to an ocean view by adding that second story. So who’s right here? And whose right matters here?
Actually, NONE OF THEM really have any of those rights.
Homeowners do not generally have a right to a view or a second story, experts say. Often, city regulations or neighborhood codes dictate what is allowed.
Cities typically respect the private policies of a community and “have no interest in what goes on inside the gates,” said Joseph DiMento, professor of law and society and planning at University of California, Irvine.
Barring that, cities are hardly bashful about changing the rules and sometimes intervene in disputes, experts said. Still, residents will try to overturn unpopular regulations, they said.
“The powers of zoning and land use are for cities,” said Matt Parlow, assistant professor of law at Chapman University in Orange.
Ah, ha! So we’re really talking about the right of the city to regulate land use within city boundaries! Well, it looks like the City of San Clemente has clearly intervened in this dispute. They’re exercising their right to regulate.
But is this the right to do? It depends on what the city is looking to do.
Perhaps the city has an interest in preserving the character of the neighborhood, and in preserving the views of all the homes on the block. Solana Beach seems to have that interest. In a special election this past March, voters narrowly passed the “Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance” that limits the size of homes on the small lots in six neighborhoods west of the 5 Freeway. Manhattan Beach also seems to have that interest. In April, the city council voted to impose a moratorium on merging properties to make way for more massive homes. Most of the residents of these cities wanted to preserve the “small, welcoming beach town” character of these old neighborhoods, and the cities followed through in respecting the wishes of the residents.
And you know what? This interest is legitimate. If the greater community wants to preserve the character of the community, then the elected officials should respect that the desires of the community. Simple as that.
So the major question here is what do San Clemente residents want. What do San Clemente residents want for Shorecliffs? Do they want all homeowners to be able to “mansionize” to their hearts’ content? Or do they want the historic character of the community preserved? And do they prefer that every home in the community have an ocean view? Local governments are the ones that have the true right to determine what standards are set for the community. However local governments are supposed to represent local residents, and they should do what’s in the best interest of the local community.
That’s what San Clemente needs to decide. And that’s what all the other California coastal communities struggling with “mansionization” need to decide. What’s in the best interest of the community? And what do members of the community really want for the neighborhood? Ultimately, the people in the community must decide whether their beach cities should protect the right to pursue that grand ocean view.
You all remember Prop 90, the proposition that would have severely limited eminent domain and the government’s ability to do land-use planning, zoning, etc…
Here is the comparison: http://calpropertyri…
I’m not going to pretend this only regulates eminent domain. This also provides a 3-year phase out of rent controls, as the sponsors will readily admit. I will admit would have preferred these two things be separate
Prop 90 was not voted down because of its goal to restrict eminent domain to only public use. It was voted down because it went far beyond that.
I’m glad that this time, when it qualifies, we will be able to have a straight-up debate on eminent domain and rent controls. Does anyone here seriously think eminent domain should be allowed for private use? (i.e. taking a home so a Starbucks can set up there, or taking a small coffee shop so a Starbucks can set up there)