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”