Prop 90 description:

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.

vs.

New real reform description:

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.

Wishing this is the same old Prop 90 doesn’t make it so. If you seriously think this is, back it up

I am perplexed when it comes to the newest Jarvis initiative on eminent domain reform. http://lao.ca.gov/ba…

Here’s the summary of the parts I support:

*Requires government to specify the public use it is taking property for

*Prohibits eminent domain for private use (except to reduce public nuisances or criminal activity).

*Private use includes not only transferring it to another private entity, but also taking it for a similar use to how it was used under the previous ownership

*If the public agency wishes to use it for a use other than the stated public use, it must give the original owner first refusal

*Rent controls cease to exist after whenever the current tenant has moved out. It also prohibits mandatory inclusionary housing that is found to “transfer an economic benefit” at the expense of the property owner. Though I don’t believe these two provisions belong in an eminent domain reform,  I still support them

*In any property owner challenge regarding the validity of a taking or reductions in value concerning his or her property, courts cannot grant deference to a public agency’s findings or limit its review to the information in the administrative record

*Entitles the owner to attorney fees if he/she sues and wins

Now here’s the part I’m perplexed about:
*In background “Other government policies—such as land use or certain business regulations—also could be viewed as potentially transferring economic benefits among private parties.”

*In proposal “Beyond [rent control and inclusionary housing], the extent to which this measure would constrain government’s authority is not clear. The range of policies that would be affected would depend on court interpretation of many of its provisions.”

To make it easier to understand, private use in this measure includes, “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.”

Another thing: unlike Prop 90, for the fiscal impact, the LAO says, “Increased costs to many governments due to the measure’s restrictions. The fiscal effect on most governments probably would NOT be significant.”

I am perplexed on whether I will support this. What is your position? Again, respond to the proposal and issue, NOT the group