Well, it looks like it’s going to happen. The Right wingers aren’t ones to give up just because they got rebuffed once.  They’re at it again, and, if you believe them, they’ve got the signatures to get on the ballot:

Today, Californians for Property Rights Protection announced that the campaign has collected well over 700,000 signatures needed to qualify the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act for the June 2008 ballot. In order to qualify the eminent domain reform ballot measure, supporters must collect 694,354 valid signatures by November 26, 2007. The campaign is on track to submit more than 1 million signatures before this deadline. Link here

More on this proposition over the flip and why this is, yet again, a trojan horse.

You see, the Howard Jarvis folks don’t really care all that much about eminent domain, because it doesn’t really affect that many of their kind of people, or truthfully, any kind of people. But, it sounds really bad, and it polls well for them.  So, they use it as a trojan horse. That’s what they did with Prop 90, and that’s what they are doing this time.  This time, it is rent control that’s on their mind. I think it would also eliminate many of the “below market rate ownership” programs in San Francisco and across the state.

Why rent control? Hell’s if I know, but it’s what they are going after. They draw some tangential link by making some right to do whatever you damn well please with your property.  So, here’s some snippets. Read the whole thing here.

Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution is amended to read:

SEC. 19(a) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) “Taken” includes transferring the ownership, occupancy, or use of property from a private owner to a public agency or to any person or entity other than a public agency, or limiting the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property.

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

Upon the call of Chairman Leno, the Assembly Appropriations Committee will meet tomorrow, and ACA 8 will be one of the proposals taken up. I have no doubt it will pass the Appropriations Committee, but I expect Vice Chairman Mimi Walters and Doug La Malfa to tear the proponents apart

Regardless, it will still pass out. Whenever someone says that the legislative Democrats in California are too liberal (and in the case of eminent domain, they are), I say “no, they’re just partisans.” It doesn’t matter if a Republican makes an exceptional point on something, it won’t persuade any legislative Democrats

Before election time rolls around? Aww, that’s unfortunate, because Prop 90 was so much fun for folks of all ages!

Anyway, the SacBee found a few teensy-weensy errors (h/t to the CA Majority Report ) in the draft of the initiative.  Well, ok, really big errors. Namely the initiative, sponsored in part by the Farm Bureau, would make it darn tough to start new water storage projects.

In short, the CPOFPA would make it illegal to use eminent domain to acquire land and water to develop public water projects. That’s right: the Farm Bureau — a major proponent of water storage and supply — is bankrolling an initiative that would effectively make it impossible to develop any new water projects in the state (visit the website of the coalition promoting Assemblyman De La Torre’s honest eminent domain reforms for a fact sheet on the issue). It’s hard to imagine they would do this intentionally, so one has to assume it is the mother of all drafting errors.

GOP Senator Dave Cogdill told the Bee: “As I read it, there’s certainly reason for concern for what it means for the future of water projects in California, especially as it pertains to new water storage.” (CA Majority Report )

I tell you what, the “eminent domain” people, who keep trying to slip other provisions into their initiatives, are pretty much the bad news bears of initiative reform. Every possible mistake happens.  But, we all make mistakes, right term limit reformers?