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

Hector De La Torre on the Democratic radio address and my blow-by-blow response:

Hello, this is Assemblymember Hector De La Torre.

HI

How would you feel if your city government seized your land for no other reason than to build a strip mall or a Wal-Mart Supercenter?

CHEATED. ABUSED. EXPLOITED. INFURIATED. SOLD OUT BY GOVERNMENT WHO’S SUPPOSED TO PROTECT MY PROPERTY RIGHTS. I THINK THAT’S ENOUGH

If you’re like most Californians, you’d be understandably upset.

NO S**T

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision known as Kelo versus New London, Connecticut.

I’M WELL AWARE

Some argued that this case greatly expanded the ability of state governments to purchase private property from one person for the private gain of another person or corporation.

IT DID GREATLY EXPAND IT. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BUT I THINK YOU LEAVING OUT LOCAL WAS UNINTENTIONAL

Many feared the Kelo decision was overly broad and would unduly endanger private property rights. To protect homes and small businesses, I authored Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, the Eminent Domain Reform Act.

IT IS OVERLY BROAD. TELL ME ABOUT ACA 8

The Eminent Domain Reform Act prohibits State or local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied home for transfer to another private party. This is unprecedented.

OKAY, BETTER THAN NOTHING AT ALL. BUT WHAT ABOUT RENTAL PROPERTIES? APARTMENTS? BUSINESSES? FARMS? CHURCHES?

TAKING AWAY THE ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD ISN’T AS BAD AS TAKING AWAY WHAT PAYS FOR THE ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD. WHY? IF THEY TAKE AWAY THE LATTER, YOU’LL LIKELY ALSO LOSE THE ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD

This constitutional amendment also would prohibit government from using eminent domain to acquire property where a small business is located to transfer to another private party

SOUNDS GOOD! EXCEPT THIS DEFINES SMALL BUSINESS AS <25 EMPLOYEES, WHILE CALIFORNIA LAW DEFINES SMALL BUSINESS AS <100 EMPLOYEES

unless there is a comprehensive plan to eliminate blight.

LOOPHOLE ALERT! BLIGHT, OF COURSE, BEING WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT IS. CITIES CAN DECLARE A NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE BLIGHTED (UNDER EXTREMELY VAGUE STANDARDS IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE) AND THEN TAKE ANY PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO CONSTRUCT A SHOPPING MALL, LUXURY HOMES, ETC… THIS LOOPHOLE COMPLETELY NULLS THE PREVIOUS POINT YOU MADE

But before eminent domain is allowed a small business owner must have the opportunity to be a part of the new development.

THE OPPORTUNITY BEING WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT WANTS, AND THE GOVERNMENT MAY WAIVE IT

If a small business does move, it will receive the fair market value of the previous location, moving expenses, expenses to reestablish the business at a new location, and compensation for the increased cost of rent or mortgage payments for up to three years.

BETTER THAN WHAT THEY HAVE NOW. HOWEVER, THIS MISSES THE ENTIRE POINT: IF THEY OWN THE PROPERTY, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE SOMEONE TO MOVE FOR SOMEONE ELSE’S PRIVATE GAIN.

In short, this is legislation grounded in a simple concept: the government should not have the ability to abuse its eminent domain privileges, and during the rare times when eminent domain is appropriate, business owners will be fairly compensated.

NO, THIS IS LEGISLATION GROUNDED IN PROTECTING THE STATUS QUO WHILE MAKING PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT REFORM HAS TAKEN PLACE. THIS IS WORSE THAN NOTHING.

This philosophy has guided legislative Democrats for years.

IF THERE’S ANY ISSUE WHERE I QUESTION MY ALLEGIANCE TO THE DEMOCRATS, IT’S THIS! THE LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY TOLD ME, ON THIS ISSUE, THAT THERE’S FROSTING ON MY CUPCAKE WHEN THERE ISN’T. NOW YOU’RE TRYING TO SELL ME PAPER DISGUISED AS FROSTING

Last year, the State Legislature listened to voters and passed several new laws to protect peoples’ homes.

LIKE WHAT?

We made it harder for government to proclaim an area “blighted.”

OH, YOU MEAN SB 1206? BULLS**T. AGAIN, YOU’RE TRYING TO TELL ME THE PAPER IS FROSTING. THOSE STANDARDS IN THE BILL WERE VAGUE, AND MOST WERE ALREADY CURRENT LAW. LOOK AT ALL THE TIMES IT SAYS “MAY” INSTEAD OF “MUST” AND LOOK AT ALL THE UNDEFINED TERMS.

Raising the requirements for an area to be declared blighted helps protect property owners.

AND SB 1206 DIDN’T DO THAT!

An area has to be declared blighted before a redevelopment agency can use eminent domain.

THAT WAS ALREADY THE CASE! THE PROBLEM IS THAT BLIGHT IS SO VAGUELY DEFINED THAT IT IS WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT IS. SB 1206 DID NEXT TO NOTHING

Raising the requirements for an area to be declared blighted helps protect property owners.

AND SB 1206 DIDN’T DO THAT

To keep the process out in the open, we increased state oversight by involving the Attorney General, the Department of Finance and the Department of Housing and Community Development to protect your rights as a property owner.

DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THAT. BUT GIVEN THE TRACK RECORD IN CLAIMING TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS WHEN YOU’RE NOT, I’M NOT GOING TO GIVE THIS THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT

Now that these bills have been signed into law, California has clearly taken steps to protect the rights of homeowners and other property owners.

THE ONLY BILL WITH ANY TEETH THAT CAN BE REFERRED TO HERE WAS SB 1650. SB 53, 1206, 1210, AND 1809 WEREN’T EVEN WORTH THE PAPER THEY WERE PRINTED ON

And with your support, the Eminent Domain Reform Act will take those protections even further, into the California state constitution.

NO, I’LL SUPPORT REAL EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS BILL, JUST LIKE THOSE OTHER ONES, ISN’T EVEN WORTH THE PAPER IT’S PRINTED ON. I’D RATHER HAVE NOTHING THAN THIS PIECE OF CRAP

To add, this proposal doesn’t even define “private person” which is an essential term. So this proposal would allow for the taking of property for private use if the government participated in some undefined way. The government could construct a public facility, condemn the surrounding land and give it to private developers.

Lastly, this proposal doesn’t entitle the person to attorney fees if the court rules that the government isn’t in compliance with this section. Thereby, this continues to deny many property owners a day in court

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

You all remember Prop 78? It was the prescription drug proposition sponsored by the drug companies during Arnold’s special election.

You remember what the biggest problem with it was? It was a classic example of the fox pretending it cares about the hen house. The goal of the drug companies was to convince people that real reform took place when it didn’t really. They wanted to offset true reform by consumer groups in Prop 79. The very groups over the years defending and benefiting from charging high prices for prescription drugs pretending to now support reform. Pure window dressing!

Now, we have a similar example. This time, it comes from people who tend to be on the other side of the aisle

The very people who have defended the abuse of eminent domain involving governments forcing the transfer of private property from one owner to another by claiming the other can produce more tax revenue are now proposing this eminent domain reform package.

Just like the drug companies, their motive is clear. They want to offset true reform by property rights activists that does not include the flaws of Proposition 90. So rather than opposing it, they do what the drug companies did: offer a bullshit alternative

It appears to offer some protections, but the loopholes make it meaningless. Case in point: they claim it only allows taking property for private use when part of a “comprehensive plan to eliminate blight.”

CURRENT LAW ALREADY REQUIRES BLIGHT. THE PROBLEM IS THAT BLIGHT IS VAGUELY DEFINED THAT IT CAN APPLY TO ANYTHING, ANYWHERE AS LONG AS THERE IS ANYTHING BLIGHTED WITHIN THE AREA. THIS DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THAT.

This only applies to owner-occupied homes, not rental property. What is it about renting a home that makes you less innocent? It doesn’t protect farms, churches, and homeowners who haven’t lived in their house for more than a year. What is it about just purchasing a home that makes you less innocent?

This would protect some homeowners, and increase compensation for some small business owners (only if <25 employees, when California law defines small business as <100 employees). But just like Prop 78, passing this is worse than passing nothing. It would convince voters that real reform has passed when it hasn't

Just like Prop 90 and 78, this is a fox dressed as a hen. Pathetic!

Susette Kelo’s thoughts on De La Torre’s ACA 8 http://calpropertyri…

Well, I guess the third time is a charm. http://ag.ca.gov/cms…

The first and second time, those circulating an eminent domain initiative failed to remove the provisions undoing land use, environmental regulations, etc…

This time, they have taken out the “damage” provisions. You can look for yourself, none of that in sight

Except on the last section, they say that all rent controls may only stay in effect as long as “at least one of the tenants of such unit or space as of the effective date (“qualified tenant”) continues to live in such unit or space as his or her principal place of residence.”

I can agree that rent control doesn’t belong in this initiative, but that won’t stop me from supporting it. Does anyone oppose this?

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)

(Also posted at dKos. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Prop 90, the so-called “Protect Our Homes” Act, aims to curtail the use of eminent domain in the state of California.  The problem is that Prop 90 goes much further than that.  In today’s SF Chronicle, Ray King, a Montana columnist rips the initiative to shreds.  Let’s go issue by issue on the flip:

1. E.D. as a smokescreen for the gutting of governmental regulation.

   The marketing on this initiative revolves around eminent domain, and much of the initiative text deals with that.  However, in the span of a few paragraphs, Prop 90 manages to totally change the purpose and structure of our government.

   Reforming eminent domain is partly a smokescreen. The multistate campaign has a bigger target: It aims to choke off governments’ ability to pass land-use regulations affecting millions of property owners.

   The libertarian Reason Foundation of Los Angeles revealed the strategy in an April policy paper that recommended pushing “Kelo-plus” initiatives to capitalize “on the tremendous public and political momentum generated in the aftermath of the Kelo ruling. …”

     (SF Chron 8/20/06)

   So why the stealth?  Could it be perhaps that they are trying to hide something?  No…never, huh?  Another point to all this sneakiness is the supposed groundswell of support, as indicated by all the donors that have given to the initiative to see it get on the ballot.  The problem with that?  Yeah, the money given to support Prop 90 comes from a few wealthy donors:

     This anti-regulation campaign is not as populist as it would like to appear. A few big financial backers have provided almost all the campaign money so far. The pro-Prop. 90 campaign raised and spent about $2.4 million through the end of June. Of that total, $1.5 million came from Howie Rich of New York, who grew wealthy in real estate and owns apartments across the country. He funnels his political money through his Fund for Democracy, which is based in his home. Following the money trail, an additional $600,000 of Prop. 90’s war chest came from a Montana group whose supporters include a Chicago-area Libertarian group called Americans for Limited Government, where Rich is chairman of the board of directors; and $200,000 came from Fieldstead & Co., an Irvine conduit for Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson, Jr., a savings-and-loan heir who also backs efforts to establish a “Christian nation” and oppose gay marriage and stem-cell research. (SF Chron 8/20/06)

   For those of us who don’t feel the need to do math in our heads, that’s $2.3 million.  Out of $2.4 million.  From 3 donors.  Yup, that’s a real ground swell.  What do these groups expect to get from this money? Well, let’s look at what they are really hiding.

2. Prop 90 aims to drastically curtail government regulation…to the detriment of society.
   

   What is the “plus” in these initiatives? Libertarians and property-rights activists believe that many common government regulations on real estate, such as zoning and subdivision limits, take away property value. Therefore, they say, government should either compensate the owners or back off.
   {snip}
   Libertarians and property-rights activists persuaded Oregon voters to approve Measure 37 in 2004. Oregon had the nation’s toughest land-use regulations, and some loosening-up was needed, but Measure 37 blew huge holes in Oregon’s system. It allowed many longtime landowners to escape regulations for protecting landscapes, the environment and neighborhoods.

   Despite delays in Measure 37’s implementation caused by court fights, Oregon property owners have already filed about 2,700 Measure 37 claims, aiming to develop about 143,000 acres. The claimants demand that governments either waive land-use regulations or pay nearly $4 billion in compensation. In almost all of the 700 or so claims settled to date, governments have waived the regulations. (SF Chron 8/20/06)

   So, look what a similar initiative in Oregon did for the state: 2700 Claims.  $4 Billion. 143,000 more acres devoted to rampant development.  Sounds like a great plan.  In another example cited in King’s op-ed, a farmer wanted to subdivide his farm for 280 houses on a plot that was zoned agricultural.  Because of Measure 37, the state was essentially unable to afford the defense of the zoning and eventually just gave up.  In the end, the real loser with Measure 37 has been the people.  The government is a resource for pooling political power.  It enables a large majority to prevent activities on the land of others that it deems inapproriate for the area.  It’s a great thing.  Would you really want your neighbor who owns 5 acres to build a giant junkyard on your land?  No, and that’s where zoning and other governmental regulations come in.

3. Winning the fairness issue

:  As King notes, we must win the “fairness” argument;

To defeat Prop. 90, California’s advocates for planning and neighborhood rights will have to win on the fairness issue. They need to find compelling examples of people who are helped by land-use regulations. They need to communicate to voters that one person’s rights can be another person’s ruin, and that strong regulations often raise property values rather than lower them.

Government needn’t be our enemy.  Our government should work to improve the common good.  And with but a few exceptions, it does that.  A reasonable argument could be made that our eminent domain laws could benefit from some tightening here and there, and that reforming eminent domain is a reasonable goal. But we can’t let the Prop 90 forces use fear to push through a measure which would so profoundly hobble the government as it proceeds along its basic purposes, to regulate the use of land.

Prop 90 beats the government over the head and kicks it in the shins a couple of times for good measure. The backers of this initiative aim to create a state where development knows no bounds and the pursuit of individual wealth trumps the greater good.  And after what we’ve seen in Oregon, it’s time to rebuff them.  It’s time to say that we will not accept any more of these government deconstruction initiatives any more.  It’s time to say No to Howard Rich and his cronies.  It’s time to stand up for our State.