(A repost to fix some formatting. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

I’ll start with the good news.  Prop 87, the alternative energy and oil tax initiative, is way ahead right now.  It leads 52-31 right now, including 58% support from decline to state voters.  If that number remains in that ballpark, 87 has a great shot at passing. 

Prop 87 is an interesting initiative.  I’ll be doing a longer post on it in the near future, but as a former Texan, it boggles my mind that the state keeps so little of its mineral revenues.  The entire University system in Texas was built off those revenues, but somehow California didn’t jump on that train.  Personally, I would prefer that those revenues be given to the general fund rather than a specific purpose.  Alternative energy is great (and I just posted on that last week), but the state needs all the revenue it can get.  It would be the best to let that money into the general fund and then hash out details in the normal budget process (if it really can ever be called normal).

The cigarette tax initiave, Prop 86, is up 63-32.  I’m not sure how I feel about this one.  I like the purposes it goes to, but I’m just concerned over whether this law would violate the terms of the tobacco settlement. I would prefer that the state avoid another bout of massive litigation if possible.  The no voters on this ballot seem to be smokers, as they are the only demographic rejecting it right now (72-31).

Unsuprisingly, Jessica’s law, Prop 83, is passing overwhelmingly, 76-11.  I’m not sure that we really need a ballot initiative on this, mainly because most of the issues in the law were already addressed by Jackie Speier’s law on sex offenders.  But, you can see why Angelides was almost forced by popular will to support this bill.

The Anti-choice initiative, Prop 85, is currently trailing, but just barely.  It looks like there will be another battle.  These people will never give up, no matter how many times the people of this state say that we don’t want these anti-choice laws here. Phil Angelides has denounced the initiative. I haven’t seen anything official from Schwarzenegger, but he supported last year’s nearly identical Prop 73.

And finally, Prop 90 has a plurality of support as well. It currently leads 46-31, but right now it has a 42-32 lead amongst Democrats.  Once the message goes out about how bad Prop 90 is, the No tally will increase quickly.

Incidentally, it’s important to note that the no tally generally increases as the election draws near.  Voters are usually drawn towards the status quo (typically No), so expect to see some drift there.  Last June’s Prop 82 was a good example of this, it started off quite strong, but inertia (and a blitz of advertising) overcame its initial approval. 

These numbers will soon appear on the flip and in the Poll HQ.

Peter Schrag has a great column in today’s Bee about Prop 90. It articulates the real problem with the initiative, which is that it goes too far:

In fact, if you look at the politics of Proposition 90 from a distance, it looks a lot like Proposition 13. Like Proposition 13, it starts with a legitimate worry — also about homeownership — and ends with a sledgehammer remedy. It’s a Pandora’s box of trouble.
***
California law requires that only blighted properties can be condemned, but that hasn’t kept some redevelopment agencies from seizing good homes and small businesses in the search for new development that will yield higher tax returns. As Proposition 90 supporters point out, “blight is a broad term.” The law, as even League of California Cities Executive Director Chris McKenzie concedes, needs fixing.
***
But Proposition 90 isn’t just about eminent domain. Buried in it are “takings” booby traps that throw into question a wide array of future regulations, zoning decisions and other actions that “result in substantial loss to private property.” The initiative allows regulation to protect public health and safety, but says nothing about protecting the environment or public welfare. It also says that if private property is taken “for any proprietary government purpose … the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property if such use results in a higher value for the land taken.” That appears to mean that slumlords must be compensated not at the value of the condemned housing, but at the value of the property under the convention center or affordable housing units that replace it. Nor could a city turn the housing over to a private agency — say a church or social organization — even if such an agency was a more efficient operator of the project. Even backers of Proposition 90 concede that there’ll be plenty of litigation to clarify the ambiguities and apparent contradictions in the law.
***
But will the initiatives really put voters “back in charge,” …? Or will it be lawyers, slumlords, speculators and polluters? (SacBee 7/19/06)

Not much else to say.  The article is worthy of your time in its entirety as well.  Prop 90, however, is not.

The No on Prop 90 campaign is just getting going, and a Coalition List is now available on their nascent web site.  The Coalition includes some big names such as the California League of Cities, the Police and Fire Chiefs Associations, the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense.

Prop 90 would restrict city and state governments from efficiently acting to protect the character of their cities, to require green development, or to limit development.  Environmental restrictions would become prohibatively expensive for either the state or municipalites.  Our days of environmental leadership would be in jeopardy.  Or, as the League of Cities puts it:

As a result, Prop. 90 would lead to thousands of expensive lawsuits that would tie up our courts and result in added bureaucracy and red tape. The cost of these lawsuits and payouts would rob local communities of billions of dollars in limited resources that fund fire and police protection, paramedic response, schools, traffic congestion relief and other vital services. That’s why the CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, and CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION oppose Prop. 90.

PROP. 90 would trap taxpayers in a LOSE-LOSE situation. If communities act to protect their quality of life, taxpayers could be forced to make huge payouts. Or, if communities couldn’t afford the payouts, basic quality-of-life protections simply couldn’t be enacted. That’s why conservation groups, including the CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS and the PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, warn the measure would drastically limit our ability to protect California’s coastline, open spaces, farmland, air and water quality. (League of Citie)

This iniative would be an enormously expensive proposition for the taxpayers of California that would end up primarily benefiting large developers.  It is a bad idea for the state of California.

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Have you ever heard of Howard Rich?  Well, consider yourself on notice.  Howard Rich is waging a war on the government, via the “Save Our Homes” initiative.  Shane Goldmacher has the story:

Through a web of organizations, Rich is backing eminent-domain initiatives in Arizona, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma and Washington with $4 million–though no state has received as much financial support as California. In each of these efforts, Rich himself is never disclosed as a major donor. Instead, he steers his contributions through nonprofit intermediaries, such as the Fund for Democracy, which he is using to finance California’s Proposition 90 campaign.

“I think California often leads the nation,” says Rich. “It is the largest, most populous state and it is very important to us that property rights be restored there.”

But the influx of out-of-state money pushing measures to amend state constitutions across the country has angered many local activists.

“They are backed by an organization that is chaired by a New York real estate developer and that makes you wonder who is going to benefit,” says Aaron Toso, spokesman for the campaign against Washington’s eminent-domain measure. “Obviously if people don’t live here they wont have to pay the extra taxes and sit in the extra traffic.”

Here in California, opponents of the eminent-domain initiative are also accusing Rich of pushing his unwanted, out-of-state agenda on the state’s voters.

“The fact that this one guy from New York, an out-of-state multimillionaire, has decided, ‘I know what’s best for the nation and I am going to tell all the state’s how to do things right’ … that’s offensive,” says No on 90 spokeswoman Kathy Fairbanks.(Capitol Weekly 7/13/06)

These out-of-staters come into California because we are such a leader in the initiative process, for better or worse.  If California falls victim to Prop 90, you can bet similar initiatives will be all over the nation. And Prop 90 is merely using the Kelo decision for cover.  It is far more insidious.  The “damage” provision in Prop 90 would prevent zoning and any environmental regulation at the state or local level.  Of all the initiatives, it is most important that Prop 90 be defeated.  Its effects would be felt immediately and permanently in much the same way we still feel the devestation of Prop 13.

The city of Hercules has invoked eminent domain to buuy land that Wal-Mart had been planning to develop into a new store.

A San Francisco suburb voted Tuesday night to use the power of eminent domain to keep Wal-Mart Stores Inc. off a piece of city land after hearing from dozens of residents who accused the big-box retailer of engaging in scare tactics to force its way into the bedroom community.

The overflow crowd that packed into the tiny Hercules City Hall cheered after the five-person City Council voted unanimously to use the unusual tactic to seize the 17 acres where Wal-Mart intended to build a shopping complex. (SF Chron (AP) 5/23/06)

This is disturbing on many levels.  But first, so that I’m not misunderstood, I’m as anti-Wal-Mart as the next guy.  I would vigorously fight Wal-Mart coming into San Francisco. However, eminent domain should not be the tool.  For one thing, it plays right into the hands of “Protect Our Homes” people.  While Wal-mart is a bad thing for the city, it was not an issue that called for the use of eminent domain.  At least until the November election, when we will see Protect Our Homes on the ballot, eminent domain should be a last resort.

Protect Our Homes will result in an almost ungovernable state by blocking government action.  How does it do that you may ask?  Well, here it is in the language of the initiative:

“damage” to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property.  Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limitations on the use of private air space.  “Government action” shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation.

In other words, this law will end the ability of cities to restrictively zone.

I plan on doing an in-depth post about “Protect Our Homes” after the Primary.  And just FYI, it appears that governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has yet to say anything of substance regarding eminent domain.