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