Yesterday I put up a Quickie about a eminent domain reform proposal brought to the floor by Asm. Hector De La Torre linking to the “Californians for Eminent Domain Reform” website. I was going to do a whole post, but other things came up and it never happened.  But, this is a good idea, politically.

For some reason, the wingers have themselves all frenzied up over eminent domain and are prepared to spend heavily on it (see Prop 90). But that’s not even the worst part, it’s that the wingers think that eminent domain is their way to attack a number of other progressive causes (again, see Prop 90).  Follow me over the flippio for some additional background and details of the current proposal…

First, what is eminent domain? Eminent domain is the right of a government to take property.  It is generally pretty rare (only 2 homes in the Bay Area in the past decade) In the United States, the Constitution requires a fair cash value in return. To me, that seems reasonable enough.  After all, cash is fungible and if you get the proper market value, you can go buy some other comparable property.  I know, there’s sentimental value, but the wingers don’t seem to have a problem with the sentimental value attached to public lands like beaches (Trestles) or old growth forests or opens spaces, etc.  It’s pretty convenient that way for them.

Now what seems to have gotten the Right in a tizzy is the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision which ruled that municipalities can take land for private purposes so long as there is a rational reason for doing so. In that case, they were trying to redevelop and grow the tax base.  Seems reasonable enough to me, but the Wingers hate it. So, they pressured the legislature to give them a deal or else! Else, of course, being they will go to the ballot and do it their way.

And ELSE! is what happened.  Prop 90 lost, so now they are back.  Prop 90 had its “damage” provisions, that would be terrible for environmental and other land-use restrictions.  Zoning? Forget about it. There are a couple of “Son of Prop 90” props out in the field now, each with their own trojan horse agenda. Most of them still include some “damage” provision, but others include topics as far afield as rent control.  You see, they think eminent domain reform is a great issue for them, so they are going to try to take down as much of the other stuff that they don’t like as possible.

So, business and environmental groups lined up against Prop 90, and many of these partnerships have been transferred over to the Californians for Eminent Domain Reform.  This group includes the League of Conservation Voters, the California Small Business Association, the League of Cities, and so on.  So, why even bother with eminent domain reform, when eminent domain is rare? Well, to put it simply politics.  This issue is quite tiresome, and the Right wants to continue bludgeoning the public commons with it.  So, Asm. De La Torre (D-South Gate) has created a compromise plan (ACA 8)that would limit eminent domain, but still provide flexibility to the state and municipalities.  If ACA 8 passes the Legislature, it will appear on one of the three 2008 ballots. The plan has several main provisions outlined on their facts page. 

Protect Homeowners from Eminent Domain by prohibiting the State or any local government from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied home for transfer to another private party. This provision would prohibit taking a home through eminent domain to make way for a new private development. (ACA 8)

Protect Small Businesses from Eminent Domain by:

  * Prohibiting the State and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire property where a small business is located to transfer to another private party, except as part of a comprehensive plan to eliminate blight and only after the small business owner is first given the opportunity to participate in the revitalization plan.  (ACA 8)

  * If the small business does not participate in the revitalization plan it can choose between relocating or receiving the value of the business. If the small business relocates, it will receive:
  o Fair market value of the real property (if owned by the small business).
  o All reasonable moving expenses.
  o Expenses to reestablish the business at a new location, up to $50,000.
  o Compensation for the increased cost of rent or mortgage payments for up to 3 years. (Statutory)

  *
  If the small business does not elect to relocate it will receive:
  o Fair market value of the real property (if owned by the small business).
  o 125% of the value of the business if the business could not have been relocated and remain economically viable. (Statutory)

Owner’s Right to Repurchase Acquired Property. A home or small business acquired by eminent domain must be offered for resale to the original owner if the government does not use the property for a public use. The state or local government shall use reasonable diligence to locate the property owner. (ACA 8)

All in all, it’s a price worth paying to get this issue away from the Wingers.  I will be watching ACA 8 carefully as it proceeds through the Legislature, and see if it ends up as something worth supporting.

The Nunez health reform measure made it out of an Assembly Committee today, but I’m more interested in this other bill that Randy Bayne discusses:

HEALTH PLANS WOULD BE BANNED FROM RESCINDING POLICIES WHEN CONSUMERS USE COVERAGE

In a victory for consumers Tuesday, the Health Committee also passed AB1324 (De La Torre), which re-states and re-emphasizes California’s law prohibiting health insurers for canceling coverage consumers if they turn out to be sick.

The bill comes about after several high profile cases in which several insurers such as Blue Cross of California rescinded coverage – retroactively – from policyholders after expensive claims were made. Consumers were left with hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills after the insurer refused to pay the bills incurred during the time patients believed they were insured. Blue Cross alleges that the patients knowingly lied about their health status on their applications for coverage, triggering the cancellation.

over…

The question I have is was would be the enforcement mechanism.  Blue Cross has already been doing this in violation of the law, and yet the fine they received was a paltry $1 million dollars (I believe it was handed down by Assemblymember Dr. Evil, who thought it was a lot of money).  the text of the bill does not address enforcement satisfactorily or really at all.

I wonder why nobody has restarted the “three strikes law for corporations” debate, and it seems like the Blue Cross case would be a perfect linchpin to do so.  When you have a company that is so flagrantly breaking the law, the state should reserve the right to revoke its charter to do business.  Of course the Chamber of Commerce and the bought-and-paid-for Republicans would fearmonger that businesses would fly out of the state, but essentially they’re arguing that companies should have a right to break the law repeatedly.  Somebody has to draw a line.

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Arnold Schwarzenegger has rejected the Bush administration’s request for more troops along the border, but some Dems wonder if that’s the whole story. 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office said Friday that he turned down a White House request to more than double the number of California National Guard troops that will be deployed to the border, fearing the commitment could leave the state vulnerable if an earthquake or wildfire erupts.(LA Times 6/24/06)

More on the flip.

The Bush administration this week asked California to send an additional 1,500 National Guard troops to the Mexican border, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied the request, two California National Guard officials said Friday.

The National Guard Bureau, an arm of the Pentagon, asked for the troops to fill recruiting shortfalls for the mission in New Mexico and Arizona. But Schwarzenegger said the request would stretch the California guard too thin if an emergency or disaster struck.

The overall deployment for the border mission would remain at 6,000, the guard officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.  Schwarzenegger’s communications director, Adam Mendelsohn, said the governor felt sending more troops was an inappropriate burden on the state and would disrupt the guard’s training schedule. (MSNBC 6/23/06)

Well, I thought this was the case with the first 1,000.  But I guess this was some sort of straw that broke the camel for Arnold I suppose.  My bigger problem with the National Guard on the border is the effectiveness issue.  Are they really doing anything that’s worthwhile of our resources?  Has anybody explained to the American people what the hell they are doing there?  Well, to my satisfaction, the answer is no.  Our National Guard is already overburdened with Bush’s War, we don’t need to have them down on the border with some vague non-strategy.

UPDATE: The LA Times  also has a story about this. (H/t to It’s My Right to Be Left )  Some Dems have an interesting, and not too unlikely, take on this.  This “request” was really just an opportunity to give Schwarzenegger some political cover for the first 1000 troops. It’s a little conspiratorial, but doesn’t it just sound like a Rove/Schmidt tactic?

Schwarzenegger is running for reelection this year — at a time when his support among Latino voters is sagging. Recent polls show Schwarzenegger has the support of 25% of Latino voters — 7 points below what he received in the 2003 recall election
***
Assemblyman Hector De La Torre (D-Southgate) said of Schwarzenegger, “This is a way of letting him have it both ways — having the National Guard there, but at the same time letting him be the bulwark against placing additional troops on the border.”
***
Bob Mulholland, an advisor to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides, said: “This so-called request [from the White House] was a phony political request to try to give Schwarzenegger political cover: ‘Look it. I’m standing up to Bush.’ But last week Schwarzenegger was a French poodle in Bush’s lap — authorizing 1,000 stressed-out, overextended National Guard members to spend weeks and months at the border, even though many of them have done two tours in Iraq.”(LA Times 6/24/06)

Yeah, it’s a bit cynical, but isn’t that really the problem?  We’ve been forced to cynicysm by manipulative administrations, both in Sacramento and Washington.