Tag Archives: Prop 90

Uncategorized

Howard Rich goes on the attack

2 Comments

You may or may not remember Howard Rich, but I have had many opportunities to grow to despise the man. He seemingly funds every bad government deform proposition on our ballot.  He funded the term limits measure back in the 90s, and still heads US Term Limits. Oh, and despite the fact that he doesn’t even live in California, he provided almost all of the funds to get Prop 90 on the ballot. That measure, you may recall, would have required that the state pay for any little regulation of property in the state.

Well, Howie Rich has a new fun activity: harassing Democratic donors by accusing them of the murky charge of “voter fraud.” Matt Stoller acquired a copy of the letter, which you will find over the flip.

The part that is most interesting to me is that this comes from the guy who won’t reveal the donors to US Term Limits, despite the fact that the body gave $1.5 million to fight Prop 93, citing privacy or other such nonsense.  I suppose it is ok for him to threaten donors, but not the other way around.

Of course, Rich can’t actually do anything legally to these donors, but he is probably doing a fair job of scaring a few donors away.

Howard Rich Letter

Uncategorized

One More Bullet Point on the Hidden Agenda

1 Comment

Way back in 2006, I wrote about Proposition 90. Remember how I said that was going to be terrible for the environment? Well, it’s as if the Hidden Agendas Scheme folks are trying to one up that. According to a new legal analysis by Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger (a good environmental and land use law firm), the Hidden Agendas Scheme has some real potential to mess with California’s environmental regulations. You can get the complete report at the CA League of Conservation Voters Education Fund website here (look in the lower left corner).

Basically, Shute Mihaly issued an opinion that the CPOFPA would negatively impact the implementation of AB 32, CEQA, smart growth regulations and other environmental regulations and possibly be more restrictive than last year’s dangerous Prop90. Here’s a key quote:

[T]he initiative prohibits regulations affecting the use of real property that are enacted ‘in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.’ Put simply, nearly all regulation provides an economic benefit to some private person. Accordingly, although the initiative is ambiguous in several significant areas, a court could interpret it to restrict a host of environmental and land use regulations that would be plainly legitimate under existing law. (SMW report (PDF) 12.10.07)

Rack up another bullet point on the Hidden Agenda. The fact is that the Hidden Agendas Scheme is a poorly drafted piece of legislation, and it’s impossible to really see how far this can be stretched by overzealous landlords and property owners when they are facing the possibility of common sense regulation. We know about rent control. We know about the myriad of additional headaches this could bring to the water storage debate. Now we know about the possible negative effects to the environment. That’s quite a hidden agenda they’ve got going on.

A tremendous environmental coalition has been assembled to oppose this Hidden Agendas Scheme with members like the Cal League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club CA, the NRDC and many others. To put this bluntly, there can be no possible benefit to the environment from this initiative, but there could be a huge downside for the California’s environment just as we are making progress on the legislative front.

And when you add this to the end of rent control that is embodied in this Hidden Agendas Scheme, it is imperative that we make sure this initiative is defeated. This initiative would “amend the California Constitution to add a regulatory takings provision that would allow a property owner to sue to obtain compensation for, and/or to invalidate, regulation that imposes costs on the owner, regardless of whether the regulated activity is a nuisance, a threat to public health or safety, or harmful to the environment.” (SMW report (PDF)) We can get REAL eminent domain reform with the Homeowner’s Protection Act, without all the baggage of these Hidden Agendas.  

Uncategorized

The Return of Prop 90!

56 Comments

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.

Uncategorized

Eminent Domain Initiative On Its Deathbed?

8 Comments

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?

Uncategorized

Son of Prop 90?

3 Comments

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

California

Immunizing the Eminent Domain Distraction

63 Comments

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.

Jerry Brown

Results!

9 Comments

I told you I’d be back bright and early! Well, all in all, a pretty good night.  So, let’s get to some results:

  • Yes, Arnold won.  But the only thing he proved is that the Democratic vision for this state is alive and well.  By co-opting our platform, Arnold showed that the Republican vision for this state is just not one that we are prepared to deal with.

  • CA-11: Jerry won!  Ding-dong the environmental witch is dead. Congratulations, this was really a victory for the netroots, a victory for ethics, and a victory for the environment.

  • Arnold’s coattails were non-existent, well, unless you can add Poizner’s $15million of his own money to those tails. The GOP took only the two statewide races, Gov and InsComm, and they were resoundigly defeated elsewhere.

    • CA-LtG: McClintock’s name ID wasn’t sufficient to propel him over the top and John Garamendi will be our next lite gov.  I know this position is essentially powerless, but would you really want McClintock to have gubenatorial powers when Arnold leaves the state?  Or to give him any further platform? Me neither.

    • CA-SoS: Woohoo! Debra Bowen won!!! Finally, somebody will address the issues of electoral integrity from the SoS office. Bowen will be a phenomenal SoS.  You’ve done a good job, California.

    • CA-Controller: All that money that Intuit and the Indian gaming interests dumped into IEs for Strickland were completely unsuccessful.  Chiang won this one going away.  Again, he’ll do a great job.

    • The less competitive races: As expected Jerry Brown defeated Pooch and Lockyer defeated the repo’d man. Both were far better than their scary competition.

    • CA-InsComm: Well, Poizner was right, we cruzed, we losed.  Next time, we’ll get some better candidates.  However, in the interim, Poizner is now primed to run for governor, the position he wanted anyway.  It’s time to start branding him the way we want.

  • DiFi won.  Oh look, we have our “independent” senator back. We missed our shot to push her back to the left by running a primary challenger, but I think we learned a lesson from CA-36, where Marcy Winograd forced Jane Harman to pay attention to her consitituents. Perhaps that’s a lesson that some other Congress people should pay attention to

  • Right now it looks like Lynn Daucher(R) won by 13 votes in SD-34.  Yes, thirteen. Currently the tally stands at 38,666 for Correa and 38,679 for Daucher.  There will be a recount for sure and a thorough counting of all ballots and a check for provisionals.  There was a lot of dirtiness in the OC’s elections, so this one is far from over.

  • Props: Well paint me stupid.  I thought that some of the bonds would go down, but it looks like they all came through easily.  Hmm, well, I was wrong. It happens sometimes when you go out on a limb, but Arnold and the DemGang went all out in the last two weeks and that seems to have worked.  However, Props 85 and 90 were both defeated.  Yay! Maybe they will stop trying to put that stupid parental notification on the ballot again and again.  But I doubt it. This time it was beaten more soundly receiving only 45.9%,as compared to 47.2 last year. 

    We barely squeaked by on Prop 90.  Whew!! That was way too close for comfort at 47.4% Yes. We’ll need to address paid signature gathering soon.  I’m really sick of the Howie Rich’s of the world coming here and trying to mess with our system.

    Props 86-89 all failed.  The forces against them, Big Tobacco, Big Oil, the monied special interests and well I don’t know about 88, but they just got wiped out by the TV ads.  They obfusicate the issue and hope people will just vote no.  It worked this time.  Next time we’re going to work just as hard.  Particularly, Clean Money and the Alternative Energy/Oil Tax were good ideas. You haven’t heard the last of them.

    • Ok, I’ll be back soon; I need to take a nap.

    Uncategorized

    Prop 90 Videos from Oregon

    A few weeks ago I wrote about a poll that showed that Oregonians would really like to be rid of their Prop 90-type measure, Measure 37.  Last week, the No on 90 folks released a series of videos of people in Oregon who are now dealing with the ramifications.  These videos detail stories of people who are trying to fight developers, and losing due to the effects of Measure 37.

    Here’s the link to the first, where you will find links to the other 4 videos.

    Here’s the first:

    Arnold Schwarzenegger, Blog Roundup

    Odds and Ends 11/4

    This will be a short one. I know it’s a busy weekend. Go out and rustle up some votes!
    Teasers: Field Poll on the infratstructure bonds, Arnold using another corporate slush fund, Prop 90 divisiveness, and more!

  • The Field Poll(PDF) on the Infrastructure Bonds was released.  It seems the media blitz in support, without a corresponding blitz in opposition, is having an effect.  All 5 bonds are favored now. However, while I still stick to my statement that the Field Poll is the best in the state, I’m still not convinced that all of these are going to pass.
    • 1B (Transportation): 56 Yes, 28 No, 16 Undecided
    • 1C (Housing): 51 Yes, 30 No, 19 Undecided
    • 1D (Schools): 56 Yes, 29 No, 15 Undecided
    • 1E (Disaster Preparedness): 53 Yes, 27 No, 20 Undecided
    • 84 (Water/Parks):  51 Yes, 31 No, 18 Undecided
  • Tony Strickland doesn’t pay his taxes on time.  It seems that the GOP candidate for Controller, you know the guy responsible for auditing state government and cutting checks for the state, can’t seem to manage his own bills. Whoops!
  • Schwarzenegger wants an Iraq withdrawal deadline.  Why you wanna cut and run Arnold?
  • Beyond Chron notes that The Bayview Redevelopment Plan is causing some typically progressive votes to shift in favor of Prop 90 and is dividing San Francisco Progressives.  That is a shame, because that is exactly what Howie Rich wants.  The New York libretarian seeks to divide the vote by sneaking in dangerous restrictions on land-use regulation with a prop that is ostensibly about eminent domain.
  • Arnold is planning a trade mission to Mexico.  It’s Paid for by a corporate slush fund.  Great, not only is he assuming his victory, he’s also assuming nobody will care that he’s whoring out for special interests.  $113million says we are right Governator.
  • CalSTRS will stop making investments in companies that give big bucks to statewide candidates.  Seems like a good idea to me.
  • Justice O’Connor says that our Judiciary is under attack.  She’s right, it’s from the Right.  It’s why we need to push from the Left.  No on William McGuiness.
    • Arnold Schwarzenegger, Blog Roundup

    Odds and Ends

    3 Comments

    The Clock is ticking, there’s tons of stuff going on, and I’m sick. Yuck.  But what can you do?  So, teasers: POLLS  on the props, Clinton across California, Charlie Brown stands up to Doolittle, Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken lots of special interest money, and The OC GOP is F’d, seriously, f’d up.

    And more…see the extended.

  • Debra Bowen has some new radio ads
  • The Clinton campaign chronicles
    • The SF Chronicle notes that Bill’s support is incredibly valuable to the Prop 87 campaign.
    • SNTP has pics of Bill Clinton’s GOTV rally in Stockton.
    • The Stockton Record said over 1,000 people waited in the rain to see the Big Dog.
  • BlackBoxVoting has uncovered a way to vote multiple times. Oh yeah, these machines are in use in California, and McPherson doesn’t think the voting machines are a problem. Sure, Bruce, sure.
  • Arnold has now raised over $113 million.   Wow, for somebody who can’t be bought, the special interests have sure put a big down payment on purchasing Arnold.
  • Field Poll (PDF)   released their data on Props 85, 86, 87, and 90: 3.5% MoE
    • Prop 85 is slightly ahead, but within the MoE: 46% Yes, 43% No,  11% undecided
    • Prop 86 is tied: 45% Yes, 45% No, 10% Undecided
    • Prop 87 is slightly behind: 40% Yes, 44% No, 16% Undecided
    • Prop 90 is slightly behind: 35% Yes, 42% No, 23% undecided.
    • Hopefully some of those undecideds on 90 will be swayed by Arnold’s rejection of Prop 90.
  • Also, the new Datamar poll (PDF) is out.  Again, take this one with a BIG grain of salt. Heck, they insist repeatedly that the DiFi race is closer than the governor’s race.  Sorry, but something is wrong with your LV model. Seriously wrong
    • Gov: Arnold leads Phil 53-36
    • Senator: DiFi leads Dick “Pray for Me” Mountjoy 53-38
    • Bonds:
      • 1A (I know not a bond, but a bad budgeting amendment) leads 57-27
      • 1B(Transportation) and 1E (Disaster Preparedness) are comfortably ahead, 1C (Housing) and 1D (Schools) are struggling.
    • Other Props:
      • 83 (Jessica’s Law), 84(Parks and Water Bonds) comfortably ahead, 88 (Parcel tax), 89 (Clean Money) are behind
      • 85 (Parental Notification), 86 (Health Care), 87 (Alternative energy) are too close to call
      • Prop 90 has a small lead, down a lot form Datamar’s last poll. (46 Yes – 41 No)  Still folks, this one is still too close.  However, this is likely before Arnold’s rejection of Prop 90.
  • The Clean Money Election Folks are having a bus tour around the state.  This is a real opportunity, no matter what the crazy Datamar poll says. Clean Money will increase the strength of people-powered politicians.  In the new system, rich people won’t have more power than anybody else.  Clean money works (see Arizona and Maine). Schedule here.
  • CA-04: Brown said that the war was wrong in 2004 , and somehow that’s attack on the troops? Direct quote from a Doolittle commercial: “When troops are under fire, there is no difference between supporting the troops and supporting their mission.” Really, so people at home should never question our leaders when they go to war?  Sure, Doolittle sends his proxy to do that.  You see, Doolittle can’t really attack a 26-year veteran, as he didn’t serve at all.  The notion that Brown is somehow unpatriotic for questioning our leaders is preposterous.  Real patriotism is using our democracy to find the best policy.  We need to protect our troops from leaders like Cheney and Doolittle who avoided service yet criticize others who have served.
  • The Hoover poll (via CA Majority Report) shows all Dems ahead, except Phil and Cruz.  However, there are some super scary numbers in there about the props. 90 appears to be far ahead, but the question on these polls becomes really important, and I’m not convinced of any of these numbers.  I really don’t think anybody has an idea of where the props are.
  • How very GOP of Mike Carona: He’s demoting his primary challenger, Bill Hunt, for criticizing him during the election and talking to the media.  Oh, and Carona also demoted two other deputies that supported Hunt. So, that’s not protected speech how?
  • The OC GOP doesn’t like Arabs…or Cynthia McKinney. (LAT)