The new Datamar poll(PDF) came out today.  Now, my traditional Datamar caveat: I think it’s full of crap.  It continues to show Mountjoy only trailing Feinstein by 11 points at 50-39, Field gives her a 57-29 lead. And Datamar has Arnold with a lead slightly less than twenty points.  The day that a Democratic gubenatorial candidate gets about a third of the vote will be a cold, cold day in hell. (Or, well, a bizarre three way race or something like that.)

Datamar has some serious issues on its statewide polling.  Here’s my hypothesis:Datamar has a terrible likely voter screen that works really, really well for San Diego County, and probably the OC.  It works really poorly once you get out of those GOP enclaves. For this poll, their breakdown along party lines was 39% Dem, 41% Rep, 10% DTS, and 9% other.  My word, that’s some ridiculous breakdowns.  More Republicans than Democrats? Sorry, I call BS on that one. Here’s a more reasonable breakdown for this state from PPIC’s September statewide survey: 43 D, 35 R, 20 DTS, 2 Other.  I’m sorry, but you have to question the validity of a poll that has more Reps in California than Dems.  Additionally, where are these 9% others that Datamar has? Are they loading up on American Independent Party or something? 

But, Datamar polled all of the propositions as well.  It has most of them failing, except for a couple of the bonds, Jessica’s Law, and well, Prop 90. (That’s probably not totally right, you should double check the PDF if you’re interested in a particular prop).  According to Datamar, Prop 90 is ahead 56-30.  That’s a huge lead.  Now, the No on 90 Campaign has been largely ignored by the media, and can frequently be mistaken for a good idea.  An idea that just limits how we do eminent domain.  It’s not…check out this guest editorial against Prop 90. I’ll boil it down, instead of Prop 90 being a way to stop developers from taking your land, it’s a way to let developers do whatever they damn well please.

Now, the question that was asked was this:

Proposition 90 is the Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property Initiative . It will prohibit state and local governments from condemning private property for other private uses. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 90?

The ballot description is this:

Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects or uses. Limits government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and 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.

So, how exactly is Datamar’s question represnetative of what the voters will be reading when they see this question?  The answer is, of course, that it isn’t.  As far as I’m concerned the Datamar poll is about as reliable as a poll in San Francisco is for the entire state.  Now, don’t get me wrong, I think Angelides is substantially behind, and I don’t completely reject the theory that Prop 90 is ahead out of hand.  I think it’s very reasonable to take as a working hypothesis that 90 is ahead.  It’s probably good to motivate all the forces that are opposed to this terrible initiative.  One can only hope that the media will be spilling more ink opining against this worm of an initiative.  As far as I’m concerned, the defeat of 90 is up there with the election of Debra Bowen as SoS in terms of importance to our democracy.

However, you can’t ask this type of question and expect to get any type of reasonable answer.

So, needless to say, this poll will not make it into my Poll HQ now or in the future.  Upon the next edit to the poll HQ, I will remove all references to Datamar polls.  They are fatally flawed.

This comes from a friend of a friend.  He is an attorney who has far more knowledge of this area of law than I have. As of right now, I’m not sure what attribution I can give him, so I present it anonymously.

Decades ago, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., warned that “government hardly could go on” if the public had to pay compensation for every change in the law that “diminished” the value of private property. Unfortunately, government paralysis is what California may get if Proposition 90 passes this fall.

While Proposition 90’s proponents sell it as a simple measure to prevent governments from abusing the power of eminent domain (also known as condemnation), in reality it could stymie public plans to reduce pollution, protect neighborhoods, preserve open space and guarantee coastal access. Buried deep in the measure’s text (in subdivision (b)(8) of the proposed amendment) is a radical change to the California Constitution.

Proposition 90 would newly provide that governments “damage” private property, and have to pay compensation, whenever their rules and regulations “result in substantial economic loss” to the property owners. Constitutional law already recognizes that a regulation can require compensation if it “goes too far,” in Justice Holmes’s words. Currently, though, compensation is typically required only if the regulation makes the property economically valueless or defeats the owner’s vested development rights. Proposition 90 would go much further, making the public pay even if a regulated property retains most of its value and even if the owner’s hopes for more lucrative development were purely speculative.

Continued over the flip…

We’ve seen how Dick Cheney’s neoconservatives used September 11 as cover for their long~planned invasion of Iraq. With comparable cynicism about the public’s perspicacity, conservatives in the “property rights” movement have seized on the Supreme Court’s highly unpopular decision in Kelo v. New London (holding that eminent domain could be used for redevelopment projects that transfer the property to new private owners) to advance a cherished agenda of making governments pay for every decrease in the market value of private property.

In Oregon, where a similar measure passed in 2004, counties have reportedly been forced to approve large, unplanned developments on farm and forest land, and industrial operations in residential areas, because they cannot afford to pay the landowners the large gains that could be made with unrestricted development. Property owners have already filed at least 3 billion dollars worth of claims against Oregon governments. Proposition 90, which grandfathers in existing government regulations, probably would not be as bad as the Oregon law, but it would be bad enough To see how Proposition 90 might work, consider these examples:

• A coastal community passes an ordinance requiring beachfront property owners, when their buildings cut off existing public access, to provide an easement for public passage to the beach. Owners could claim a “substantial” decrease in value because of the easement.
• Seeing that a groundwater basin is becoming dangerously overdrawn, the local water authority puts a moratorium on new wells until a way can be found to recharge the aquifer. The agency has substantially reduced the value of developable land in the basin, and will have to pay up or revoke the moratorium.
• A county decides to finally take action against the suburban sprawl that is choking its traffic arteries, polluting its air and overrunning its remaining green areas. It amends the county general plan to draw an urban growth boundary, beyond which new urban developments ordinarily won’t be approved. Though the county has not yet actually denied a development permit to anyone, any landowner who might have proposed a development could claim his or her property had lost some of its value, creating an “economic loss” for which the public would have to pay.
• As large downtown office buildings start to encroach on an adjacent historic district, the city places a height limit on new buildings in the area. A speculator holding property in the historic district sues because she cannot make quite the huge profit for which she had hoped.

Air and water pollution laws, also, could fall to Proposition 90. Under the landmark global warming law the Legislature just passed, the Air Resources Board is required to issue new regulations on emission of greenhouse gases. Will California taxpayers have to pay every power plant operator and factory owner compensation for the billions of dollars in profit they could have made by polluting the air?

Reasonable people can disagree about whether California needs additional protection against eminent domain abuse. But Proposition 90 is not the simple reform measure it purports to be. It is a Trojan horse designed to give developers the power to veto planning rules and raid your local government treasury. Let’s keep the gates closed on this one.

Two anti-eminent domain leaders, Mayor Charles Antos of Seal Beach and Mayor Don Webb of Newport Beach, have spoke out against Prop 90. 

Antos – like many city officials – believes that if the statewide Proposition 90 passes in November, it will spell the end of local control over land-use issues. So he helped rush through the ban in hopes of dodging a lesser-known element of Prop. 90, which is primarily touted for protecting property owners from cities abusing the use of eminent domain to take land.
“It would be a nightmare for the cities,” Antos says of passage of the initiative.
{snip}
But Prop. 90’s effort to extend property rights beyond the issue of eminent domain has attracted opposition from unexpected quarters – beyond council members like Antos and Webb.
The California Taxpayers’ Association, which typically tries to restrict government’s reach, opposes Prop. 90. Even the Republican leader of the state Senate, Irvine’s Dick Ackerman, opposes it.
“I think you can put my property-rights record up against anyone’s, but this goes too far,” said Ackerman. “Sometimes down zoning can be abused, but sometimes it’s needed.”(OC Register 10/9/06)

Republicans are bailing faster than rats from the Titanic.  Why? Oh didn’t you read the article?  It’s just bad policy.  As Ackerman said, sometimes we need downzoning.  To give up control of our land-use policy is just a bad idea.

When Tom McClintock was trying to get his eminent domain initiative qualified for the ballot, he had quite a bit of problems.  You see, nobody really cared enough about the issue to give any money to support a signature drive.  And certainly nobody cared about this enough to volunteer time to get signatures.  From Tom’s mouth:

“They were able to raise the money to qualify their initiative. I was not,” says McClintock, who has endorsed Proposition 90. “I learned during the  car-tax initiative that if you don’t have the money lined up before the  signature gathering, you shouldn’t start.” (CapWeekly 7/13/06)

So you see, nobody was really willing to pile in the money for an eminent domain initiative.  And McClintock’s eminent domain init didn’t even carry all the baggage that Prop 90 carries.  You see, Howie Rich goes for the gusto.  When he plops down his millions, he makes sure that we really put it to the government.  A little water-boarding for the Capitol and all.

But that’s not all the shady back-room dealings on Prop 90.  You see, not all that money that Howard Rich is donating to the cause of Prop 90 is his own money.  He funnels money through a vast array of shady tax havens, 527s and other organizations.

The man at the center of this national effort is Howie Rich, a wealthy libertarian who believes in limited government and has long used tax-exempt groups to promote his favored candidates and political beliefs — property rights, term limits, tax cuts and school vouchers, among others.

The practice of using tax-exempt groups to fund campaigns has been criticized by some political-finance experts as opaque and deceptive. Unlike other political organizations, advocacy groups don’t have to disclose their donors.

In interviews and e-mails to The Chronicle, Rich said the groups help protect people who think like him, people who want to cut government powers but fear retribution if their names are published in public campaign-finance disclosure reports.(SF Chronicle 10/05/06)

Retribution? Um, yeah, Howie Rich is really terrified of retribution.  What they are terrified about is people discovering just who is paying to manipulate our governance.  The fact is that this proposition is funded almost exclusively by people who don’t live in the state.  The people of California do not want this taxpayer trap, but these “libretarians” insist on foisting this wretched proposition upon us.

No way, not here.  We’ve seen what’s happened elsewhere.  This is a bad, bad law.

The California Courage Campaign has launched our fall campaign to oppose the Bush agenda on the ballot in California this November in the form of several propositions.

Our Stop Bush in CA page is an excellent resource for information regarding the initiatives on which we’re taking stands:

No on 85

Yes on 86

Yes on 87

Yes on 89

No on 90.

We’ve also just launched a letter to the editor writing campaign to get the word out in the media that Proposition 90 is unacceptable and needs to be opposed. Please join the effort by going HERE and using our user-friendly webtools, complete with talking points, to send an LTE today.

I’m also going to be keeping tabs on all the proposition news in my weekly (or perhaps more frequent, as needed) “Prop Watch.”

Join me for all the latest proposition news over the flip.

Proposition 85

The OC Register has an article reminding us that this year’s Prop 85 is essentially a re-write of last year’s parental notification bill, Prop 73. The bills are nearly identical except for some strategic changes that have been made to the wording of this year’s model:

Proponents have adjusted the wording of the measure in an effort to weaken some arguments against it. One change is removing the definition of a fetus as "a child conceived but not yet born." Opponents last year pointed to that as an indication of the philosophy and ultimate intent of the backers…

Another change is stating explicitly that a parent can sign a standing waiver for their daughter, which would allow her to get an abortion any time without special notification. This is designed to defuse the argument of the parent who says, "I just want my daughter to be safe if she's going to have an abortion, I don't care if I know," said Albin Rhomberg of "Yes on 85."

Proponents are confident that even if the original wording remained intact, 85 would pass this year. They attribute the 53-47% defeat of 73 to the "vote No on everything" anti-Arnold wave of the 2005 special election.

While The L.A. Times acknowledges the changes to the newer bill, it says Prop 85 "still contains the same troubling provisions" and "remains part of a broader campaign to chisel away at a woman’s right to privacy."

More over the flip.

They lay out the case against Prop 85 in a recent OpEd:

By requiring doctors to notify a girl’s parents (or seek court permission) before she can end her pregnancy, Proposition 85 interferes with the doctor-patient relationship. The measure would almost invariably delay abortions, and because teens are more likely to find out later rather than sooner that they are pregnant, it could lead to more later-term procedures, which are riskier and more complicated.

For girls who are afraid to report molestation by a family member, the proposition would create an almost insurmountable obstacle. Similar laws in other states have not appreciably changed teen pregnancy or abortion rates.

Let’s make sure Prop 85 doesn’t pass. VOTE NO ON 85

Proposition 89

In their ongoing quest to make the case for clean money, The Yes on 89 folks have compiled a list of the special interest money that has flowed into California from out of state in the last 5 years. Remarkably, Middlesex County, New Jersey is responsible for more donations to California campaigns ($10.2 million) than Kern County, California is ($7.5 million.) Why?

Middlesex County is the home of Johnson & Johnson and other pharmaceutical companies involved in last fall's high-priced ballot battle over discounts for prescription drugs.

Big Pharma isn’t the only special interest investing in California campaigns. This year, add big tobacco to the list.

Since the June election, there have been at least nine new contributions of more than $5 million, led by a $13.8 million donation from Philip Morris and $10 million from R.J. Reynolds, of out-of-state tobacco companies that have each put up more than $20 million to fight Prop. 86, which would boost the state tax on cigarettes by $2.60 a pack.

That fact alone makes you want to support Prop 86, doesn’t it? We are. Learn more at Yes on 86.

Meanwhile, a new poll shows that while Californians are critical of the role of big money in our elections, Prop 89 has not yet made its case with voters.

A poll released today by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that 61 percent of likely voters are convinced the current system that allows politicians to collect millions of dollars in special interest campaign contributions is hurting the state, while only 6 percent think it's good for California.

But when asked whether they backed Prop. 89, which is designed to take almost all private money out of California campaigns, only 25 percent of those surveyed said yes, compared with 61 percent who said they would vote against the initiative. 

Proposition 90

The City Council of Pasadena has joined the California League of Cities in formally opposing Proposition 90, the so-called “Protect Our Homes Act.” You almost have to admire how perfectly Rovian its title is considering what a far cry it is from describing what the measure would actually do.

While acknowledging some reform is necessary, opponents said a provision requiring the government to pay property owners for substantial economic loss resulting from regulations on use of private property would end up costing taxpayers billions in lawsuits. "This goes way, way too far," said Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the No on 90 campaign. "Now, when a developer wants to build 50 houses and the city tells him he can only build 25 – he can sue for compensation for the others."

While Prop 90 would

prohibit local governments from using eminent domain to acquire private property unless the government itself plans on using it.

The Pasadena City Council took issue with the fact that 90

would prevent cities from acquiring blighted areas, eliminating slum lords, building affordable housing and providing public facilities by private for-profit agencies.

In other words it would prevent the government from doing what’s best for its citizens. 

Help us fight Prop 90 by writing a letter to the editor today. 

(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.

Editor’s Note: This diary was originally written by “caprogressive.”  It is astroturf with no substantive arguments than the “they’re going to take your homes” fear mongering.  Unless Prop 90 opponents choose to address the problems with the “damage” provisions, they will not be speaking with our microphone.  Prop 90, like Prop 13 before it, would devastate the governance of California. It would slow environmental protections and virtually outlaw zoning restrictions. Whether or not you agree with the sentiment that E.D. needs to be reigned in, Prop 90 is a bad proposition. -SFBrianCL

With heated elections from the top to the bottom of the ballot this year candidates at all levels are talking about education, health care, and tax reform yet the one issue that is noticeably absent from most serious policy discussions is that of eminent domain and the rights of private property owners.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines Eminent Domain as, “The right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner.”  This right has been expanded to a virtually unlimited level in the United State Supreme Courts Kelo v. City of New London ruling.

In fact, according to John Kramer of the Castle Coalition “Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain case last summer, city officials have new power to file condemnation actions against churches to make way for private commercial development.”

This poses a mortal threat to minorities across the country and especially along California’s seacoast. Carol Harvey writes in the San Francisco Bay View that “Progressive San Franciscans from the Castro to the Tenderloin and from the Height to South of Market are shocked and awed by the Redevelopment Agency’s recent threats and announced attempts to “eminent domain” and “market rate” African Americans, peoples of color and other homeowners out of Bayview Hunters Point for profit.”

In a different story Ms. Harvey writes, “Corporate interests would exile moderate to low income citizens and progressive who don’t cast conservative votes, replacing them with whiter, wealthier taxpayers who vote for money-generating initiatives. Cutting out ethnic diversity, they would excise San Francisco’s human heart. Into the soulless cavity, they would graft the planet’s largest artificial money-generating pump.”

In essence, she argues, it boils down to “predatory gentrification.”

The use of eminent domain to redevelop supposedly “blighted” pieces of property poses a significant threat to every homeowner in the Golden State. Some on the left claim that the government should have unlimited, or virtually unlimited power to claim some ones property or that eminent domain reform efforts are only a conservative ploy to weaken environmental restrictions these are arguments put forth by surrogates and political operatives from the states largest developers who are looking to confuse voters and confuse progressive about what is at stake.

Of all the issues in California this year none are as important as this.

(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.