Tag Archives: Proposition 90

October 31, 2007 Blog Roundup and Open Thread

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. I’m experiencing some ennui this evening, so it’s just a link dump. Let me know what I missed in comments, or just use this as an open thread.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

October 30, 2007 Blog Roundup and Open Thread

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed in comments, or just use this as an open thread.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Wildfire Coverage Winding
Down

Local News

Propositions

Health Care

Everything Else

Quick Thoughts on Rent Control and Property Rights Extremism

Amendment V. “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

In 1791 the United States Congress, comprised of property owners, passed the above as part of the Bill of Rights, designed to strictly limit the powers of the new federal government. Over the years this has sufficed for most as a balance between individual property rights and the need to subordinate those rights, on occasion, to the public good. Combined with the Fourteenth Amendment this provision ensures that any taking of property will be compensated fairly.

However, in the 200+ years that have elapsed, a more extreme view has emerged. To believe that the Constitution is an insufficient guarantee is to take a radical view of property rights. It assumes that not only does one have a right to own property, but to derive the maximum amount of income possible from that property no matter what method is used to attain it. That extremist view was not held by those who authored the Constitution, or by courts that have for 200 years been interpreting that Constitution, or by those who have been making law under that Constitution.

And if one has that extremist view of property rights – that private ownership of property is not or should not be subject to any controls or limits of regulations – THEN you will see eminent domain in the same category as rent control, as environmental laws, etc.

Here in California this view is promoted by, among others, the Howard Jarvis Association. And that’s why they use eminent domain as a wedge to push unpopular and unfair ideas like ending rent control – not just because they enjoy Trojan Horses (though they surely do) but also because it fits their extremist logic.

Most Americans instead believe that the public should be able to legislate the use of property, within reasonable bounds. Very few Americans have agreed with the extremist view that any regulatory act is a “taking” – as the rejection of Prop 90, I-933, and Howie Rich’s other efforts last year proved.

Now to rent control. The notion that rent control actually hurts renters, that they’re better off without rent control, is a theory that only makes sense in an Economics Department seminar room. In lived reality rent control has been proved to be the far greater aid to renters.

The argument against rent control – one that we’ve seen employed in these comments – is that it creates a disincentive to build new rental housing stock, creating a demand crisis and driving up rents. But California rent control laws have been significantly weakened since Costa-Hawkins passed in 1999. And yet rents are STILL sky-high, are STILL unaffordable, and very little new rental stock has been added in California in the last 8 years, certainly not enough to meet the demand.

It’s not just in SF where this is a problem – the Central Valley and Southern California experience this crisis too. In Seattle, where rent control is barred by state law, a massive building boom has done nothing to increase the supply. The theory has failed. The absence of rent control has done nothing to aid renters through supply and demand.

Why has the theory failed? Because it assumes rental housing markets exist outside of other real estate markets. San Francisco, for example, has had a housing crisis for nearly 70 years. With land values being so high in the urban cores, it is extremely expensive to redevelop existing blocks to hold more rental units. To recoup the cost, a developer would have to rent the units out at a rate much higher than most folks can afford. Further, in a hot housing market, developers can make much more money building condos. Worse, landlords can make more money by converting apartments to condos.

Instead of being helped by supply and demand, renters face unaffordable rent increases, as Paul Hogarth explained earlier this week. Paul Rosenberg has written today about the California Budget Project study that demonstrated the actual cost of living to Californians is far higher than the federal poverty line. Much of that comes from housing costs, hurting renters in particular.

Any of us who rent have felt this first-hand. I was hit with three $100 increases in my rent in the year before I moved down from Seattle. Here in CA I’m thankful we’ve not had any rent increases so far, but I fully expect one before long.

Renters do not have the earning power to absorb these hits. Renting is an inelastic market. It does not quickly respond to demand pressures. Those who face huge rent increases have two choices – pay or move. Because rental units are in such short supply, moving is not always an option.

And thus the need for rent control. Rent control *works* because its intended purpose is to protect renters from being bankrupted.

Further, it’s democratic. This is ultimately what I do not understand about the anti-rent control argument. Why is it wrong for voters to regulate the market in which they live? Why is democracy bad when it comes to business? Why should an abstract theory be given precedence over our sovereign rights as citizens and as voters?

Watch Our New Ad, “The Future of California” [UPDATE]

(It’s a cute little ad, with a very important message. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(Cross-posted from The California Courage Campaign)

The Courage Campaign‘s new ad, The Future of California, will be running on TV in certain California markets starting Tuesday but you can watch it on YouTube now:

The spot is a humorous play on the 2004 ad that accused liberals of being Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, chardonnay-sipping…you know the rest. Here, we have the Californians who matter most (kids) tell us what they think of George Bush's special interest agenda taking root in California.

Please view it, rate it up, and spread it around. In addition, in order to keep it on the air, we’re looking to raise an additional $20,000. Any donations to the cause are greatly appreciated.

The ad follows up on our Stop Bush in CA campaign in which we frame 5 of November's ballot initiatives in terms that can really get Californians worked up — their relation to the Bush agenda. Yes, Bush is indeed on the ballot in California this November, especially in the form of two ballot initiatives on which we urge votes of No: Prop 85 & 90.

More on these dangerous propositions over the flip…

[UPDATE]Our ad got linked over at CA Observer and Political Muscle. Let’s try to really get this thing out there! Thanks!

From our Stop Bush in CA page:

Proposition 85

If approved, Proposition 85 would require notification given to parents of a pregnant girl under the age of 18 when she seeks an abortion. Then, a 48-hour waiting period is mandated. 

The issue of parental notification has a long history in California. To chip away at a woman's right to choose, abortion opponents use the idea that good parents should know about their children having an abortion. From this, they work to legislate good parenting. 

Of course, good parents should be involved in a decision like this, but in reality, this law forces even girls who are scared of abuse to inform their parents of their pregnancy. Unfortunately, some children come from families where they just can't talk to their parents. Girls faced with the choice of an illegal, unsafe abortion or facing their abusive parents will often delay crucial medical care or perhaps even consider suicide. The real goal here isn't good parenting but rather a rollback of women's rights. 

This is why nurses, doctors, and teachers all oppose Prop 85. 

The potential for parental notification laws to endanger the lives of children, and the inability of government to impose good parenting means that you should vote NO on 85.

Proposition 90:

Municipalities have basic zoning and land-use laws on the books to protect our communities. Restrictions on big box retailers, adult book stores or huge subdivisions, for example, are intended to maintain a community's integrity. 

What Prop 90 does is allow virtually anyone – including wealthy land speculators and developers – to sue our communities if any subsequent ordinances put on the books might cause them "economic harm."  For instance, if a developer wants to build 1000 homes but your city limits growth due to traffic to 250 homes, Prop 90 allows the developer to sue your city to recover his lost potential "profits" from the 750 other homes.  If the city can't pay then the land use law will be waived. And cities can't pay these frivolous claims if they want to pay for necessities like police, firefighters, parks and roads. 

But 90 isn't just limited to development. According to the state's Legislative Analyst's Office, "these laws and rules could include requirements relating, for example, to employment conditions, apartment prices, endangered species, historical preservation and consumer financial protection."

Help us send a message this November that George Bush's regressive right wing agenda is not welcome in California. View our ad, The Future of California, and spread the word that a vote against 85 & 90 is a vote against George W. Bush. 

California Blog Roundup for August 11, 2006

Today’s California Blog Roundup is on the flip. Teasers: Phil Angelides, Arnold Schwarzenegger, CA-11, CA-04, Bill Durston, Charlie Brown, John Doolittle, Richard Pombo, Dan Lundgren, Republican corruption, Proposition 90, Proposition 89, Proposition 87, health care, global warming.

Bloggers on GovernorPhil.com

As I’m sure you know, a group of independent California bloggers (including our own sfbriancl) launched Governor Phil yesterday, to track the race and tell folks how they felt about Governor Phil (good, they feel good). Here are some bloggy reactions, in no particular order:

Governor’s Race

Jerry McNerney / Paid-For Pombo / CA-11

Charlie Brown / 15% Doolittle / CA-04

Health Care

Propositions

The Rest

California Blog Roundup for August 4, 2006

Just in time for the weekend, today’s California Blog Roundup is on the flip. Teasers: Phil Angelides, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry McNerney, Paid-For Pombo, 15% Doolittle, Dan Lungren, Republican corruption, Proposition 89, Proposition 90, minimum wage, infrastructure bonds, prisons, global warming.

Governor’s Race

Jerry McNerney / Paid-For Pombo / CA-11

Charlie Brown / 15% Doolittle / CA-04

Other Republican Paragons

Propositions

The Rest

California Blog Roundup for July 31, 2006

Today’s California Blog Roundup is on the flip. Teasers: Phil Angelides, Arnold Schwarzenegger, CA-04, CA-11, Jerry McNerney, Richard Pombo, John Doolittle, Republican corruption, Proposition 90, Proposition 89, Proposition 87, voting, prisons, health care, immigration.

Governor’s Race

Jerry McNerney / Paid-For Pombo / CA-11

15% Doolittle / CA-04

Other Republican Paragons

Propositions

The Rest

Proposition 90: Full Text

Section 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS

  (a) The California Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law and allows government to take or damage private property only for a public use and only after payment to the property owner of just compensation.
  (b) Despite these constitutional protections, state and local governments have undermined private property rights through an excessive use of eminent domain power and the regulation of private property for purposes unrelated to public health and safety.
  (c) Neither the federal nor the California courts have protected the full scope of private property rights found in the state constitution. The courts have allowed local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to advance private economic interests in the face of protests from affected homeowners and neighborhood groups. The courts have not required government to pay compensation to property owners when enacting statutes, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions, laws, rules or regulations not related to public health and safety that reduce the value of private property.
  (d) As currently structured, the judicial process in California available to property owners to pursue property rights claims is cumbersome and costly.

Section 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

  (a) The power of eminent domain available to government in California shall be limited to projects of public use. Examples of public use projects include, but are not limited to, road construction, the creation of public parks, the creation of public facilities, land-use planning, property zoning, and actions to preserve the public health and safety.
  (b) Public use projects that the government assigns, contracts or otherwise arranges for private entities to perform shall retain the power of eminent domain. Examples of public use projects that private entities perform include, but are not limited to, the construction and operation of private toll roads and privately-owned prison facilities.
  (c) Whenever government takes or damages private property for a public use, the owner of any affected property shall receive just compensation for the property taken or damaged. Just compensation shall be set at fair market value for property taken and diminution of fair market value for property damaged. Whenever a property owner and the government can not agree on fair compensation, the California courts shall provide through a jury trial a fair and timely process for the settlement of disputes.
  (d) This constitutional amendment shall apply prospectively. Its terms shall apply to any eminent domain proceeding brought by a public agency not yet subject to a final adjudication. No statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results or has resulted in a substantial loss to the value of private property shall be subject to the new provisions of Section 19 of Article 1.
  (e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact “The Protect Our Homes Act.”

Section 3. AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

  Section 19 of Article I of the state constitution is amended to read:

SEC. 19. (a)(1) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.
  (2) Property taken by eminent domain shall be owned and occupied by the condemnor, or another governmental agency utilizing the property for the stated public use by agreement with the condemnor, or may be leased to entities that are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission or any other entity that the government assigns, contracts or arranges with to perform a public use project. All property that is taken by eminent domain shall be used only for the stated public use.
  (3) If any property taken through eminent domain after the effective date of this subdivision ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner of the property or a beneficiary or an heir, if a beneficiary or heir has been designated for this purpose, shall have the right to reacquire the property for the fair market value of the property before the property may be otherwise sold or transferred. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 2 of Article XIIIA, upon reacquisition the property shall be appraised by the assessor for purposes of property taxation at its base year value, with any authorized adjustments, as had been last determined in accordance with Article XI11 A at the time the property was acquired by the condemnor.
  (4) 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.

(b) For purposes of applying this section:
  (1)  “Public use” shall have a distinct and more narrow meaning than the term “public purpose;” its limiting effect prohibits takings expected to result in transfers to non-governmental owners on economic development or tax revenue enhancement grounds, or for any other actual uses that are not public in fact, even though these uses may serve otherwise legitimate public purposes.
  (2)  Public use shall not include the direct or indirect transfer of any possessory interest in property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party unless that transfer proceeds pursuant to a government assignment, contract or arrangement with a private entity whereby the private entity performs a public use project. In all eminent domain actions, the government shall have the burden to prove public use.
  (3)  Unpublished eminent domain judicial opinions or orders shall be null and void.
  (4)  In all eminent domain actions, prior to the government’s occupancy, a property owner shall be given copies of all appraisals by the government and shall be entitled, at the property owner’s election, to a separate and distinct determination by a superior court jury, as to whether the taking is actually for a public use.
  (5)  If a public use is determined, the taken or damaged property shall be valued at its highest and best use without considering any future dedication requirements imposed by the government. If private property is taken for any proprietary governmental purpose, then 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.
  (6)  In all eminent domain actions, just compensation shall be defined as that sum of money necessary to place the property owner in the same position monetarily, without any governmental offsets, as if the property had never been taken. Just compensation shall include, but is not limited to, compounded interest and all reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred.
  (7)  In all eminent domain actions, fair market value shall be defined as the highest price the property would bring on the open market.
  (8)  Except when taken to protect public health and safety, “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.
  (9)  A property owner shall not be liable to the government for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain action.
  (10)  For all provisions contained in this section, government shall be defined as the State of California, its political subdivisions, agencies, any public or private agent acting on their behalf, and any public or private entity that has the power of eminent domain.

(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the California Public Utilities Commission from regulating public utility rates.
(d) nothing in this section shall restrict administrative powers to take or damage private property under a declared state of emergency.
(e) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of condemnation powers to abate nuisances such as blight, obscenity, pornography, hazardous substances or environmental conditions provided those condemnations are limited to abatement of specific conditions on specific parcels.

Section 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT

  This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article I1 or Article XVIII.

Section 5. SEVERABILITY

  The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that finding shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE

  This section shall become effective on the day following the election pursuant to section 10(a) of Article 11.
  The provisions of this section shall apply immediately to any eminent domain proceeding by a public agency in which there has been no final adjudication.
  Other than eminent domain powers, the provisions added to this section shall not apply to any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results in substantial economic loss to private property. Any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that is amended after the date of enactment shall continue to be exempt from the provisions added to this section provided that the amendment both serves to promote the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden the scope of application of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation being amended. The governmental entity making the amendment shall make a declaration contemporaneously with enactment of the amendment that the amendment promotes the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden its scope of application. The question of whether an amendment significantly broadens the scope of application is subject to judicial review.