|
Two Propositions in California To Wipe Out A Slew Of Government Abuses
(Whiny liberal editorial against both)It's back. Yet another initiative Proposition 98 is on the ballot masquerading as "eminent domain" reform and trying to scare people with the prospect that their homes might be "taken" by the government. Yet Proposition 98 is really about a sweeping agenda to lard up the California Constitution to end forever the ability of local governments to enact rent control or affordable housing ordinances, to set rules that set liquor store hours or to require developers to pay fees to build schools. In Sacramento, for example, the city's Mixed-Income Housing Ordinance would go if Prop. 98 passes. Whether to set requirements for affordable housing is something city residents and officials should be able to decide. It is not something that should be banned by the state constitution. The worst part of Proposition 98 is a vague line prohibiting any regulation that would "transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner." What? Any regulation that has a broad public purpose such as limiting the number of liquor licenses might incidentally benefit some private individuals over others. All these could be wiped out. This initiative also would ban government from using eminent domain for "consumption of natural resources." Be ready to say goodbye to future water storage facilities and energy projects if Proposition 98 passes. Voters should reject Proposition 98 as they rejected a similarly sweeping initiative in 2006. Proposition 98 advocates are trying to capitalize on public sentiment against the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London. But California is not Connecticut. Here eminent domain for redevelopment can be used only to remove blight, and that power is rarely used. Here's the evidence. After the Kelo decision, the federal Government Accountability Office studied the use of eminent domain. For that study the California Redevelopment Association commissioned researchers from the University of California, Davis to survey all 386 of the active redevelopment agencies in California. The researchers looked at property acquisitions from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2004. The findings: Out of 12.7 million land parcels on the tax rolls in California, these agencies reported that they acquired 2,798 parcels during the five-year period. Of those, 78 were acquired through eminent domain. The rest were negotiated purchases. The researchers found that only three single-family, owner-occupied homes were taken through eminent domain. And two of those were due to clouded title problems in which a court needed to decide who rightfully owned the property. Since that time, California has tightened the laws to increase state oversight and make it easier for people to challenge redevelopment decisions. In an attempt to head off the fear-mongering generated by Proposition 98 advocates, others have put a Proposition 99 on the ballot. It would "prohibit government agencies from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home to transfer it to another private owner or developer." As the UC Davis research showed, this is a nonissue. For the rare abuses, legislators can pass a law. There's no need to add Proposition 99 to California's constitution. Voters should reject both of these initiatives. Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-05-22 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=239688 |