| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Two Propositions in California To Wipe Out A Slew Of Government Abuses |
| 2008-05-22 |
| (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 |
| #9 Teh sad thing is that had the US Surpeme court done the right thing in the Kelo cade, we'd not have to worry about making laws ourselves to counter bad judges and lazy/crooked legislators. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-05-22 22:04 |
| #8 One of their medical grads is one of my best friends and colleagues. And I know a half-dozen of their vet school faculty well, since I collaborate with them from time to time. Just so you know. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-05-22 19:29 |
| #7 Sorry UG and to all the UC Davis School of Vet Med students/alumni, didn't mean to disparage the sections of the campuses' curriculum that actually matter (and I've met a couple of their Medical grads who seem to have their heads screwed on straight, too). |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2008-05-22 16:53 |
| #6 It is the legislature foisting their responsibility onto the people so they don't have to be held responsible for their vote. Agreed, crosspatch. But in California the legislature is beholden to developers and other special interests. You can't trust them any further than you can spit. I wouldn't trust the Sacramento Bee either. I don't live in Sacramento and never look at the paper but I would bet good money that a significant portion of their revenue comes from developers advertising massive new housing tracts. The only way we ever get good laws in this state is with ballot propositions like Prop. 98 and then half the time the courts overrule them just like the recent ruling in favor of gay marriage. I read Prop. 98 and it seemed reasonable to me because I've heard the horror stories about crooked politicians using eminent domain for the benefit of their Yeah, and there will be a lot of whining about rent control and affordable housing. Sorry, if you can't afford it work harder, get a better job or go somewhere else. But the argument about affordable housing has never been anything but a red herring anyway. They've been building as much as they can as fast as they can for as long as I can remember and that's a long, long time. But you still see average homes priced at half a million bucks. It's all a lie and newspapers like the Sacramento Bee are all too happy to perpetuate it. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2008-05-22 16:27 |
| #5 It prevents "rent control"? Then it must be doing SOMETHING right. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-05-22 16:05 |
| #4 Actually M.Richard, UCDavis has a very fine School of Veterinary Science.... though I wouldn't believe anything from the school if didn't relate to animal husbandry. |
| Posted by: Ulomoger Gonque6663 2008-05-22 15:48 |
| #3 "Voters should reject both of these initiatives." I generally tend to vote "no" on ALL ballot initiatives. It is the legislature foisting their responsibility onto the people so they don't have to be held responsible for their vote. We are a republic, we should ACT like one. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-05-22 15:40 |
| #2 both Props are badly written, flawed laws, and their ad campaigns are lie-filled panders. That said, it should be very hard for eminent domain to be used for "redevelopment" without strict oversight and a public vote. Too many instances where the politicos are taking homes and businesses to make way for wealthy friends' projects. "Blight" is usually required, and that is hard to define... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-05-22 14:18 |
| #1 "As the UC Davis research showed, this is a nonissue" And since it comes from UC Davis, it's also "Non-Research" in the truest sense of what scientific research is supposed to be. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2008-05-22 14:17 |