I am pleased to report that the fiscal conservative California Club for Growth newsletter includes several positions that I support. For background on this organization let me begin by quoting from their newsletter. “The primary goal of the California Club for Growth are to:
Advocate a fiscally responsible course of action in government spending
Push for economic policies that encourage rather than discourage economic growth
Promote lower taxation on individuals and businesses in California
This issue contains the following text:
“Measure M, County of Orange
Vote No on Measure M
Transit-tax extension offers too little bang for our bucks. Vote No!”
Another ballot measure included in this edition is Proposition 90.
“Protect Private Property Rights!
Private property rights are fundamental to a healthy society. The stupendously rapacious KELO decision allowing the government to seize private property so another private person can profit demands relief. California Club for Growth proudly supports the reforms of Proposition 90.”
As we enter the last week before the election let me urge you to be part of the process and, if you haven’t already voted, please cast your votes in this year’s important general election. I will gladly “assist you” if you are unsure of the Ballot Measures or candidates but that might create a conflict of interest and we would not wish for that to happen. Would we?
Larry
Larry:
That’s known as a slate mailer.
Jeff
Can anyone clarify for me…is Larry for or against Measure M?
I don’t think he’s mentioned anything on it.
With all due respect Alex. Have you been out of state for the past six months?
Or perhaps you have not read the Sample Ballot that, in addition to the 300 word ballot arguments and the 250 word rebuttals from each side, contains 33 pages of OCTA “spin” promoting the virtues of the proposed extension.
I wonder if this “book” will be available in hard copy. If so, as one of the co-authors in opposition to the proposed extension of Measure M, I could use the royalty money to cover some of my expenses for carrying on this fight to defeat a flawed proposal.
Alex Miller My quick answer. Larry Gilbert opposes the proposed extension of Measure M and am encouraging every Orange County voter to send it back with a message. “You shall not devote twenty percent of our tax money for a system that moves less than one half of one percent of the commuters.” It’s flawed. If you don’t see that than perhaps it’s time for a new eye exam.
Larry
OMG, so the Club for Growth is now trying to force Prop 90 down our throats…
Well, this is yet another reason why I need to urge my family, friends, and neighbors to VOTE NO ON 90!
This initiative would screw up our environmental laws, mess up our land use laws, and open the door to a tremendous wave of frivolous lawsuits.
This initiative is being bankrolled by NEW YORK radical right-winger Howard Rich, and could cause major damage to California law.
Now check out what NON-PARTISAN analysts William Hamm and Bret Dickey have to say about the high cost of Prop 90:
First, they write, the measure would require state and local governments to compensate property owners for laws or regulations — other than those affecting health or safety — that could diminish property values. Efforts to safeguard the environment, protect workers and consumers, or control inappropriate development, they say, could lead to substantial payouts.
Second, they write, the initiative would “significantly increase the amount that government and state-regulated, investor-owned utilities are required to pay owners when their property is acquired through eminent domain for public uses such as roads, schools, hospitals, airports, utility transmission lines, and power plants.” In some cases, they argue, landowners could even get more than the fair market value of their property.
http://www.takingsinitiatives.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=115&Itemid=45
No wonder why groups from ALL ENDS of the political spectrum, such as the California Chamber of Commerce AND the California Sierra Club, oppose Prop 90, THE TAXPAYER TRAP.
Andrew Davey.
You have now been successfully programmed.Congratulations! “Taxpayer trap–taxpayer trap.” Come pick up your degree for blindly following the leader. Simon says jump and you answer how high? Can you learn a new tune?
Have you truly done your homework on our property rights and the Proposition or do you simply march in a small parade of people shouting the sky wil fall if Prop 90 passes. Thank you for quoting these alleged “experts” who themselves may have an Agenda that you appear to be ignoring. Have you contacted either of them yourself to challenge their arguments?
My sense is that you probably run with the same crowd who made that same argument for Prop 13 and now enjoy the benefits of it’s passage.
We cannot wait any longer for our Legislature to protect our property from being taken away and given to another private individual
in hopes of generating additional revenues. That is why one million fellow California registered voters signed the Petitions to place this on the ballot.
Larry
I voted No on Proposition 90.
Yes on Measure M.
I have some bad news for you.
I voted no on Measure M which trumps your YES vote.
See you at the GOP party on Tuesday.
Larry