Late yesterday the Secretary of State’s office provided the Title and Summary along with deadlines of Initiative #1248 whose title reads: GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
This is the initiative that Californians United for Redevelopment Education (CURE) are supporting. The title that was submitted to the Attorney Generals office had read “California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act.”
The co-sponsors of this Initiative are the Californian Farm Bureau Federation, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Californian Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. The proponents being Doug Mosebar, Jon Coupal and Jim Nielsen.
From the Sec of State Web site:
Summary date 6/25/07 Circulation Deadline 11/26/07 Signatures Required 694,354
“Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property for private uses. Prohibits rent control and similar measures. Prohibits deference to government in property rights cases. Defines “just compensation.” Requires an award of attorneys fees and costs if a property owner obtains a judgement for more than the amount offered by the government. Requires government to offer to original owner of condemned property the right to repurchase property at condemned price when property is put to substantially different use than was publicly stated. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased costs to many governments due to the measure’s restrictions. The fiscal effect on most governments probably would not be significant. (Initiative 07-0015.)
Note: As a speaker at the Laguna Woods Village Expo 2007 last night I had the opportunity to discuss eminent domain and the pending reform measures. Although these were all senior citizens, like myself, they were very concerned about this issue and, without being asked, several offered to assist our group in gathering signatures for the above referenced initiative. Stay tuned.
Larry Gilbert, Orange County Co-Director, CURE
Larry,
It only takes one “Poison
Pill” to kill the elephant..
and we are afraid that the
following line does just
that: “Prohibits rent control and similar measures.” You just lost
Santa Monica and most of
Los Angeles, Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties..
perhaps even Ventura County.
This line doesn’t need to
be in the pending legislation….does it?
Larry how does this legislation apply to the situation in Garden Grove where the City Council designated a parking lot as “Blighted” in order to give the property to a developer who will place condominiums on said parking lot at the loss of the downtown business district’s cutomer parking?
This lot was purchased by business owners for the pupropse of providing parking for customers of downtown main street businesses.
The lot was later placed under the pervue of a parking and main street commssion when the city incorporated in 1956.
However, this in my opinion is equivelent to a private to private transfer of property through the use of eminenet domain without just coompensation to the district, and or the business owners on main street.
Your thoughts please
ALERT! ANOTHER INITIATIVE HIJACKING!!!!
Ron and Anna are right on. The poison pill is the Trojan Horse that is going to drag this down to defeat. Rent control is just something Coupal and the Jarvis apartment owner crowd want and they’ve hijacked the anti-Kelo eminent domain effort to have their way. This is no different from the last effort where people with different agendas hijacked the anti-Kelo eminent domain reform effort and led us down to defeat. And Larry you’ve bought right into it.
The big developers and city planning departments are breaking out the champagne. Advocates of true eminent domain reform have once again seen big money types snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Voters should spank both of these measures and vote no. Demand true and pure eminent domain reform…not a cover for some special interest group’s agenda.
Anonymous 10:57 a.m.
I will gladly try to address your concerns on this issue. However, not to wing it, can you provide more specific details from which we hopefully will post a proper response.
Our city has a Policy in terms of parking spaces required based on the size of the store or business and the number of employees. Did the merchants own and later sell the parking lot to the city? And, if so, are the merchants protected should the use be changed which might remove those mandated parking places?
If this lot is a privately owned location and the city wants to engage in an “eminent domain” taking for a private developer I think that said action would not be permitted by Initiative #1248.
If this “taking” was for a public “use” such as widening of a road or building a fire station or police HQ than that’s another issue.
Removing all or part of a parking lot would impact all of the businesses in that area as your patrons might feel frustrated in wasting time looking for a parking spot and shop elsewhere.
You state that the pakring lot is under the control of a commission.
When did this lot become a city owned location? From day one?
Again. If you can provide names, dates and places, be it on line or to my email address if you prefer an off-line answer, I will provide a more exact reply. If this is a “public to private” transaction you need to argue the financial impact. That email is lgpwr@aol.com
Bladerunner. I just noticed your comment in the pending file and did not censor it’s publication. Note: My above post actually preceeded your comments.
The arguments that each side will raise between now and the June 2008 election are all fair game.
And to Ron. I have placed calls into the proponents in that I have my own interpretation of this Initiative’s original intent but wish to hear their direct response.
However, most southern CA property owners purchased their homes at values much below today’s market. Regardless of timing we are able to sell, lease, exchange or rent said properties without government setting the price. If I own rental property and the government places a cap on what rent I am permitted to charge it will impact any improvements I might consider for that property, or better yet, discourage me from owning it in the first place. In effect removing an affordable lodging location for those who elect not to own or are unable to purchase due to the high costs in this area of the country.
Private property owners might elect to invest in the market if they are restrained by rent controls. If you purchase a rental property in this growing marketplace should your hands be tied to some fixed rent whereas the prior owner had less invested in the property acquistion cost?
Rent control would also depress the selling price of the property
You don’t want to be encumbered on a sale. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that we live in a risk/reward society. No matter haow you slice it rent control clearly is a form of taking.
The text of page 2 reads as follows:
(1) “Taken” includes transferring the ownership, occupancy, or use of property from a private owner to a public agency or to any person or entity other than a public agency, or limiting the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property.”
Again. I am awaiting calls from the proponents and will respond at that time.
Looks like this ship has sunk.
Larry—I’ve said I am not a fan of rent control, but to me its a local issue. i wouldn’t vote for it but if people in Santa Monica or Barstow want it, let them do it.
Or if you don’t want to allow local cities the right to carve their own path, write an initiative that just bans rent control. Why hasn’t Coupal and Company done that? Because it would lose big time. And now its going to drag eminent domain reform down with it.
Don’t pollute the anti-Kelo eminent domain initiative with this stuff. Your talk of takings is the same rationalization used by the people who authored the last initiative that flamed out.
Jarvis Group paying the freight–Jarvis Group gets to pick the freight. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Larry,
Bladerunner is right on..arguing
the “Pro & Philosophical Cons” of
Rent Control are local issues.
Rent Control will never fly in
Orange County…but in the rest
of the world…where older and
growing older renters cannot afford
to buy property….they have no
choices. If you want to Redevelop
the Fairfax District of Los Angeles
…good luck! Meanwhile, we thought you were talking about a
Statewide Protection from Private
Taking with Eminent Domain? We
didn’t hear you say….that we
need to support the abolishment
of Rent Control in the State first!
Ron and Bladerunner.
Have you read the entire text of the Initiative or are your comments based solely on six words from the Attorney General’s Summary?
This proposal supports ALL property owners. That protection extends to include any church, temple, business, apartment buildings, farms or investment property.
Do you have a problem with that?
Look at ACA-8 which is limited in scope, or the League of Cities version with similar limitations.
Let me point out the clever wording and limitations of ACA-8.
“The measure would prohibit the state and local governments from acquiring by eminent domain an owner-occupied residence, or real property on which a small business is operated for the purpose of conveying that property to a private person, except as specified.”
They interpret a small business as less than 25 employees when California state law’s number is 100. Do you find any protection for churches or farms in their phoney Kelo.
I like the wiggle room in the closing words “as specified.” Better check out the fine print of this Constitutional Amendment with an attorney.
“Acquiring,” a much softer word than a “taking.” And how about owner-occupied which would eliminate leased property from protection. And take note of the wiggle room keeping the door open for comprehensive plans to eliminate “blight,” a term which is still very vague.
Without typing all five pages of the Initiative let me provide the STATEMENT OF PURPOSE which anyone can read, along with the entire document at the Sec of State or Attorney General’s web sites.
(a) State and local governments may use eminent domain to take private property only for public uses, such as roads, parks and public facilities.
(b) State and local governments may not use their power to take or damage property for the benefit of any private person or entity.
(c) State and local governments may not take private property by eminent domain to put it to the same use as that made by the private owner.
(d) When state or local governments use eminent domain to take or damage private property for public uses, the owner shall receive just compensation for what has been taken or damaged.
(e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact the “California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act.”
I urge all readers to read the entire text before taking pot shots at this proposal.
And, should you think you can offer a better alternative, feel free to submit that proposal and be prepared to obtain roughly 900,000 signatures to get it on a ballot. Oh. And that’s just phase one. You also need to promote it and get more votes than any other proposal for it to be the winner.
As stated earlier.Although I did not assist in the drafting of this document I have placed calls to the proponents and if I receive a reply before going on vacation, it will be posted.
Larry,
You are talking to the choir….and
you are the one that is supposed to sell this to he “proletariat”. Our problem is simple. “Rent Control”..has nothing to do with
all the lovely provisions of this
quite nice proposal to protect the
people of California. The main
problem is: “Adding a drivers
license proposal for illegals” as
an addendum. We doubt you would
endorse that idea much. Remove
the “Rent Control” provision or
even mention and take your winnings
and go home. You will get 80%
or more approval rating. With the
“Renta Controlla” added…we lose
by 5% points and cry the blues to
who? If you endorse this measure
100 percent..including the Rent
Control methods proposed….stand
up and say so! You won’t get any
more votes…but you will have the
ethical and moral high ground!
Ron. As stated earlier. I did not particpate in creating the provisions of this Initiative.
My point goes back to the last 12 words of the Fifth Amendment.
It’s funny, but in my youth I only recall the words which read: no person ” shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…” How many gangster movies did we hear that protection against self incrimination being quoted.
The final 12 words apparanently need to be stated again.
“nor shall PRIVATE PROPERTY be taken for PUBLIC USE without just compensation.”
That’s what initiative #1248 is all about.
The founding fathers did not limit this text solely to owner occupied residences. Nor did they exclude churches, temples, farmland, apartment houses, investment prperties or businesses.
The words were carefully selected. Private property is private property. How much clearer can you spell it out.
As we are leaving on Wed. I will try to provide proponent comments to these posts before we depart.
It might be of value if responders indicate if they in fact are California property owners.
Blogger #2.
While I do not have a specific reply for you as yet I did find an old story in the OC Register that you might wish to read dated Friday Aug 25, 2006.
“Parking plans shift to housing.”
“Placential considers creating low income units instead of a structure for cars.”
The story reads in part: “If it goes through, Sante Fe merchants will have to wait a little longer to get additional parking they’ve sought since a city-owned lot was sold to make way for a 54 unit condominium complex.
Many merchants say they fight for spaces with other area businesses. About 30 spaces were lost when the lot was sold; “
Larry— I am a California property owner. Give me a link and I’ll read the intiative. But the AG and Secretary of State both say it would prohibit rent control statewide. Are you denying this and if not, why are you telling us to read the initiative when the rent control provision is our big gripe?
Why do you keep mentioning the League of Cities initiative in response to my post and that of the Winship’s? I think we all realize that is a swiss cheeze eminent domain reform…so full of holes it won’t help much.
But the issue which you keep dodging is the rent control provision. When you started posting on this I warned you that Coupal’s/HJTA’s involvement meant they were going to try and sneak an anti-rent control measure in an eminent domain reform measure. You keep dodging this. I’m not saying you wrote this in. I’m saying this is a poison pill like the one Prop. 90 had. If these guys want to kill rent control have the intellectual honesty to put up just that on a ballot measure. They know it wouldn’t pass and now they are going to drag this one down with it.
I don’t have the money to fund my own initiative but the Winships are right—-just put a pure anti-Kelo ballot measure up and it will get 80% approval. I’m not going to suport something that gets loaded up with special interest goodies by groups who are paying the money…its intellectually dishonest. I won’t support the phony League of Cities fiasco but I’ll wait until someone gets it right.
To Bladerunner,Cook, Ron and any other concerned reader. Please read SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE of Initiative #1248 with respect to rent control.
“The provisions of this act shall become effective on the day following the election (“effective date”); except that any statute, charter provision, ordinance, or regulation by a public agency enacted prior to January 1, 2007, that limits the price a rental property owner may charge a tenant to occupy a residetial rental unit (“unit”) or mobile home (“space”) may remain in effect as to such unit or space after the effective date for so long as, but only so long as, at least one of the tenants of such unit or space as of the effective date (“qualified tenant”) continues to live in such unit or space as of the effective date (“qualified tenant”) continues to live in such unit or space as his or her principal place of residence. At such time as a unit or space no longer is used by any qualified tenant as his or her principal place of residence because, as to such unit or space, he or she has: (a) voluntarily vacated; (b) assigned, sublet, sold or transferred his or her tenancy rights either voluntarily or by court order; (c) abondoned; (d) died; or he or she has (e) been evicted pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4) or(5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 798.56 of the Civil Code as in effect on January 1, 2007; then, and in such event, the provisions of this Act shall be effective immediately as to such unit or space.”
Now the non-legal English version.
“While this measure will limit government’s ability to mandate the amount a property owner can charge to sell or lease his property, it will not affect any rent limit on existing tenants unless and until they choose to vacate their unit or space. Nothing in this measure prevents government from providing other options for affordable housing.”
Until our CA legislature can approve bullet proof property rights protection, including stronger “blight” language than was included in SB 1206, property owners must take matters into their own hands. That’s what is behind #1248, GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Larry—It’s a clever attempt to mask the negative fallout but it still prevents rent control—just some places a little longer then others. Will generate a huge turnout of urban apartment dwellers who will vote this down.
It’s of no small measure of importance that the legislative measures that somewhat mirror this initiative(SCA 1 by Mclintock and ACA 2 by Walters) do NOT include the poison pill rent control feature. Even a recent fundraising letter from Coupal for HJTA—sent to true hard core conservatives–doesnt mention that if these bills fail an initiative would be circulated that would include killing rent control. The problem is that nothing gets under the radar screen on this subject.
I hope that the Democratic leadership comes to its senses and tries to work out a compromise with Mcliontock and Walters. Otherwise its will be millions for campaign tribute, not one cent for eminent domain defense.
Bladerunner.
Many months ago I contacted Assemblywoman Mimi Walters staff for an update on her ACA-2 Constitutional Amendment. Let me also report that I supported Senator McClintock’s effort last year that did not pass due to typical party line posturing. Sadly there are those in Sacramneto who did not wish to give property rights owners a victory in that Tom’s name would be associated with it. That’s Sacramento politics 101.
SCA-1 now includes Orange County Senator Lou Correa along with Senator Tom McClintock as co-sponsors. Sadly this proposal has been collecting dust in the Judiciairy Committee for the past five months.
Over the past 10 years I have actively supported several Bills and Constitutional Amendments in my personal efforts to see our laws tightened up. At times you need to fight a war on more than one front. Most recently I was actively involved in SB 1206 and SB 1650 and tried to promote SCA 15.
As of now no one can guarantee which effort, if any, will bear fruit. I am confident that we will get voters in CA to support this long overdue property rights safety net.