The O.C. Register has revealed that the backers of the bogus eminent domain measure, Prop. 99, just might be using public funds to pay for their campaign.
Apparently Congressman John Campbell found out that the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the California Redevelopment Association may be using public funds for partisan campaigns and of concealing the identity of donors to their political action committees, which are funding Prop. 99. Kudos to Campbell for catching these anti property rights culprits in the act! Campbell also has a new blog where he writes about waste at the federal level.
Here are a few excerpts from the Register’s article:
Two initiatives on the June ballot promise to make the next election a confusing one.
Both measures claim to offer genuine “eminent domain” reform, but while one broadly forbids government from taking any private property and giving it to another private interest, the other only stops the seizure of owner-occupied homes.
In fact, the second measure, known as the Homeowners Protection Act or Proposition 99, is backed by groups who actually opposed eminent domain reforms in 2006. Yet, those same groups now portray themselves as the only true voice of reform.
Who would bankroll such a campaign?
Well, maybe you.
You see, supporters of the broadly written measure, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, or Proposition 98, believe the backers of Prop. 99 have devised a complex scheme to launder taxpayer dollars to use for political purposes.
“The evidence strongly suggests that public dollars are being used inappropriately,” said a statement from Orange County Congressman John Campbell, who co-authored a complaint to the California Fair Political Practices Commission.
Campbell, R-Irvine, as well as Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Trevor Grimm, attorney for the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, finger some of the biggest and most influential public agency associations in their January complaint.
In it, they accuse the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the California Redevelopment Association of using public funds for partisan campaigns and of concealing the identity of donors to their political action committees.
Vote No on Prop. 99 – and Yes on Prop. 98!
Art.
Thank you for posting this story. While I received a copy of the Register report I will argue the Ballot Measure on the differences between Prop 98 and bogus Prop 99.
We have been following the opposition money since they opposed us in our Prop 90 effort. Therefore I am not surprised. They are worried as evidenced by their challenge to our new Measure. Their challenge was rejected by the Honorable Timothy Frawley of the Superior Court of California.
The primary purpose of our measure is eminent domain reform. Period!The judge agreed with us and he’s correct in that ruling.
Larry Gilbert OC Chairman Prop 98
Actually Art, it should be NO on 98 and NO on 99, both are bogus in their own way. Why can’t they just put an initiative that basically copies what Curt Pringle did in Anaheim with Measure N. A simple fix is all we need that states government cannot take private property and give it to another entity for private uses. How the hell is that so hard.
Proposition 98 contains a provision, added by haters of the poor, that would ban rent control in California. What the hell does that have to do with Eminnent Domain. Howard Jarvis folks just decided to add something else to further their agenda, not truly protect property rights.
Proposition 99 is just as bogus, if not worse. It leaves loopholes all over the place for abusive Councilmembers to go around. In June I am voting NO on both and will continue voting NO until they get this initiative right.
Claudio, Claudio, Claudio
“Haters of the poor”? Have you read our Initiative? Stop spreading reports that the sky is falling.
Perhaps you should re-read section six. As long as one of the tenants living in a rent controlled unit or space, where it remains their principle place of residence, will not be affected by Prop 98. Perhaps you can show Juice readers where they will be hurt.
Vote YES on 98 and NO on 99.
Larry Gilbert