Look at the facts on eminent domain reform
www.Desert Dispatch.com
Guest Commentary, by TIMOTHY SANDEFUR
“It’s sad commentary that a deeply dishonest ballot initiative could be written by a group of special interests hoping to fool voters — and who then turn around and accuse their opponents of doing just that. But that’s what’s happening with Propositions 98 and 99, and it’s understandable that citizens hoping to reform eminent domain might be confused. Here are the facts.”
Following are a few paragraphs from Tim’s guest viewpoint. You can read the entire article at the following link.
http://www.desertdispatch.com/opinion/reform_3428___article.html/domain_eminent.html
“Proposition 98, written by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — for decades the state’s leading defender of homeowners — would stop government from abusing eminent domain and taking homes, businesses, apartments, farms, churches, and other property and giving it to private developers for their own use.
Government groups and developers, frightened that Prop. 98 might pass, wrote their own initiative, Prop. 99, to prevent serious eminent domain reform from becoming law. That initiative would do absolutely nothing to protect private property owners in California. The initiative specifically excludes small businesses — by far the most common victim of eminent domain — from any protection. It also excludes farms, churches, and apartment buildings.
Worse yet, the fine print in Prop. 99 would reverse even the protections for homeowners. That’s because the initiative’s definitions section states that it will not apply if land is taken away to provide for “recreation” or “entertainment” or for “private uses incidental to” such things. In other words, if bureaucrats decide to take your home to build a shopping mall, they only need to include a community center, or a branch of the public library, or a police station somewhere in that mall, and Prop. 99’s protections would be rendered void.
Moreover, Prop. 99 would not apply to projects intended to prevent the “repeated criminal activity.” Many developers already argue that their private projects will improve the local economy and thereby reduce crime — a flimsy argument when you look at the statistics, but enough to get past Proposition 99’s empty promises.
Prop. 98’s critics charge that it would eliminate rent control and thus hurt tenants. This is curious, given that only Prop. 98 would protect renters from eminent domain. But it’s also deeply misleading.
First, rent control is already illegal in most California cities, under laws passed a decade ago. The reason for this is that rent control is a bad idea; it hurts the poor, drives up the cost of housing, and violates private property rights. If laws make it illegal to charge what something is worth, businesses will provide less of it. Rent control creates housing shortages by deterring investors from putting places up for rent. They also lead to bad maintenance because landlords don’t find it worthwhile to maintain property that they are forced to operate at a discount.
Still, Prop. 98 would not touch rent control for any person currently living in rent controlled property. It would phase out rent control only when people move, but it does not allow landlords to evict people for paying low rents, or to raise rents for people living on their land. The idea that Prop. 98 would throw people out on the street is a lie spread by Prop. 99’s backers to fool people into voting against eminent domain reform.”
Tim recommends that you vote yes on Proposition 98 and no on Prop. 99.
Larry Gilbert comment. Don’t be conned by the AARP TV ad on evictions that is simply not true. Read your ballot book before casting your vote. That is what I learned from following Ronald Reagan. “Trust, but verify.”
Larry –
Are you sure you’re a Republican because you sound an awful lot like a Libertarian. Perhaps a change in party is in your future?
Your entire position is built on the unsound premise that landlords won’t maliciously invent reasons to remove tenants in order to clear their units for higher paying customers.
Sure, Prop 98 doesn’t evict anyone, but it certainly opens the door a whole lot wider for malicious landlord activity.
Oh yeah, and have I mentioned condos and gentification lately?
SMS
Sarah.
Having several Libertarian friends I find that we may have more in common lately than those with an “R” before or after their name.
Touche. 😛
SMS
for true eminent domain reform, the best “yes” is prop. 98.
the pro 99-ers do not have any viable arguments against prop 98, so they needed to create a lie to try and fool the voters.
when we all vote yes on 98, and no on 99 – the government will no longer be allowed to use eminent domaint by taking your private property and giving it to private developers for its own use.
Funny that what he says applies more to Prop 98 than Prop 99. To everybody who actually has read Prop. 98, this is such a cheap, misleading article. It amazes me that the Prop. 98 proponents are so desperate that they prostitute themselves in this way. I am sorry, but that’s the only way I can describe the linked article. Really desperate, shameless prostitution.
Everybody who reads the actual propositions knows that Prop. 98 is the one that is really misleading.
Next time, may I suggest actually being truthful for a change?
I believe that the primary beneficiary of rent control statewide is the mobile home owner who rents his space. Without rent control they were being evicted en masse in order to have newer mobile homes move in and thereby increase the property value. Commercial real estate is valued by its income.
oops hit the send key.
Mobile Home Parks factor in the valuation of its structures.
Prop 98 removes this protection which has nothing to do with eminent domain. Its a separate subject so why is it even in this bill. Its that this attack on rent control, albiet incrementally, is included in a proposition about something else that is so fundamentally dishonest, so pure meanspirited, that I could no more vote for Prop 98 than I could vote to prevent healthcare for children.
Shame on all of you. I hope Prop 99 takes away all your precious protections and teaches you to bring straightforward motions for a vote. We’re tired of voting for one thing and getiing something else. You made your bed, lie in it.
Joe.
Perhaps you can share your credentials with the other Juice readers rather than simply joining the bandwagon of supporters of Prop 99 without citing any specifics. As you appear to be a self professed expert on property rights and the ballot measures perhaps you can show us exactly what page and paragraph backs up your allegations.
Is that asking too much of you? We await your legal opinion and text. Thanks for joining in the discussion. We might just find something we overlooked. After all we takegreat pains to be completely “truthful” in our blog posts.
“NO” is a powerful word. It may be the first word learned by children.
So if you are unsure of Prop 98 or 99 and school bonds. Just vote “NO”.
Cook –
That’s all well and good but I think both sides do agree that after the Kelo debacle, eminent domain reform needs to addressed immediately. I still think we should take the better initiative now and address it’s weaknesses in the very near future. That superior initiative is of course Prop 99.
SMS
Larry,
Since you asked, I am trained as a scientist. As such, I always question so-called authority.
In particular, if this so-called authority writes blatant untruths.
It is obvious that you guys are desperate. Only somebody who is desperate would twist the facts in the way you guys do.
Level-headed people (don’t even need a science training for that) can see that from a mile away.
Larry,
One more thing:
Your Appeal to Authority strategy doesn’t work in politics, anyway.
Your “authority” has a vested interest, and therefore, isn’t an authority. If you would find somebody who is for expanding the use of eminent domain and still praises your proposition, THEN you would have a point.
But I guess you can’t find such a person, because Prop. 98 is deceptive. No amount of presenting fake authorities changes that.
Joe.
There are times when we can support the use of eminent domain. In fact, feel free to contact council members Richard Dixon or Peter Herzog in Lake Forest to verify that I commended their city for carefully engaging in their police powers when they widened El Toro Road as part of a major redevelopment project. That was a valid application of their eminent domain powers. In the process they did have to remove two service stations to widen the road and hopefully, the owners were satisfied with the “just” compensation that followed.
The problem,that we tried yet failed to fix in the legislature (with SB 1206 where I was one of the supporters)relates to the definition of “blight” which is the trigger point of any redevelopment activity. The “metrics” which I supported were gutted out of the final Bill signed into law by our governor in 2006.
There was/is a major difference in the city of Newark, NJ where I grew up to the award winning (and safest) city in America, Mission Viejo,CA where I now live. Which of those two cities is blighted?
They BOTH are.
And I recently drove under that famous bridge in New York City that you can buy. That’s the problem. As a scientist than perhaps you can relate to the need for “qualitative and quantitative” criteria so that we can all agree on what is “blight.” Categories such as poverty rates, decline in population, abandoned buildings, a pre-determined crime rate, building vacancy factor, back taxes, etc. as benchmarked against a state average.
If SB 1206 had passed as originally drafted, we might have been able to curtail some of the egregious abuses.
Larry,
I think I mentioned before that I have no problem with limiting eminent domain.
I do, however, have a big problem with people trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
Prop. 98 is only on the sides about eminent domain, as anybody reading it can easily see.
No amount of BS’ing with paid “analyses” can change that.
And no number of red herrings like the ones you presented in your last post can change the plain and simple fact that Prop. 98 is deceptive.
Bottom line: Be honest, and you may actually win on the merits. Be deceptive, and you deserve to lose and you most likely will lose.
Joe.
Deception. A one word critique of the AARP ad
Larry,
The AARP doesn’t post here, I think.
So, how about staying on topic and not trying yet another red herring?
I see that you are out of arguments. Thanks for confirming my critique of Prop. 98. I am obviously right on target, since all you can answer is with a red herring. How pathetic.
So, the real point again:
Deception. A one-word critique of Prop. 98.