At this morning’s meeting of the Irvine Chamber, held at their Irvine, CA office, Tony Cardenas, League of California Cities Public Affairs Regional Manager, representing Proposition 99, and myself, representing Proposition 98, made presentations on behalf of our respective initiatives that appear on the June 3rd ballot.
At the conclusion of our speeches, followed by Chamber member Q & A, the Governmental Affairs members voted to support Proposition 98 while rejecting Proposition 99.
In attendance during our presentations was Lisa Kalustian, Chief Deputy Director, Office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who discussed the governor’s proposed Budget Stabilization Act. In addition were members of the Metropolitan and Irvine Water districts.
One area that the League appears to muddy relates to water storage and conveyance infrastructure. We have several highly regarded independent assessments of the language of Proposition 98 that should squash their fears.
“The argument that Proposition 98 would impede the development of new water projects is without merit. Since the initiative would allow government to condemn land for ‘public facilities,’ the League of Cities argument relies on the assumption that water storage projects are not ‘public facilities,’ and therefore condemnations to create reservoirs would not be permitted under the CPOFPA’s language. But government owned reservoirs are obviously ‘public facilities,’ as California courts have long recognized (See. e.g., Tower Acton Holdings v Los Angeles County Waterworks Dist 37 (2002) 105 Cal. App. 4th 590,598.)
I quoted law expert Stuart Somach who states “The initiative would not preclude the use of eminent domain to acquire property for the construction of water storage or conveyance projects.”
Larry Gilbert, Orange County Chairman, Proposition 98 campaign
Still misrepresenting Prop. 98 as being about Eminent Domain?
Give it up. You won’t convince anybody who actually read the Voter Guide…
I don’t think what’s important is that the one water argument is right over the other, or if one legal analysis is right over the other. What’s important is that the water argument to stop projects is plausible in court. I looked up the actual language in 98 that people are arguing about, it is the following:
Section 19(a) states that “Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.”
Section 3(ii) defines private use as a “transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources.”
This is what the Sierra Club and other anti-development types will use to stop water projects by claiming that water is a natural resource. At a minimum, projects will be stuck in the courts for years.
Joe. To use your words. “Give it up!”
Let me repeat what I have stated. First. We did not create the title nor summary of Prop 98.
Second. Like yourself the supporters of Prop 99 tried to challenge that title in court. We won. They lost. Move on. Is that a play on words?
“The honorable Timothy Frawley of the Superior Court of California rejected a lawsuit by a coalition of politicians and developers against the State of California contending that Proposition 98’s ballot title and summary is misleading. The court ruled with the state that the ‘chief purpose’ of Prop 98 is to reform eminent domian abuse”
That said, please fee free to file your own lawsuit. Maybe you might have better luck!!!! NOT