Election results for Prop 98/Prop 99 Orange County

 I flipped prior return data in the original post.  Prop 98 FAILED in Orange County, by a vote of 50.6 % NO, 49.4 % YES.

It also failed to carry statewide.
The following data, for those who follow this “stuff,” is part of the OC Registrar of Voters final tallies.

In this [June 3rd] election there were 1.5 million registered voters in Orange County. Of that total one quarter million cast votes representing a turnout of around 17 %. This may not be the lowest voter participation of record but for all those who were MIA they have no one but themselves to blame if the results were not of their desires.

 As 172,000 votes were by mail, 70 % of the votes cast were by absentee voters. I had predicted that it would be over 50% but never anticipated it to be that many.

As my fellow blogger Art Pedroza did a post on one of the three events I attended last night I will add my comments of the participants to his prior post.

For those who took the time to vote I thank you.

 Prop 99 passed in Orange County receiving 55.7 % YES, 44.3 % NO  of the votes cast.

As someone reminded me yesterday morning. Howard Jarvis (and Paul Gann) did not get over the top with Prop 13 on their first attempt. I believe it took six or seven attempts before it became law in CA. While we lost yesterday, the fight to protect private property is far from over. When you have part time city council members, who are not land use experts or attorneys, functioning as both city council members (making $500 per month) and they switch hats to function as the local Redevelopment Agency, they generally do not fully understand the issues of eminent domain, property rights and redevelopment. They simply are not equipped to address this complex issue. As such they rely on the League of Cities, their lobbyists, or city management based on far reaching opinions of what exactly is “blight.” 

We will continue to fight for the “metrics” which were initially part of SB 1206 for standardization so that the definition of blight in CA is consistent. The “metrics” that I lobbied for [in SB 1206] were removed in that we could not count enough noses to advance that Legislation down the long road to approval. In my Oct 2005 testimony before a joint meeting with members of our Senate and Assembly in San Diego, I referenced PPIC’s book written by Michael Dardia entitled “subsidizing redevelopment in California.” In his book Michael suggests the need for “quantitative criteria” such as “poverty rate of at least 20 percent of the population, 20 percent population loss in recent years, x percent of the buildings or assessed value abandoned, y percent of property taxes in arrears, or the crime rate z times state average. If the redevelopment subsidies are to be targeted, blight must be judged more on an absolute than on a relative basis. It is not enough that a project area be worse than the rest of the city. In a poor city, the average area may be sufficiently blighted to warrant assistance; in an affluent city, its worst area might still not qualify.” He follows by stating that “asking the legislature to compile a list of cities that qualify for tax increment revenue is a very tall task.”

Like life itself, working to fix a broken system is not a quick fix, its a journey. Sadly the only time that people recognize the cancer of eminent domain abuse is when it knocks on your front door.


About Larry Gilbert