[Editor’s Note: Thanks to Larry Gilbert for providing OJ its four-thousandth post! SMS]
In my prior report I published an independent Analysis of the California Ballot Measure Prop 99 that appears on the June 3rd statewide ballot. As posted previously I offer the following quote describing the source of these two legal opinions.
“The Institute for Justice has become a major pillar of our free society.
In area after area—economic liberty, school choice, private property rights—it has provided legal defense against assaults on human freedom.
In the process, it has strengthened and deepened liberty.”
—Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman
“Analysis of Proposition 98” April 10, 2008
Proposition 98, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (“Prop 98”), will stop eminent domain abuse–the forcible acquisition of property by local governments for private development. This constitutional amendment will appear on the June 2008 ballot.
Prop 98 very simply states: “Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use,” an explicit prohibition on the use of eminent domain to take property from home and small business owners to build luxury condominiums and big box stores. This unambiguous protection is necessary because California is one of the biggest abusers of eminent domain in the country. Indeed, over the years, the Institute for Justice has found more than 1,000 abuses of the government’s power of eminent domain in California; these abuses would be blocked under the language proposed in Prop 98. IJ is currently fighting one such abuse in National City which has authorized using eminent domain to bulldoze a community athletic center for high-end housing under a bogus blight declaration.
While Prop 98 would stop governments and redevelopment agencies from taking property for private uses, traditional uses of eminent domain for public use would not be affected. Roads and bridges will be built. Water projects such as drainage ditches, sewers, reservoirs, dams and drinking water and irrigation have long been accepted as public uses and that will not change under Prop 98. And eminent domain can still be used to build schools, post offices, sewers and electric lines.
In addition to barring eminent domain for private uses and allowing it for public uses, Prop 98 includes compensation and procedural reforms. Though it does have a provision regarding contracts between a private landowner and a lessee, Prop 98 does not incorporate the broad-based regulatory takings language contained in Prop 90, which was narrowly defeated in 2006.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s now infamous case in Kelo v. City of New London, permitting the government to take property from one private individual and transfer it to another for the purpose of economic development, has rightly heightened eminent domain abuse in California, which disproportionately affects minorities, poorer communities and the less educated. Prop 98 restores constitutional protections against eminent domain abuse and would ensure all homes and small businesses, churches and farms remain in the hands of those that own them.
The Institute for Justice is a non-profit, public interest law firm that seeks to protect All Americans from the abuse of eminent domain. IJ litigated the Kelo case before the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Gilbert comment. Regardless of your opinion on these two ballot measures, I urge every reader to vote in this CA primary election. in addition to these two ballot measure each major party has competitive statewide races as well as judicial candidates on the same ballot.
Larry, your shuck and jive on this one continues. An independent analysis, when your previous post describes the organization as a Libertarian public interest entity? Sounds to me like their take on things is through Libertarian eyes and advocacy, and in my book that makes them far from independent. I would put them with the ACLU in lacking independence. Call them what they are, advocating a Libertarian philosophy (less government and less government control and regulation), not independent. Drop the word independent from your list of key words on this one. Also wondering if you are a paid consultant or staffer on this yes on 98 campaign.
Been there–done that.
Not knowing how long you have been reading the Juice blog let me say that I am the Orange County Chairman for Prop 98. In most of my earlier posts I made it very transparent of my voluntary, non-compensated, role with the property rights protection fight. As such some define what I am doing is that of an unpaid lobbyist.
Gee Wiz, Been there, done that, ever read a little document called the Constitution?
It’s supposed to be a LIMITED Govt. not the flagrant violators of liberty it’s become.
Like spending public funds, (citizens wages stolen under the power and authority of the state) to transfer it to selected individuals, (like developers) so they can add value to it, then sell it on the open market at profit.
I have no problem with developers or profit. I have problems with the political graft that nearly always goes along with redevelopment projects. The abuse of the public trust for profit. That I have huge issues with.
Thanks, Larry. Just exercising my right to trust but verify. Even thouh I am on the other side of 98 from you, I have to respect a dedicated volunteer. I would think 98 has the best chance of passing in a low turnout election, which is what I understand is predicted. However, I still think it and 99 will both be defeated. We shall soon know.