O.C. Register editorial writer Steven Greenhut has weighed in on Props. 98 and 99. His argument is very compelling. Here are a few excerpts from his editorial:
Well, the eminent-domain issue is on the ballot again, June 3, and leading GOP officials, including the governor, are AWOL, even though many individual GOP legislators have done the right thing. The advertisements for the two competing propositions – Prop. 98 and Prop. 99 – are confusing, which is no surprise these days. (To digress a bit, I recall a time when hit pieces were at least tangentially related to the truth. These days, advocates for initiatives basically say their measure will cure cancer, and their opponents’ measure will legalize sex with farm animals.)
The choice between the two is shockingly clear for anyone who actually believes in private property, freedom, limited government, constitutional principles, etc. Prop. 98, authored by the undeniably pro-taxpayer/pro-property-rights Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, would stop the abuses that this columnist has written so frequently about: government taking homes, churches, businesses and giving them to Costco, auto malls, condo developers. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision upheld the “right” of cities to do this, but the court in its only fit of wisdom encouraged states and localities to impose new rules that would limit government takings powers.
Prop. 98 would stop governments from taking property and transferring it to another private party. It would not affect traditional eminent-domain uses for public use. If government took property for one use and then decided to use it for something else, the proposition would force the government to sell the property back to its original owner. Prop. 98 does not include restrictions on regulatory takings.
In a bone-headed tactical move, the Jarvis folks included a provision phasing out rent control. That’s a sound principle. Why should government tell me what I can charge my tenant? But while this move increased the amount of money raised from apartment owners, it also provided an enormous Achilles heel. Remember, this would not allow landlords to raise rents on current rent-controlled tenants, but would simply allow them to increase rent to market rates after a unit is vacated and it would forbid new rent controls. Then again, opponents of 98 are adamantly opposed to any real eminent-domain reform, so they will find or manufacture a reason for opposition. And, by the way, they use sleazy methods to fund their tactics – including the alleged comingling of taxpayer dollars in political accounts.
These opponents, such as the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Assn., were clever. They didn’t want to simply oppose a reform measure. So they came up with their own measure, Prop. 99. It pretends to stop eminent-domain abuse. Not only is it advanced by those who advocate and benefit by abuses of property rights, but it would “constitutionalize” the right of governments to take property for almost any reason.
Prop. 99 only “protects” homeowners, but even those protections are a lie.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office argues that Prop. 99 “would not change significantly current government land acquisition practices.”
It does nothing, other than stop real reform.
Unfortunately, 98 is far down in the polls, and 99 is doing well. It doesn’t surprise me that Democrats side with the bureaucrats over the people, but why are Republicans too stupid to grab onto this freedom issue and use it to build a broader base?Remember this missed opportunity when November’s election results come in.
Art.
As I was with Steve and 150 others yesterday at a conference I am a little slow in submitting a well recognized legal opinion on both Prop 98 and Prop 99. Stay tuned. Post to follow.
Larry
Art. I respectfully disagree with you that “Republicans dropped the ball.” We have a lengthy list of CA Republican Assembly and Senate elected members supporting the property rights of all property owners in our state. Losing your home or business is not a Republican only victim. Sadly Democrats in SAC have not been supportive of their own constituents. Having met more Democrats around the country who have been, or currently are pending, victims of eminent domain “takings” by city and county redevelopment schemes I would argue that the poor and minorites are the biggest targets in terms of demographics with respect to those who may lose their property. You surely won’t find examples of eminent domain activity on Rodeo Drive.
Rather than debate the rent phase out, which by the way is a valid point for all property owners, let me remind you of a prior post where we went to National City to fight to save the CYAC boxing gym where most of the kids who work out there and do their homework after school, are not in gangs and do not engage in criminal activity, are Latino’s.
A few months ago I posted of our visit to another large Latino community, namely the city of Baldwin Park, just above Interstate 10 in LA County where 200 homes and 300 small businesses have been tagged for elimination against the desires of the long time owners. You have seen some of them in the video of that meeting in our ad.
Have these Baldwin Park home owners and businesses already been given notices of elimination and, yikes! — are now awaiting the bulldozers! Or, is this just something that’s being discussed as a possibility — a project projected to take place gradually over the next 10 to 20 years?
Larry –
Sorry, but your initiative’s days seem to be numbered in the low single digits. Is there such a thing as a ‘October surprise’ in June?
SMS
Lots of misrepresentations in Greenhut’s column, as anyone following all our writing on this blog will be able to pick out. First thing that jumped out at me though is – how can he call the Governor “AWOL?” The Governor is actually fighting on the other side!
There’s an assumption in Greenhut’s editorial, echoed in Art’s title, that I take exception to, as a friend of many Republicans: that Republicans should naturally be fighting for 98.
But if 98 is understood correctly, as Mr. Adler wrote: “…its backers are so far right they think, like Grover Norquist, that our state and local government should be ‘shrunk ‘til it can be drowned in a bathtub’ and do no more than in 1789 – defend the nation, police, fight fires, build roads, and little else; and that all taxation is “theft”, taxing the rich more is ‘class warfare,’ public education is ‘communism’, etc…”
Now there may be some Republicans, and some good people, whose philosophy of government is that cramped and limited. But certainly not necessarily all Republicans feel that way. Hey “Schwarzenegger Centrist Republican,” are you out there, reading us up in Sacramento? (And no cussing!)
Too bad the reeps wigged out and did not support ACA8 which originally had dem, rep, jarvis and locc support. So what do we get a 98 that screwed itself with the rent control issue and a 99 that won’t hurt anything other than 98’s provisions. For this millions were spent on each side, what a waste!