Larry’s baby Proposition 98 seems to be doing so poorly in the polls, that I will go ahead in an attempt to help him a little bit, and post the latest ad that he and his cohorts created for it. (And I take back my snarky comment of Saturday, when I wrote, “…the tag line, ‘Proposition 98, THE BEST YES.’ has a sort of… Little Saigon feel to it, sort of an E. S. L. je ne sais quoi, don’t you think?” What was I thinking, how racist, how snobbish! Larry’s right, “The best Yes” has great wisdom Amen.)
So. This ad makes three points: The eminent domain reform in 98 is much more comprehensive than that in 99 (agreed); it ends “a badly flawed form of rent control that 44 other states have made illegal” (see below) and 99 isn’t really ED reform but is just a poison pill to kill 98 (agreed.) I think it’s nice that they’re finally mentioning rent control when they used to completely minimize that aspect – a testimony to the hard work of all us 98 opponents yelling and screaming about it! (But what’s this “a badly flawed form of rent control?” It ends RENT CONTROL. And sure, other states don’t have rent control, but California does and most Californians are happy with it!)
Two things Larry just refuses to answer; maybe he just doesn’t read me closely, but I thought we were supposed to be “Juice Brothers!” 🙁
1. My frequently repeated question, “If Eminent Domain is such a problem, why can’t somebody write a bill some day that is just comprehensive ED reform, without rent control or any of these other sneaky provisions stuck in (such as Adler details below?)” The fact that this question isn’t answered makes me suspect that these Jarvis people don’t really care about Eminent Domain, it’s just a red herring or fig leaf for a much vaster, more ambitious anti-regulatory agenda.
2. He hasn’t answered anything I posted the other day from his nemesis, attorney Jonathan Adler. Which I repost here in case any of you missed it. Make sure to click “read more…” And I give you the worthy Adler.
All this may be hard to believe. But it’s actually understated. It’s literally true. Not a word is a stretch. Believe it: Prop. 98 is a grave, real, threat to our entire way of life.
Prop 98 will amend our State Constitution. Prop 98 Will End … :
–Re-Development in California by public entities
–All planning and zoning laws and ordinances, state and local
–New public water quality and supply projects
–Most environmental protections, including on open space, habitat, logging, toxics, air and water qu
–Most state and local renters’ rights law, including on rent control, arbitrary eviction, etc.
ality, projects’ impacts (Coastal Act, CEQA), etc.
–Most consumer protection laws, including on product safety, unfair business practices, labeling, disclosures, anti-trust, etc.
–Most workplace and labor protections, including Cal-OSHA (safety), wage-and-hour, union organizing, plants’ security vs. attack, etc.
–And countless other laws regulating many other areas, e.g. healthcare, credit, insurance, finance, disclosures, many other state and local rules restraining business and property.
–Prop. 98 is the most extreme far-right, pro-unrestrained-business-and-property, anti-public-interest, secret full agenda initiative ever seen in Calif.
That’s why it’s vital that we all spread the word to vote NO on Prop. 98, Yes on 99
Background: Twin of 98, 2006 Prop. 90
Prop. 98 is 90’s twin in most aspects. In 2006, backers of 90 nearly fooled enough voters: It lost by just 2½%. The S.F. Chronicle, Nader’s Public Citizen group and other investigators exposed its secret main funder as an aptly named far-right NY billionaire who put anti-regulation, anti-environment, anti-tax, etc. initiatives on many state ballots, funded via a web of front groups. (See links to their reports at www.HowieRichExposed.com).
Backers of Prop. 90, like 98, 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.
Why a Yes on Prop. 99?
It helps defeat Prop. 98, because: Both are billed “eminent domain reform.” (Prop. 99 really is, and only that.) Prop. 98 loses if it either, 1) loses outright; or, 2) passes, but 99 also passes, with more votes, and thus prevails over98.
Hidden Trickery of Prop 98 – How it Works:
(Read this only if you must “get down in the weeds”)
Prop. 98 is a highly devious “bait-and-switch” fraud, billed as mere “Eminent Domain” law reform. But its real agenda is buried deep in unique definitions and use of terms like “taken”, “damaged”, “private use,” “associated property rights,” “just compensation,” and “transfer an economic benefit to … private persons at the expense of … owner.”
If its definitions are plugged into its operative parts, it says: “Regulation of the … use of … property or associated property rights … to transfer an economic benefit to private persons [is unlawful, subject to] injunction … or [court] declaration invalidating [it]” and taxpayers must pay for all lost value it causes to business or property, plus attorney fees.
Businesses “use” property and its “associated … rights.” The public and its sub-groups – consumers, workers, tenants, patients, seniors, etc. – are “private persons” who usually get some kind of “economic benefit” from regulations. The result: Prop. 98 exalts allclaimed rights to unfetteredbusiness or propertyover allpublicinterests to restrain business and property for the common good, and public health and safety. Businesses will sue to enjoin, and claim losses due to, laws and rules of all kinds – all at little risk, since, if they win (even a dime, but more likely millions, or billions for entire industries), they also win huge attorneys’ fees, all at taxpayers’ expense – thus in effect deterring countless laws and rules that restrain business and property at all.
The list of laws we’d lose is nearly endless. Prop. 98 is breathtaking in its disastrous anti-government scope. It must be defeated. And you are the key. Please help.
What is “Eminent Domain“ (‘ED’)?
(Read this only if you don’t know Prop. 98’s “bait”.)
ED goes back centuries. Governments at all levels use it as a last resort to compel sale of property, at fair market value – set by a court if need be – for such classic public uses as roads, bridges, parks, schools, public buildings, etc.
ED has also been used since the 1930’s to re-develop blighted areas, as voted by local governments, after hearings, that usually end up sold or leased to private entities.
Prop. 98’s “bait” (in its “bait-’n’-switch”) is based on fear – mostly false, fabricated by folks with a much wider anti-regulation pro-property-rights agenda – of ED forcing sale of homes for re-development that ends up privately owned. It began with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 Kelo case holding that the U.S. Constitution allowed the decades-old practice of re-developing run-down areas, waterfronts, etc. for re-vitalization and a bigger tax base, even if it required ED to buy homes not truly “blighted”.
California law already bars ED to force sale of homes to re-develop non-blighted areas. Orange Co. Measure “A” passed in 2006 bars ED for any re-development that ends up sold to private persons or companies. Few if any owner-occupied homes in non-blighted areas are actually taken by ED any more for re-development in Calif.
Prop. 99 will bar use of ED statewide to force sale of only owner-occupied homes for re-development that ends up privately owned. Prop. 98 goes all the way to apply such a bar also to all non-owner-occupied residential, as well as all business and commercial property, churches, farmland, and even totally undeveloped property – all private property.
Greatest pianist/composer in Orange County, and official political troubadour of Anaheim and most other OC towns. Regularly makes solo performances, sometimes with his savage-jazz band The Vern Nelson Problem. Reach at vernpnelson@gmail.com, or 714-235-VERN.
Proposition 98 ultimately invalidates itself and is an attempt by landlords to have the government bail them out of bad purchases during the real estate bubble:
Vern, Vern, Vern.
Having traveled all over southern California these past few months perhaps I overlooked shairing this with you.
Members of our State Legislature have tried for years to deal with this problem beginning with Tom Mc Clintock to the most recent efforts by [D] De La Torre. Unlike the Juice family those elected officials in Sacramento cannot agree on too many issues. We would have preferred that the Legislature fix the obvious flaws in current property rights protection for all owners of private property and avoid all of the time, effort and cost of the Initiative process. While you support Prop 99 there are many of us who oppose that measure which is funded in great part by all of us that live in a city or county when our tax dollars are misued by the League of Cities and Counties whose hired gun lobbyists promote their self-serving agenda.
Assembly Member De La Torre’s proposed legislation AB887 did include protection for “small business” which he defined as a business with no more than 25FTE’s. The federal definition of a small business is under 500 and the state of CA defines a small business as under 100.
He also sponsored a Constitutional Amendment ACA-8. It is worth noting that on August 29, 2007 he amended that effort resulting from his being hammered for failing to protect houses of worship. The added language reads..”used exclusively by the owner for religious worship..”
Representatives of both parties could not come to terms on either of these proposals which leads us to the “grass roots” efforts being voted on as my fingers hit this keyboard.
As you know I attended an all day conference this past Saturday. Our luncheon speaker compared the US Constitution to the California Constitution. While I intend to blog some of the meeting remarks let me give you one nugget.
In the past 220 years we amended the US Constitution 27 times. The California Constitution, of which we actually created two, 1849 & again in 1879, has been amended 500 times in the past 120-150 years. Here you go again, Larry. Prop 98 will be yet another Constitutional Amendment. Sadly we have to fix some of the flaws.
500 times!?! You gotta love those Propositions! I’ll bet if we spent as much effort developing candidates as we spend legislating from the couch with Propositions we might have some representatives who can work together and get some things done. Yeah, right!
Unfortunately there are two completely separate ways of viewing the world in this country, Republican and Democrat. I can’t understand or accept most of what the Reeps say and they can’t understand or accept most of what the Dems say. So it looks hopeless. Gridlock forever, at least that should make the Libertarians happy.
Thanks again for the posts, Vern & others, and for all your work spreading the word about the true disastrous hidden agenda of Prop. 98. The People spoke on June 3, and it looks like they knew what they were doing, since in almost every county’s returns that I’ve seen the No vote on 98 was nearly identical to the Yes vote on 99, and vice versa.
To paraphrase Chevy Chase’s running gag about Generalissimo Francisco Franco: This just in: Props. 98 and 90 (of Nov. 2006) are still dead, at least until next year, when we expect them to be revived.
Isn’t it telling that for all his filibustering on this site, as well as in all his speaking about Prop. 98, I’m sure, Larry Gilbert always ducked any attempt to deny its hidden agenda?
No pity! No mercy for the weak! ‘This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting. This is for fun!‘ -Stewie Griffin
SMS
#2 –
Not me. Stewie maybe. Oh how I love Stewie!
SMS
Proposition 98 ultimately invalidates itself and is an attempt by landlords to have the government bail them out of bad purchases during the real estate bubble:
http://tinyurl.com/3jfofo
Vern, Vern, Vern.
Having traveled all over southern California these past few months perhaps I overlooked shairing this with you.
Members of our State Legislature have tried for years to deal with this problem beginning with Tom Mc Clintock to the most recent efforts by [D] De La Torre. Unlike the Juice family those elected officials in Sacramento cannot agree on too many issues. We would have preferred that the Legislature fix the obvious flaws in current property rights protection for all owners of private property and avoid all of the time, effort and cost of the Initiative process. While you support Prop 99 there are many of us who oppose that measure which is funded in great part by all of us that live in a city or county when our tax dollars are misued by the League of Cities and Counties whose hired gun lobbyists promote their self-serving agenda.
Assembly Member De La Torre’s proposed legislation AB887 did include protection for “small business” which he defined as a business with no more than 25FTE’s. The federal definition of a small business is under 500 and the state of CA defines a small business as under 100.
He also sponsored a Constitutional Amendment ACA-8. It is worth noting that on August 29, 2007 he amended that effort resulting from his being hammered for failing to protect houses of worship. The added language reads..”used exclusively by the owner for religious worship..”
Representatives of both parties could not come to terms on either of these proposals which leads us to the “grass roots” efforts being voted on as my fingers hit this keyboard.
As you know I attended an all day conference this past Saturday. Our luncheon speaker compared the US Constitution to the California Constitution. While I intend to blog some of the meeting remarks let me give you one nugget.
In the past 220 years we amended the US Constitution 27 times. The California Constitution, of which we actually created two, 1849 & again in 1879, has been amended 500 times in the past 120-150 years. Here you go again, Larry. Prop 98 will be yet another Constitutional Amendment. Sadly we have to fix some of the flaws.
500 times!?! You gotta love those Propositions! I’ll bet if we spent as much effort developing candidates as we spend legislating from the couch with Propositions we might have some representatives who can work together and get some things done. Yeah, right!
Unfortunately there are two completely separate ways of viewing the world in this country, Republican and Democrat. I can’t understand or accept most of what the Reeps say and they can’t understand or accept most of what the Dems say. So it looks hopeless. Gridlock forever, at least that should make the Libertarians happy.
It’s a start. NOT.
Anon. The grass roots groups are not responsible for the 500 Constitutional Amendments. Probably 99% were drafted and approved by our legislature
We have illustrations of two schools of thought which created the federal v.state Constitutions. Madisonian/Hamiltonian v. Jeffersonian.
Thanks again for the posts, Vern & others, and for all your work spreading the word about the true disastrous hidden agenda of Prop. 98. The People spoke on June 3, and it looks like they knew what they were doing, since in almost every county’s returns that I’ve seen the No vote on 98 was nearly identical to the Yes vote on 99, and vice versa.
To paraphrase Chevy Chase’s running gag about Generalissimo Francisco Franco: This just in: Props. 98 and 90 (of Nov. 2006) are still dead, at least until next year, when we expect them to be revived.
Isn’t it telling that for all his filibustering on this site, as well as in all his speaking about Prop. 98, I’m sure, Larry Gilbert always ducked any attempt to deny its hidden agenda?