Yes on Prop. 98 wins in court, eminent domain reform could hit home
I received an email on Friday asking me to forward the following message to ten of my friends. I usually don't indulge in those requests, but this one about Proposition 98 may relate to a couple of downtown projects.
# # #
Yes Prop. 98 Wins in Court
Court finds No Merit to Opposition Arguments and Confirms that Primary Purpose of Proposition 98 is Eminent Domain Reform
Proponents of Proposition 98 won a major court victory for California property owners [March 7]. 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 domain abuse.
"The court rejected the attempt by opponents of Proposition 98 to characterize the initiative as merely a 'rent control' measure. Finding their claims to be 'without merit,' the court went on to hold that the 'chief' purpose of this measure is to constrain government's authority to take property by eminent domain. It naturally follows that much of the statement of the measure's purpose should relate to eminent domain," said Prop. 98 legal counsel Thomas W. Hiltachk.
"The judge also rejected the attempt to by opponents to include a false claim that Proposition 98 would have 'far reaching' impacts on land use regulations, finding their arguments to be unpersuasive," said Hiltachk. "Interestingly, opponents of Proposition 98 did not attempt to assert the prior false claims they have made publicly regarding water storage and conveyance projects."
# # #
From the Yes on Prop 98 Web site (click the title of this story to access):
YES ON PROP 98: Protect All Property Rights.
Right now, government has the right to take private property - our homes, family farms, mom-and-pop small businesses - to build a sports stadium, big-box chain store, or a hotel. Politically connected special interests use and abuse government's power take and develop private property. 41 other states have enacted property rights reforms.
It is time for Californians to protect our property and restore our private property rights. Proposition 98, the California Property Owners & Farmland Protection Act is on the ballot in June. Property seizures are happening all over our state, it is time to take action against the government's abuse of power.
Yes on Prop. 98, Californians for Property Rights Protection, a project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association with funding by its No New Taxes Committee and the California Farm Bureau Federation and supported by the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. FPPC ID # 1296303.
5 comments:
It's still a right-wing ploy to remove government controls over property, ultimately leading to removing the ability of citizen's to control their own community's growth through general planning. This failed last year due to the 'regulatory takings' part of the measure, which they removed from this round. But the inclusion of the takings language last year showed thier true intent; to whittle down citizen control over communities, and give control to those that own property.
Look at the wingnuts who sponsor this measure, such as the Farm Bureau, and then look at their political platform, and this isn't about protecting poor individuals from government abuse. It is about making those that own property have more rights than the community.
Classic right-wing power struggle. And Jim 'Aids is God's punishment for homosexuals' Nielsen is leading the charge.
I am not sure what the no on 98 commenter is getting at. Does a yes vote protect personal property from the eminant domain powers currently held by government? Then how is a NO vote supposed to protect us?
"It is about making those that own property have more rights than the community." Isn't the "community" comprised of "property owners"?
Or, is the community/communism/socialism more the goals of the NO vote supporting? You know, more power to the government than it's citizens.
Yes, the first poster is right. This is about feathering private nests at public expense. Kiss roads, schools, waste water treatment plants, airports and other public infrastructure goodby if this turkey passes. The use of eminent domain has NOT been a problem in Calif. To the contrary, individual rights are protected and remember, even under eminent domain, landowners receive market compensation for their land. This passed in Oregon and it's been a nightmare ever since.
Here's the kicker for Prop 98. The proponents stuck an extra provision in their law THAT THEY WON'T TELL YOU ABOUT to get money to run their campaign from mobile home park owners.
Prop 98 will kill rent control for mobile home parks, which this community voted for several years ago.
Woodland voted for mobile home space rent control several years ago to keep our seniors on fixed incomes from being totally messed up by the owner of Idlewheel and Royal Palm parks who wanted to raise their rents by something like 50%. Despite being called "mobile homes", mobile homes really can't be moved - they're stuck in the parks where they have been installed. They are captive to whatever rent increases their park owners come up with. It's unfair. That's why Woodlanders voted for mobile home park space rent control.
If you think our seniors in mobile home parks need the protection of space rent control, VOTE NO ON 98!!!!! It isn't just about eminent domain.
That's right. This is the radical right's wet dream. It's full on nonsense like the mobile home provision that will end up costing the taxpayers billions more. Vote no!
Post a Comment