Daniel Weintraub: Proposition 90 is the sleeper in this fall's lineup

Sacramento Bee ^ | 10/24/6 | Daniel Weintraub

[SmithL]

Like the surprise ending to a long, dreary novel, Proposition 90 sits at the very end of this fall's crowded California ballot, a subtle plot twist that seems out of place among the more obvious turns that precede it.

But take notice. This unassuming proposal is the most important question voters will confront on Nov. 7.

Polls show that few voters know what Proposition 90 is about, much less understand its significance. No wonder, given that relatively little money has been spent so far communicating messages for and against the initiative.

And unlike some of the other measures on the ballot, Proposition 90 comes with no easily identifiable target, such as the tobacco industry or the oil companies.

The proposal's promoters are selling it as a reform of eminent domain, the process governments everywhere use to force the sale of private property for public purposes. But it is much more than that. It is a sweeping change in the state constitution that could potentially affect just about every new state or local government regulation adopted in the future.

The part of Proposition 90 that deals with eminent domain is simple enough. It would limit the use of eminent domain to sales needed for a specific public use, such as a road or a school, or to remove a narrowly defined nuisance, such as an abandoned home or business that has become a danger to the community.

Proposition 90 would prohibit government from forcing the sale of private property and then selling that property to another owner for private use. Government would have to retain ownership of any property it took through eminent domain, and if it later decided to sell the property, the original owner would have first call on buying it back.

[rottndog]

The more restrictions on government the better. I still have yet to see any negative to this proposition.

[hsalaw]

It's the only proposition I'm voting "yes" on.

[vbmoneyspender]

Here is a partial list of the politicians opposing Proposition 90 (call me crazy but I think I detect a pattern):

United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator Barbara Boxer
Congresswoman Doris O. Matsui
State Treasurer Phil Angelides
Steve Westly, California State Controller
California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi
Assemblymember Lloyd Levine
Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor, City of Los Angeles

See Link

[rottndog]

Prop 90 and voting for McClintock are the only reasons for me to vote at all this year.

Haven't seen any polling data on 90--I wonder how it is fairing?

[Al Simmons]

Just got my vote.

[hsalaw]

I don't know how Prop. 90 is going, either. But with the rest of the ballot, I'm going to do my usual: vote "R" and "no."

[hsalaw]

Boy, there's a real bunch. Anything they're against, I'm automatically for.

[RonF]

and if it later decided to sell the property, the original owner would have first call on buying it back for the price he originally paid for it.

I'd hope.

If the left wing opposes it, let's wait until someone decides that Kelo enables taking property away from some minority owners and gentrifying the area for those evil rich white folks who can sure pay a lot more in property and sales taxes.

[Czar]

Sounds good to me. The more it ties the hands of government, the better. All levels of government have demonstrated they cannot be trusted. The key is less power.

I've yet to see even a scintilla of a reason to vote other than YES on Proposition 90.

Taxpayers will vote YES; the Tax Eaters will be opposed to anything that might yank them back from the trough.

[kingu]

Sounds like something that's going to be blown to pieces on appeal (probably Jerry Brown's first job, when he's not fighting to keep his office...)

But I'll be voting yes...

[absalom01]

The Machine is melting down over this proposition!

Saw this in my local paper yesterday (talking about Prop. 90 in Glendale...)

" This could greatly change the way cities, like Glendale, deal with affordable housing, Councilman Bob Yousefian said.

He cited the Americana at Brand as a prime example of what Proposition 90 would not allow if passed Nov. 7.

"If this law was in place, we could not [have done] the town center because we would not be able to purchase land from private owners, accumulate the land and give it to a developer to develop it," he said."

Well, yeah, Bob, that's EXACTLY THE POINT, you socialist nut!

Here's the link. Will go dead in about a week, though...

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/articles/2006/10/23/politics/gnp-prop9023.txt

[calcowgirl]

It is a sweeping change in the state constitution that could potentially affect just about every new state or local government regulation adopted in the future.

And Weintraub has a problem with that?

YES on 90 - YES for Freedom!

[Czar]

There is a TV ad running constantly now that is anti-90, sponsored by the League of California Homeowners. According to the OC Register (8/12/06):

"Here is a list of the mostly left-wing and big-government groups that are funding a campaign to stop an initiative designed to stop eminent domain abuse.

California Police Chiefs Association

California Fire Chiefs Association

League of California Homeowners

California Small Business Association

League of Women Voters of California

California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

California State Council of Laborers

The Nature Conservancy

Small School Districts' Association

Transportation & Land Use Coalition

National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations

Los Angeles Metropolitan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

California School Boards Association

American Farmland Trust

California Housing Consortium

Consumers First

Coalition for Economic Survival

Natural Resources Defense Council

Sierra Club California

Defenders of Wildlife

Planning and Conservation League

League of California Cities

California State Association of Counties

Association of California Water Agencies

National Wildlife Federation

Quite a lineup...tax-eaters, every one of them.

[Amerigomag]

I'm assuming that "According to the OC Register (8/12/06):" took the place of a hyperlink (<a href="...>) to OCR article.

[calcowgirl]

Here are the biggest contributors, and the grand total.  I excluded any contributions from groups contributing less than $10,000 in total:

 

Contributor	Contributions
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SECURITIES ASSOCIATION- ISSUES PAC	400,000
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES - NON PUBLIC FUNDS	300,000
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CITIPAC	290,000
FOREST CITY RESIDENTIAL WEST, INC.	250,000
CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (NON-PUBLIC FUNDS)	208,284
NO ON 90, CONSERVATIONISTS FOR TAXPAYER PROTECTION	205,000
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - NON PUBLIC FUNDS	160,000
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS- ISSUES MOBILIZATION PAC	100,000
CALIFORNIA NATIONS INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION FUND	100,000
SEMPRA ENERGY	100,000
WILLDAN GROUP, INC.	50,000
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER, LLP	25,000
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.	25,000
MCDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN PC	25,000
ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD.	25,000
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES ASSOC. ISSUES PAC	20,000
OVERLAND PACIFIC & CUTLER, INC.	20,000
RBC DAIN RAUSCHER	20,000
STONE & YOUNGBERG, LLC	20,000
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP, CALIFORNIA PAC	12,000
JONES HALL, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.	10,000
MCLARLAND VASQUEZ EMSIEK & PARTNERS, INC.	10,000
Grand Total	2,502,387

[Carry_Okie]

These are worse than tax eaters; they're takers of land, homes, farms, ranches, timberland, small businesses, whatever they can get for the price of a hired gun.

[calcowgirl]

Look who shows up at the top of the list--the public bond brokers.

[calcowgirl]

The League of California Homeowners appears to be a group supporting Contractors, not Property owners.

http://www.homeowners.org/
http://www.homeowners.org/LCHO_gen_faq.php

[atomic_dog]

Haven't seen any polling data on 90--I wonder how it is fairing?

The only poll I have seen was sampled last month and showed 61.3 percent of likely California voters supported Proposition 90, 24.0 percent opposed and 14.7 percent were still undecided