Daniel Weintraub: Eminent domain reform morphs into broader battle (CA)

Sacramento Bee ^ | March 28, 2006 | Daniel Weintraub

[calcowgirl]

It's beginning to look as if Californians will be asked to vote later this year to reform the laws of eminent domain - and do a lot more to protect private property rights.

Several separate ballot measure drives have begun, and sputtered, since a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year confirmed the power of government to force the sale of private property then transfer that property to another private owner for development.

But now a New York-based foundation has dropped $1.5 million into a campaign led by Americans for Limited Government, a national libertarian group, to qualify an eminent domain reform initiative in California. With that kind of money behind it, the measure is almost certain to qualify for the November ballot.

Known as the "Protect Our Homes" initiative, the measure would prohibit the government from using eminent domain to force the transfer of property from one private owner to another. Any property purchased by the government without the consent of the owner would have to remain in government hands or for a public use regulated by the government.

That's an idea that has won support from Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks, a fierce advocate of private property rights, and the California Democratic Party, which was persuaded that eminent domain is often abused by local government to take the property of homeowners and small business owners, often minorities, and sell it to wealthy developers. Many inner-city Democrats, including Rep. Maxine Waters, have joined a movement in Congress to limit eminent domain.

But the new proposal heading for the ballot here would also require the government to compensate property owners for what are known as "regulatory takings" - actions that reduce the value of property without forcing its sale, typically associated with regulations designed to protect the environment.

[calcowgirl]

"I preferred a clean version that simply dealt with the issue of rich people taking poor people's property," McClintock told me. But he said he also believes that property owners should be compensated for regulatory takings, and he thinks the issue can win support in California, as it has in Oregon, another state with a strong environmental constituency.

"Most people instinctively realize that if a government agency by its own actions reduces the value of your property, that they ought to pay you for the damage they have done," McClintock said. "The cost should not be borne by the property owner."

[calcowgirl]

PING!


McClintock Ping List.
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list

[Little Ray]

Tel me again why the PRK didn't elect this guy governor?

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[Lancey Howard]

protect private property rights.

That alone will make the Democrats crazy.

But the new proposal heading for the ballot here would also require the government to compensate property owners for what are known as "regulatory takings" - actions that reduce the value of property without forcing its sale, typically associated with regulations designed to protect the environment.

And THAT will make the scumbag Democrats gnash their stinking teeth!

[Carry_Okie]

But the new proposal heading for the ballot here would also require the government to compensate property owners for what are known as "regulatory takings" - actions that reduce the value of property without forcing its sale, typically associated with regulations designed to protect the environment.

This may sound strange coming from me, but this could be a poison pill. I would prefer to enshrine homeowner protection before going after regulatory takings because the latter are too often the province of the Federill grubbamint (however illegitimately so). Win one battle at a time; else lose in Federal court and have nothing to show for the effort.

[Lancey Howard]

Tell me again why the PRK didn't elect this guy governor?

This is the same place that elects and re-elects absolute scumbags like Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinswine.

[goldstategop]

The Left has not only tried to favor the rich - it has also tried to diminish the value of private property through the backdoor by means of environmental regulations that restrict one's enjoyment and use of property without just compensation. Both abuses need to be redressed and if the government is forced to pay for the actual value of the property in both situations, a lot less of that will happen. For the reason that its easier for politicians to impose a tax on an individual not in a position to resist their depredation than it for them to impose a tax on the public at large. I believe that protecting private property is the key to stopping socialism cold and a measure of this sort will go a long way towards accomplishing what measures to reduce government growth cannot - hold the government accountable for the costs it imposes on people through its rule-making powers.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[calcowgirl]

I agree with you. McClintock was even getting the Democrats on board.
Hopefully this won't kill the whole thing.

[Lancey Howard]

Win one battle at a time; else lose in Federal court and have nothing to show for the effort.

I agree that the Ninth Circus would do whatever their liberal Democrat masters told them to do, but I believe that the Roberts Court would ultimately support the passing of such an initiative.

[ridesthemiles]

Tel me again why the PRK didn't elect this guy governor?""

Because they were too stupid to realize how smart and logical Tom McClintock is.

Is doesn't have alot of charisma, and was up against a movie star with world wide name recognition.

[ridesthemiles]

This is the same place that elects and re-elects absolute scumbags like Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinswine.""

San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego elect everybody. Those of us in the other parts of the state got outvoted every year. One reason why I left the state.

[ridesthemiles]

You are totally correct.

[Lancey Howard]

Yep, it's that way in every state - - the hard-working families in the suburbs and rural areas need to out-vote the scumbags in the major parasite nests (cities) and that's not always easy to do.

[Carry_Okie]

I agree that the Ninth Circus would do whatever their liberal Democrat masters told them to do, but I believe that the Roberts Court would ultimately support the passing of such an initiative.

I have to disagree. With Federal regulatory power you are going up against a boat-load of outrageous, but very well established treaty law. Let's make sure there are property owners left before making them choke on their own laws as my book proposes.

[Carry_Okie]

If President Bush wants the black vote, helping small business fight eminent domain abuse is one way to get a chunk of it.

[calcowgirl]

Not to mention poor LEGAL immigrants.

[Amerigomag]

I would prefer to enshrine homeowner protection before going after regulatory takings

There is an inherent weakness in monetary penalties as a deterrent to government, regulatory takings. The supply of money is endless. Both to pay for the taking and to finance an aggressive legal defense of the taking.

There is also the scepter of insider trading if compensation for regulatory taking becomes common law. Properties¹, included in unpublished, future takings, will be acquired by those in the know and properties², without significance, will be the subject of trivial takings simply to enhance connected owners from the public trough.

1 - For example: Property already excluded from development by local regs in a proposed conservancy.
2 - For example: Property contiguous to a new transportation corridor in Orange County being subject to state imposed migratory flyway protections of caribou migration protections.

[sergeantdave]

"But the new proposal heading for the ballot here would also require the government to compensate property owners for what are known as "regulatory takings..."


Excellent.

The black-robed fascists can't read the constitution and see that a regulatory taking is more destructive than an eminent domain action. What's the purpose of owning property and paying taxes on it if it can't be used?

Regulatory takings make serfs out of property owners whose only purpose is to carry out the Marxist common good as designed by the state. Hitler and his cohorts clearly stated that the property owner's duty was to subsume his individual rights and desires for the good of the state.

Regulatory takings are nothing more than old European fascism reincarnated on American soil. Sen. Tom McClintock sounds like a good man who understands the danger we're in.

Americans are fleeing big cities in favor of life in exurbia and rural America. As they become landowners they realize that a heavy-handed government is suppressing their right to lawfully use their legal property. We're nearing a tipping point where when enough citizens own land, they will resist government controlling that land.

Here in Michigan we have strong property rights protection against the seizure of land and giving it to another private owner. In fact, it's illegal, which drove the fascists in the big cities crazy. We also have a strong home rule mandate, meaning small villages and townships can effectively resist control by the county, the state and unelected regional planning commissions.

The key is to resist calls for zoning. Once an area is zoned, people lose individual rights and the right of judgement and rule under common law. Then they fall under the whims and rules of unelected regulatory bureaucrats and lose control of their property.