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.

[Carry_Okie]

There is also the scepter specter of insider trading if compensation for regulatory taking becomes common law.

A Freudian slip?

We agree. I can just see the conservancies using this for a funding tool now. The best way to manage regulation is to eliminate the need through a better understanding of pooled risk.

[patriot_wes]

"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."

Anyone see a fundamental conflict here? The Demos suddenly on the side of private property ownership after years of trumpeting the collectivist values of communism. Follow the money!

[Amerigomag]

I thought is was appropriate considering that King Peter and his Austrian prince may well be able to directly enrich the New Majority if the law passes. Initiatives take effect immediately and regulatory takings are generally instigated by the executive.

What great irony. The only bulwark that stands between my wallet and the New Majority, money belt is our liberal state appellant.

[Amerigomag]

Anyone see a fundamental conflict here?

None. The proposed Democrat legislation is aimed at local government, not state government.

It's simply an internicene, turf war with both sides demanding to keep their Eminent Domain weapons. The California Democrat Party wants to keep the purse strings close. No local rebels allowed. Takings will be state takings, benefiting state party donors, not a local developer with friends on a council or board.

[Carry_Okie]

The only bulwark that stands between my wallet and the New Majority, money belt is our liberal state appellant.

Make that...

The only bulwark that stands between my wallet and the New Majority, money belt is our liberal state repellant.

[pointsal]

Maybe this will make city managers and

public works departments stand up and take note....

Ha! Probably be ignored....

[heleny]

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.

I didn't think of that. But, corruption in CA goverment is inevitable, and stuff like that already happens in other ways. For instance, shortly before the recall of Gray Davis, we (California) acquired Ahmanson Ranch, north of US-101 near the border between Ventura and LA counties, for a large amount of money. If we had not bought the land, it could have been developed (subject to the obstruction of the environmentalists), or it might have been a huge investment loss if it could not be developed. CA guaranteed a profit to the former owners.

[Czar]

Very good news.

Lets see who rises in opposition.

[Seadog Bytes]

Thank you. I am keeping my fingers crossed but, morally correct as they might be, I have to say I am a little worried about the 'poison pill' potential of the 'regulatory takings' provisons, too.