Replies

"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."

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!

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.

"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.

"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!