[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

[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.")

[pointsal]

Maybe this will make city managers and

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

Ha! Probably be ignored....