Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Voters can act to 'Save Our Homes' - Initiative to halt eminent-domain abuse makes November ballot
Orange County Register ^ | June 28, 2006 | TIMOTHY SANDEFUR

Posted on 06/28/2006 12:52:02 PM PDT by calcowgirl

Californians worried about local governments abusing their powers of eminent domain can rejoice in the news that the Protect Our Homes Act has officially qualified to appear on this November's ballot.

The Secretary of State's office announced Tuesday that it had verified 683,712 of about 1 million signatures for the initiative, which would protect individuals and small-business owners from having their land seized and transferred to other private holders.

(snip)

From 1998 to 2003, California seized 223 properties for private development projects on the theory that the properties were "blighted," a requirement for using eminent domain. Most of these were small businesses, churches, farms or nonresidential properties.

The Protect Our Homes Act looks after both residential and small-business property owners, and while it allows government to seize some blighted property, it doesn't allow government to transfer the land to private companies. And by requiring that each condemned property actually be blighted, it puts an end to the government's current trick of seizing nonblighted parcels located in a blighted area.

Despite the overwhelming number of signatures the initiative has received, powerful players are resisting it. Some environmental groups are suggesting the initiative's language would bar government from acting to prevent pollution. ...

Laws against nuisances or pollution would be unaffected by the initiative. And if bureaucrats believe that more-intrusive environmental regulations are necessary, they can keep those regulations in place – so long as they pay people for taking away the value of their land.

Resistance to the initiative has come from other surprising quarters. Some conservative groups have said they want to stop at protecting owner-occupied residences. Others, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have remained curiously silent about the abuses of eminent domain. Perhaps the governor is concerned that the initiative might obstruct his big development plans for the state. ...

(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: calelection; calinitiatives; eminentdomain; prop90; propertyrights; protectourhomes; saveourhomes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Timothy Sandefur is attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation
1 posted on 06/28/2006 12:52:04 PM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

It's gonna be a crowded ballot!


2 posted on 06/28/2006 12:53:35 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

It will be quite telling when we see who is on which side.


3 posted on 06/28/2006 12:53:44 PM PDT by B Knotts (Newt '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

That's either the 12th or the 14th initiative on the ballot,, whew!


4 posted on 06/28/2006 12:58:40 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Help the "Pendleton 8' and their families --- http://www.freerepublic.com/~normsrevenge/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

There are now 13 initiatives on the November ballot, with one more going through signature verification... so it could be 14... it would have been 15, but one was moved to the November 2008 election.

There are a couple good initiatives... and many that are wallet grabbers... I'm afraid that the good ones are going to go down in flames as many in the California electorate will get "NO Fever" and vote them all down.


5 posted on 06/28/2006 1:04:17 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Proud Member: Internet Pajama Wearers for Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
If not telling, at least interesting. From the article:
Rank-and-file members of both parties oppose the government's seizure of homes and businesses for transfer to private parties. In April, conservative Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock and liberal Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters shared the stage at an event in Burbank to denounce these land grabs.
I expect to hear a deadly silence from the elitist New-Majorityite, Main Street types. Protecting property rights cuts into their piggy bank.
6 posted on 06/28/2006 1:04:52 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Propositions that are on the
November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot

Legislative Constitutional Amendment
SCA 7 (Resolution Chapter 49, 2006). Torlakson.

Transportation Investment Fund

Legislative Bond Act
SB 1266 (Chapter 25, 2006). Perata.

Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, Port Security Bond Act of 2006

Legislative Bond Act
SB 1689 (Chapter 27, 2006). Perata.

Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006.

Legislative Bond Act
AB 127 (Chapter 35, 2006). Núñez.

Education facilities:  Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006.

Legislative Bond Act
AB 140 (Chapter 33, 2006). Núñez.

Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006.

Initiative Statute
1154. (SA2005RF0092)

Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring. Initiative Statute.

Proponent: Richard Gann, George Runner and Sharon Runner, c/o Dave Gilliard (916) 444-1502

Increases penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters. Prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any school or park, and requires lifetime Global Positioning System monitoring of felony registered sex offenders. Expands the definition of a sexually violent predator, and changes the current two-year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to annual review by the Director of Mental Health and petition by the sexually violent predator for conditional release or unconditional discharge. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown net costs to the state, within a few years, potentially in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually due primarily to increased state prison, parole supervision, and mental health program costs. These costs would grow significantly in the long term. Potential one-time state capital outlay costs, within a few years, in the low hundreds of millions of dollars for construction of additional state mental hospital and prison beds. Unknown but potentially significant net operating costs or savings to counties for jail, probation supervision, district attorneys, and public defenders. The portion of costs related to changes in the Sexual Violent Predators program would be reimbursed by the state.

Initiative Statute
1185. (SA2005RF0131)

Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative Statute.

Proponent: Stephen J. Kaufman (213) 452-6565

Authorizes $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds, payable from the state’s General Fund, to fund projects relating to safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, waterway and natural resource protection, water pollution and contamination control, state and local park improvements, public access to natural resources, and conservation efforts. Provides funding for emergency drinking water, and exempts such expenditures from public contract and procurement requirements to ensure immediate action for public safety. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: State cost of about $10.5 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($5.4 billion) and interest ($5.1 billion) costs on the bonds. Payments of about $350 million per year. Reduction in local property tax revenues of several million dollars annually, about one-half of which would be offset by state payments to schools to make up their revenue loss. Unknown costs, potentially tens of millions of dollars per year, to state and local governments to operate or maintain properties or projects acquired or developed with these bond funds. (SA2005RF0131.)

Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
1197. (SA2005RF0139, Amdt. #1-NS)

Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Summary Date: 02/10/06 Circulation Deadline: 07/10/06 Signatures Required: 598,105

Proponent: Paul Knepprath (916) 444-8801

Imposes additional 13 cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($2.60 per pack), and indirectly increases tax on other tobacco products. Provides funding to qualified hospitals for emergency services, nursing education and health insurance to eligible children. Revenue also allocated to specified purposes including tobacco use prevention programs, enforcement of tobacco-related laws, and research, prevention and treatment of various conditions including cancers (breast, cervical, prostate and colorectal), heart disease, stroke, asthma and obesity. Exempts recipient hospitals from antitrust laws in certain circumstances. Revenue excluded from appropriation limits and Proposition 98 calculations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increase in new state tobacco tax revenues of about $2.1 billion annually by 2007-08, declining slightly annually thereafter. Those revenues would be used for various health and tobacco-related programs and for children’s health coverage. Unknown net state costs potentially reaching the low hundreds of millions annually after a few years due to provisions for streamlining enrollment in the Medi-Cal and HFP. Unknown but potentially significant savings to counties on a statewide basis beginning in the near term for a shift of children from county health coverage to HFP, with unknown but potentially significant costs to the state in the long term for ongoing support of expanded HFP enrollment. Unknown but potentially significant savings in state and local government public health care costs over time due to expected reduction in consumption of tobacco products and due to other factors. (SA2005RF0139, Amdt. #1-NS.)

Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
1196. (SA2005RF0138, Amdt. #2-S)

Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Summary Date: 02/09/06 Circulation Deadline: 07/10/06 Signatures Required: 598,105

Proponent: James C. Harrison and Thomas A. Willis c/o Remcho, Johansen & Purcell (510) 346-6200
Establishes $4 billion program to reduce oil and gasoline usage by 25%, with research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and for education and training. Funded by tax of 1.5% to 6%, depending on oil price per barrel, on producers of oil extracted in California. Prohibits producers from passing tax on to consumers. Program administered by California Energy Alternatives Program Authority. Prohibits changing tax while indebtedness remains. Revenues excluded from Proposition 98 calculations and appropriation limits. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: New state revenues annually – depending on the interpretation of the measure’s tax rate provisions – of either about $200 million or about $380 million from the imposition of a severance tax on oil production, to be used to fund a variety of new alternative energy programs. Reductions of unknown amounts in: local revenues from property taxes paid on oil reserves, potentially partially offset by state payments to schools to make up their revenue loss; state revenues from income taxes paid by oil producers; and, potentially, state and local revenues from gasoline and diesel excise and sales taxes. (SA2005RF138, Amdt. #2-S.)

Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
1189. (SA2005RF0126)
Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Summary Date: 02/07/06 Circulation Deadline: 07/07/06 Signatures Required: 598,105

Proponent: John D. Adkisson c/o Joan L. Cassman and Steven D. Miller (415) 777-3200

Provides additional public school funding for kindergarten through grade 12 by imposing a $50 tax on each real property parcel; exempts certain elderly and disabled homeowners. Funds must be used for class size reduction, textbooks, school safety, Academic Success facility grants, and a data system to evaluate educational program effectiveness. Provides for reimbursement to government entities to offset anticipated decrease in other tax revenue. Prohibits fund use for school administrative overhead. Requires school district audits and penalties for fund misuse. Excludes funds from Proposition 98 calculations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Annual revenue of up to $500 million from a new, statewide parcel tax with the revenue dedicated to specific K-12 education programs (such as class size reduction, instructional materials, school safety, and facility grants). (SA2005RF0126.)

Initiative Statute
1216. (SA2006RF0015, Amdt. #2-S)
Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Contribution and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute.
Summary Date: 04/03/06 Circulation Deadline: 08/31/06 Signatures Required: 373,816

Proponent: Deborah Burger c/o Michael Lighty (510) 273-2200

Provides that candidates for state elective office meeting certain eligibility requirements, including collection of a specified number of $5.00 contributions from voters, may voluntarily receive public campaign funding from the Fair Political Practices Commission, in amounts varying by elective office and type of election. Increases income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent to fund program. Imposes new limits on campaign contributions to state-office candidates and campaign committees, and new restrictions on contributions and expenditures by lobbyists and corporations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased revenues (primarily from increased taxes on corporations and financial institutions) totaling more than $200 million annually to pay for the public financing of political campaigns for state elected offices. (SA2006RF0015.)

Initiative Constitutional Amendment
New1204. (SA2005RF0146)

Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 02/16/06 Circulation Deadline: 07/17/06 Signatures Required: 598,105

Proponent: Anita S. Anderson

Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects, uses. Limits government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve public health or safety. Voids unpublished eminent domain court decisions. Defines “just compensation.” Government must occupy condemned property or lease property for public use. Condemned private property must be offered for resale to prior owner or owner’s heir at current fair market value if government abandons condemnation’s objective. Exempts certain governmental actions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown, but potentially significant major future costs for state and local governments to pay damages and/or modify regulatory or other policies to conform to the measure’s provisions. Unknown, potentially major changes in governmental costs to acquire property for public purposes. (SA2005RF0146.)

 

Top | Qualified for 2006 General | Qualified for 2008 General | Pending Raw | Pending Sigs | Failed | Withdrawn | Circulating | Attorney General

Propositions that are on the
November 4, 2008 General Election Ballot

Bond Measure
NewSB 1856 (Chapter 697, 2002). Costa.

Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.*

*Note: The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century was originally scheduled to appear on the November 2, 2004, General Election ballot. Subsequently, Senate Bill 1169, Chapter 71, Statutes of 2004, provided that it appear on the November 7, 2006, General Election ballot. However, most recently, Senate Bill 1169, Chapter 71, Statutes of 2004, provides for the submission of this Act on the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot instead.


Top | Qualified for 2006 General | Qualified for 2008 General | Pending Raw | Pending Sigs | Failed | Withdrawn | Circulating | Attorney General

Initiatives Pending Raw Count of Signatures

None at this time.

 

Top | Qualified for 2006 General | Qualified for 2008 General | Pending Raw | Pending Sigs | Failed | Withdrawn | Circulating | Attorney General

Initiatives Pending Signature Verification

1182. (SA2005RF0123)
Transportation Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Summary Date: 01/03/06 Circulation Deadline: 06/02/06 Signatures Required: 598,105

Proponent: James Earp, c/o Richard D. Martland (916) 446-6752

Prohibits retention of funds earmarked for the Transportation Investment Fund in the General Fund for use unrelated to transportation after 7/1/08. Requires repayment by 6/30/17 of transportation funds retained in the General Fund in years prior to 2007-08. Eliminates General Fund borrowing of specified transportation funds, except for cash-flow purposes (repayment required within 30 days of adoption of budget); current law allows borrowing for three years where Governor declares transfer would cause significant negative fiscal impact on governmental functions and Legislature enacts authorizing statute. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: No revenue or cost effects. Increases stability of funding to transportation in 2007-08 and thereafter; reduces somewhat the state’s flexibility to use specified transportation funds for other (nontransportation) activities. (SA2005RF0123)

 

7 posted on 06/28/2006 1:05:48 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Proud Member: Internet Pajama Wearers for Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
Oh great.. a couple good ones will get sucked down in the maelstrom of voter apathy.. sigh.

Can "I voted at gitmo 'getNO'" caps and shirts be far behind? :-)

8 posted on 06/28/2006 1:08:13 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Help the "Pendleton 8' and their families --- http://www.freerepublic.com/~normsrevenge/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
I fearlessly predict that no matter how crowded the ballot, THIS WILL PASS!!!
9 posted on 06/28/2006 1:09:57 PM PDT by Enterprise (Let's not enforce laws that are already on the books, let's just write new laws we won't enforce.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket
Initiative Statute
1154. (SA2005RF0092)
Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring. Initiative Statute.
Proponent: Richard Gann, George Runner and Sharon Runner, c/o Dave Gilliard (916) 444-1502

Initiative Constitutional Amendment
1204. (SA2005RF0146)
Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 02/16/06 Circulation Deadline: 07/17/06 Signatures Required: 598,105
Proponent: Anita S. Anderson

---

These two get my "YES" vote. The rest get a big fat "NO"
.
10 posted on 06/28/2006 1:12:54 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

I hope you're right! How accurate is your crystal ball?


11 posted on 06/28/2006 1:15:21 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

It's cracked, but once in a while it's on target.


12 posted on 06/28/2006 1:22:26 PM PDT by Enterprise (Let's not enforce laws that are already on the books, let's just write new laws we won't enforce.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/28/BAG0LJLKDS1.DTL

(snip)

The California measure would require governments to occupy seized property themselves or contract out for public use. It also could increase how much governments must pay for seized property.

Critics say the California initiative is grossly misleading because in addition to the eminent domain provisions it would gut government's ability to regulate land use and urban growth.

In particular, the measure contains controversial language that would require governments to compensate landowners if new regulations not directly related to public safety hurt a property's value -- unless the property is exempted from the new restrictions.

Cities, redevelopment agencies, urban planners and environmental, school and public safety groups say they will vigorously fight the measure.


13 posted on 06/28/2006 1:23:56 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

This is California. So as soon as the voters pass something in the public good, the courts will rule it unconstitutional.


14 posted on 06/28/2006 1:28:58 PM PDT by OrioleFan (Republicans believe every day is July 4th, DemocRATs believe every day is April 15th. - Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
These two get my "YES" vote. The rest get a big fat "NO"

Ditto Calcowgirl!

15 posted on 06/28/2006 1:45:13 PM PDT by calex59 (The '86 amnesty put us in the toilet, now the senate wants to flush it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
These two get my "YES" vote. The rest get a big fat "NO"

Ditto Calcowgirl!

16 posted on 06/28/2006 1:47:06 PM PDT by calex59 (The '86 amnesty put us in the toilet, now the senate wants to flush it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: calex59

Oops, sorry for the double post!


17 posted on 06/28/2006 1:48:43 PM PDT by calex59 (The '86 amnesty put us in the toilet, now the senate wants to flush it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: calex59
Oops, sorry for the double post!

No problem! Thanks for the extra bumps! :-)

18 posted on 06/28/2006 2:06:06 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

I am sure the cities and counties in the state will directly or indirectly spend millions to defeat this bill. If the various governmental agencies cannot contribute directly, they will have unions, and other special interest groups do it for them. I hope it passes.


19 posted on 06/28/2006 2:20:36 PM PDT by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: So Cal Rocket; calex59
Hey, you missed one.  Make that 3 "YES"es and the rest "NO".

Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
1186. (SA2005RF0132, Amdt. #1-S)

Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 02/03/06 Circulation Deadline: 07/03/06 Signatures Required: 598,105

Proponent: Paul E. Laubacher, R.N. (916) 381-7094

Amends California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent or legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Permits minor to obtain court order waiving notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor's maturity or best interests. Mandates various reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions performed on minors. Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation. Requires minor's consent to abortion, with certain exceptions. Permits judicial relief if minor's consent coerced. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined. (SA2005RF0132, Amdt. #1-S)


20 posted on 06/28/2006 3:00:37 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson