Posted on 09/18/2006 9:54:07 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
One of the favorite tricks of the opponents of an initiative is to claim they oppose an initiative because it is “poorly written” or it has “unintended” consequences. If the opponent believes that the policy of an initiative is popular, the opponent will say “Hey, I support that policy, I just don’t support this initiative because it just does too much, or it will cost too much, or it is poorly written.” We are currently seeing this tactic used by those that oppose California's Proposition 90.
Let’s start with the context of the discussion. For years, state and local governments have pretty much had their way with landowners in California. If government wanted to take your home to build an auto mall, or a shopping mall, luxury condominiums or the like, all these politicians had to do was declare your neighborhood blighted (even if your house was in good shape), and the government could take your land and sell it to a politically influential developer who would then make a ton of profit off of your land, at your expense. If you demanded fair market value for your land, the government would call you greedy, set a price, and take the dirt. The developer then reaps the profit because they built and sold a commercial building, which also increased sales tax revenue to the city. Good for the city, good for the developer, bad for you.
Not only has government been able to take your land, but they have been able to change how you use your land because some bureaucrat thinks you’re using it badly. Your family has been farming for 100 years? Too bad, the government passes a law and requires you to stop farming. Thanks Government!
So, along comes Proposition 90 and the people say government can’t do these things any more. And these government bureacrats, who have been doing these evil things for all these years say “Hey, we agree with that policy, government shouldn’t do this. But this initiative is just poorly written.” First, if they agreed with the policy, they would stop doing it. Second, if the initiative was poorly written, they wouldn’t care if it passed. There would be loopholes in it for them to exploit.
Trust me, Proposition 90 is very well written, and it has no loopholes. That is exactly why the opponents don’t like it. They can’t figure out a way around it. Of course those bureaucrats who have run roughshod over California think the initiative is poorly written. Their party is about to end, and they are doing everything they can to keep whatever semblance of power they still have.
Then they argue that it does too much or will cost too much. It will cost too much money if the government abuses the landowner. If the government respects property rights, it won’t have to pay money. If it doesn’t, then it can change its behavior or pay. That is not only fair, it is what the US Constitution requires.
Finally, a government can never do too much to protect its citizens from the abuses of overzealous bureaucrats. Will those bureaucrats complain about losing their power? Of course. Will they claim that all civilization will end, and that we will all undoubtedly be afflicted with the heartbreak of psoriasis? Probably, but they will be wrong. All that will happen is that ordinary people will get a fair shake from their government.
And that is all Proposition 90 does. Give the citizens of California a fair shake. Isn’t that what government should do?
Absolutely--: YES on Prop 90!
http://www.90yes.com/
These naysayers are too funny. They claim it will increase traffic congestion and it's bad for the environment. Dang bureaucrat lies.
http://noprop90.com/
Here's his poorly written, unintended consequences spiel:
Proposition 90 is a strong response to the increased liberalization of eminent domain laws in California, but it may be too restrictive. The inflexibility of these limits in land use planning may restrict growth unnecessarily and may restrict good governments’ ability to protect existing property owners in established neighborhoods or commercial areas.
The blunt force of initiatives is required when the legislature refuses to do the fine work of crafting law.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
"Prop 90 . . . may restrict good government's ability to protect existing property owner's in established neighborhoods or commercial areas."
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" - isn't that one of the three biggest lies told? The other two are "The check's in the mail" and "I'll respect you in the morning" Now he tells us, "good government's ability to protect (help you) in established areas (may be restricted by Prop 90) New rephrased lies for old.
To rephrase the above quote, what will restrict government's ability to ripoff existing property owners in exablished neighborhoods or commercial areas if Prop 90 doesn't pass? Nothing. Politicians will be able to auction off your house to Costco for campaign contributions because Costco or Walmart doesn't want to pay you what it is worth in the open market. Solution: Prop 90. It changes you from a (government) tenant that thinks he owns his house to an homeowner who owns his house.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
BUMP
We are still hearing this whine about prop 13. LOL
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.