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

Skip to comments.

CA business community shows true colors again (Proposition 90 - eminent domain)
Orange County Register ^ | September 22, 2006 | Steven Greenhut

Posted on 09/23/2006 8:46:14 AM PDT by calcowgirl

The California Chamber of Commerce and other establishment business groups are actively opposing Prop. 90, which would ban the abuse of eminent domain for economic development and require governments to pay compensation when they use downzoning and other regulations to take property. So the Chamber has sided with the big-government and leftist groups that believe that it's OK if average citizens must give up their homes and businesses to aid big developers, many of which are no doubt Chamber members.

Here we see the reemergence of the long-simmering split between conservatives and the business establishment. Whenever the business guys face erosion of their freedoms or property rights because of legislation from the state's left-wing Democrats, they count on conservatives to support them. When conservatives and libertarians need help defending the little guy against government abuse, the business establishment is either nowhere to be found or is there siding with the bad guys. The business guys are, really, about making money, period. They are perfectly comfortable with oppressive government -- if it helps their bottom line.

Remember, the California Chamber of Commerce OPPOSED Prop. 13, and the Chamber gave 90 percent of its money to Democrats during the Gray Davis era. ...

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: calchamber; calinitiatives; ccoc; chamberofcommerce; coc; eminentdomain; prop90; propertyrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

1 posted on 09/23/2006 8:46:15 AM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

And to think I felt sorry for them about the greenhouse gas emissions legislation.

But this should really come as no surprise, given how business views the integrity of our borders as a personal inconvenience.


2 posted on 09/23/2006 8:48:50 AM PDT by bordergal (John)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
downzoning

Well...that is an interesting term.
3 posted on 09/23/2006 8:51:04 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
They are perfectly comfortable with oppressive government -- if it helps their bottom line

We see this locally and nationally and internationally.
4 posted on 09/23/2006 8:52:39 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Yea - here in Texas our REPUBLICAN Governor is in the practice of taking 1000 square miles of land and essentially handing it over to toll roads companies to build the roads, and charge whatever they can.


5 posted on 09/23/2006 8:54:47 AM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

"Eat me last!"


6 posted on 09/23/2006 8:54:56 AM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
I'll take the Chamber seriously again when Zaramberg apologizes for Arnold and all the anti-business legislation he has and will sign.
7 posted on 09/23/2006 8:57:59 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (The California Republican Party needs Arnold the way a drowning man needs an anvil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL
Yea - here in Texas our REPUBLICAN Governor is in the practice of taking 1000 square miles of land and essentially handing it over to toll roads companies

Can't be. According to Texas Freepers there are no liberals or crazy people in Texas. Why someone even is spreading a rumor about a crazed comedian running for Governor. Everyone knows Texas is one hundred percent Republican and always has been and there are no liberals there. The Texas Freepers told me so.

8 posted on 09/23/2006 9:00:29 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (The California Republican Party needs Arnold the way a drowning man needs an anvil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

I heartily approve all criticism of business "leaders" and groups that propose monopolist or other govt-cosy notions.

But should the title connexity "business... true colors" be allowed to stand unchallenged? Is some "alert" or other modification customary?

I certainly hope so.

Particulary that we are not becoming populist in the anti-business sense.


9 posted on 09/23/2006 9:17:47 AM PDT by Bethaneidh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bethaneidh

The headline probably would have been more accurate if it said "Cal Chamber" instead of "business community." In that context, I think the description "true colors" is appropriate as they have been on the wrong side of many issues over the years.


10 posted on 09/23/2006 9:25:54 AM 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

Prop 90 has more impact on public properties than the article implies. Some of it would result in the taxpayers being gouged massively when the time come for legitmiate public acquisitions. Specifically Section 19(b)(3)(4),(5),(6),(7) and(8).

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/vig_06/general_06/pdf/proposition_90/entire_prop90.pdf


11 posted on 09/23/2006 9:34:48 AM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
would result in the taxpayers being gouged massively when the time come for legitmiate public acquisitions

Gouged? Paying the property owner for the value of the property or the economic loss is fair and just, IMO. Those who oppose this seem to think that gouging the property owner is AOK.

12 posted on 09/23/2006 9:45:33 AM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
If you read these provisions closely you will see that they call for payment of more than the value of the property.

I have to sign off right now but am willing to check in later with a little fuller explanation.
13 posted on 09/23/2006 9:49:39 AM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

LOL!


14 posted on 09/23/2006 10:14:22 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

You are correct. In fact, I don't think this proposition goes far enough. The proposition doesn't just require fair market value, it requires the amount of money required to put the owner in the same position monetarily as if the property had not been seized. Example, your house is seized, they pay you the fair market value. You go to buy another house and you get stuck with the additional fees for title insurance, buyer's realtor fees, attorneys fees etc. Prop 90 would cover those to put you in the same position monetarily as if your house had never been taken.

However, in Zimbabwe, what the government does is inflate the currency. The government seizes your house or farm, and agrees to give you the fair market value. Sounds great! However, they do not pay you immediately, they pay you in a year or so, when the money has depreciated to nothing. This is unlikely to occur in the U.S., but it is possible.

The correct solution is for you, the homeowner, to have the option of demanding either the government buy you a replacement house and put the keys in your hand before you have to turn over the keys to your old house or the government give you the cash. If it costs the government more to buy you a house in the same neighborhood, so be it.
This prevents a Zimbabwe style confiscation with worthless paper money.

Nonetheless, Prop 90 is a strong YES!


15 posted on 09/23/2006 10:29:45 AM PDT by Howard Jarvis Admirer (Howard Jarvis, the foe of the tax collector and friend of the California homeowner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
I've tried to comprehend the rationale behind: "taxpayers being gouged massively". I just can't.

The remark is especially puzzling considering the venue. I can only assume that the key to the startling statement may have been in the lateness of the hour when concentration drifts and minds wonder.

In the bright light of day, reimbursing a properly owner for the value of his land, at the time of the seizure and for a reasonable period afterward, seems honest, fair, right and conservative.

Implicit in the gouging remark is the assumption that private property owners have a civic duty to give their land to the government if one more than half of the citizens say so.

I think not!

16 posted on 09/23/2006 10:31:28 AM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
I've read the proposition but am interested in further explanation on your contention of taxpayer "gouging."
I am assuming that you think property owners will be overpaid for their economic loss. That is where I lose you.
17 posted on 09/23/2006 10:38:00 AM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Please don't misquote me. I never called our governor a Liberal. In fact, use the logic of his defenders, Perry would be a conservative - as he's grabbing less than 1% of the land area of Texas to give away. No, to them, only someone who grabbed all of the land, like Castro, would be a liberal. Perry's a conservative - yep. Conservative.


18 posted on 09/23/2006 10:39:29 AM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
If you read these provisions closely you will see that they call for payment of more than the value of the property.

What this refers to is the provision in 90 that treats new legislation that restricts the value of property by, say, declaring it to be an undevelopable greenbelt. Under Prop 90, the downzoning would be treated as a taking of that part of the property's value, which would have to be compensated.

Unlike BenLurkin, I don't see a problem here because this provision would apply only to NEW legislation. It would mean that before passing any law restricting the value of private property, the compensation costs required by Prop 90 would have to be calculated. This would result in a lo of legislation never being passed.

isn't this exactly what we've all been wishing for?

19 posted on 09/23/2006 10:39:46 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Howard Jarvis Admirer
Nonetheless, Prop 90 is a strong YES!

I agree!

Thanks for the info on Zimbabwe--I'm sure that will come in handy some day. ;-)

20 posted on 09/23/2006 10:41:24 AM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 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