CA: Secrecy over land assailed, defended - Prices Questioned In Taxpayer Deals (Prop 84)

San Jose Mercury News ^ | Oct. 15, 2006 | Paul Rogers

[calcowgirl]

Californians will soon go to the polls to vote on Proposition 84, a $5.4 billion bond to pay for water projects and park land -- the largest such bond in state history. But even as that campaign plays out, questions are arising over whether taxpayers are getting a fair price when state agencies buy land for parks and wildlife.

Environmentalists, taxpayer groups and several Bay Area political leaders last week called for new laws to require California agencies to make appraisals public before they buy ranches, forests, wetlands and other property.

They argue that this would reduce the risk of error and overpayment, particularly amid new concerns that taxpayers paid too much in the government's 2003 purchase of 16,500 acres of Cargill salt ponds along the southern edges of San Francisco Bay.

But the primary state agency that buys land for parks says more openness would scare potential sellers away.

``The private property owners -- not only the big guy but the little guy -- have a right to confidentiality,'' said John Donnelly, interim director of the state Wildlife Conservation Board in Sacramento.

``You could potentially create a lot of hardship and undue hassle to the landowner. Some landowners don't even want their neighbor to know they are selling to the state.''

(snip)

Controversy over land prices arose in the 1998 Headwaters redwood forest deal in Humboldt County, the 2004 Hearst Ranch deal and the 2003 Playa Vista wetlands purchase in Los Angeles.

Critics say a coterie of real estate officials who work for state agencies prefer to remain out of view while spending billions in public money -- away from the accountability and pressures that city and county officials face when spending far less.

[calcowgirl]

Commenting on Prop 84:

"What water bond?" said Assemblyman Doug La Malfa (R-Richvale). "You mean the land acquisition bond?"

[goldstategop]

These are the same people who are against Proposition 90. Oh my God - do you realize that would throw a monkey wrench into the government buying up prime real estate for pennies on the dollar? You see, what the Greens are arguing here is not for the public's right to know about the details of public land acquisition but to intimidate sellers from selling at their land at its actual market value. These people are not concerned about the harm to private property rights; they're worried about the government not being able to buy a lot of a land at a firesale price.

"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

[Enterprise]

Bump

[calcowgirl]

These are the same people who are against Proposition 90. Oh my God - do you realize that would throw a monkey wrench into the government buying up prime real estate for pennies on the dollar?

It also allows them to pay prime dollar to favored sellers for undervalued land and act without accountability, as they did with Gary Winnick and Playa Vista. Re: Prop 90, you are absolutely right! Apologies to those who have seen this that I posted earlier, but it really is worth a read:

Proposition 90 (to end Eminent Domain abuse)

Anyone feeling squishy about giving anything other than an enthusiastic YES vote for Proposition 90 should read this booklet written by Steven Greenhut (editorial writer - Orange County Register), published by the Pacific Research Institute. It is about 40 pages of text but is written in plain English and cites some of the real-time abuses happening in California (e.g. a proposal for 400 homes in Garden Grove to be obliterated for a theme park!). It starts with an explanation of the U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision and works forward to the proposition and each of its reforms, ending with rebuttals to the concerns presented by opponents of Prop 90. It is well worth the read.

RIGHTING PROPERTY WRONGS
Proposition 90 and California property rights [PDF 762KB]
By Steven Greenhut

[Amerigomag]

The problem with Prop 84 and many others on the November ballot is not their language but their intent:

Paying for traditional, General Fund expenditures with revenue from bonding. Committing two generations of taxpayers to support the spending excesses of one.

This is the legacy of the CaGOP, more specifically of Arnold Schwarzenegger (Prop 57/58). Voting for any of these measures will commit your children to underwrite Schwarzenegger's creative strategy, now adopted by other liberals in California. The liberal gift that keeps on giving.

I urge all conservatives to vote NO on these measures and send a message to our liberal governance:

Stop borrowing to fund routine expenditures for parks and recreation.

Reduce social spending and the size of state government and there will be plenty of tax money to protect California's natural heritage. Spending just the interest payments on Prop 84 ($5B) will buy a fair strip of land 1/2 mile wide along the Pacific Coast Highway at prevailing retail prices.