Posted on 10/19/2006 7:50:14 AM PDT by SmithL
THE 2005 U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision outraged America. The Big Bench ruled that the city of New London, Conn., could seize residents' homes through eminent domain and give them to a private developer. The ruling doesn't fit with the Fifth Amendment language that governments could take not property for "public use" without just compensation.
That's when I got in touch with John Revelli, whose property and business (Revelli Tires) were seized by the city of Oakland so that a private developer could build apartments on the lot. "I thought the government was supposed to protect the little guy," Revelli told me over the phone yesterday. Instead, Oakland seized his land and business to help another business make big bucks.
Now Revelli wants California voters to pass Proposition 90, the ballot measure that would roll back Kelo, in that it would prohibit using eminent domain for private projects. I won't vote for the measure, and I'm on Revelli's side. I don't believe the government should be able to take land from one owner to give to another. "Public use" should apply only to government projects, such as roads, schools and parks.
Too bad Prop. 90 has extra provisions that go beyond Kelo and threaten to cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year.
. . . As Revelli told me, California politicians should fear a "backlash. If they're not willing to work (for a good eminent-domain reform), what do they expect people to do? The next thing is a revolt."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Debra makes the best case I've seen so far, to vote against Prop 90. However, it wasn't enough to convince me.
We already find it revolting - but every time we try, the government won't give us a permit to revolt.
/sarc
I'm with you. If the state government would stay out of the real-estate business altogether, then all the hand-wringing about lawsuits would be moot.
Right now my county is going through a community plan review. The staff wanted to down-zone many of the lots because the socialist utopians in the planning department decided that the best way to reduce growth in the county would be to arbitrarily lower the number of parcels allowed.
If Prop 90 passes, someone could sue the county for the value they lost when their property was downzoned.
Much like the argument that a reduction in the increase in spending is actually a cut, the staffers and county officials are seeing this as an expense. They believe they have a God(Marx) given right to decide what people do with their own property and that they should have the arbitrary right to sieze it without compensation..so they calculate the LOSS to taxpayers based on how much land they CANNOT sieze.
Twisted logic, but that is how they do it.
Kelo represents a HUGE threat in California where Prop 13 has created a situation that has the governments licking their chops. A little old lady owns a piece of land purchased in the 50's for $8,000. Things built up around her and now her land is worth $1,000,000. She pays $100 a year in property taxes. They can sieze her property, flip it without any improvement for $1,000,000 and recover an increase in taxes of ~$15,000 / year.
This is SCARY to think about if you own an older property.
Too bad taxpayer-sponsored government regulations have been stealing billions of dollars a year from landowners.
Yeah, sure. The League of California Cities will come back with a do-nothing measure so they can continue with their Agenda21 pretty-up-the-neighborhood landgrabbing sustainable development.
Saunders doesn't seem to get it. If a property owner suffers "substantial economic loss" then the government should pay! And if the government officials can't justify their actions to the taxpayer, then they shouldn't take the action in the first place. I'll be voting YES... enthusiastically. More reasons below.
RIGHTING PROPERTY WRONGS
Proposition 90 and California property rights (PDF-762KB)
By Steven Greenhut
Debra makes the best case I've seen so far, to vote against Prop 90.
You forgot the sarcasm switch...
Here's a letter that is heading to about 600 mailboxes...
If passed, California Proposition 90 will be of great value to all California landowners and particularly, we forestland owners who are under siege from government and environmental activists who are making it increasingly difficult to successfully grow and harvest timber. Proposition 90 does a couple of things. It prevents government agencies from using eminent domain (condemnation of land) for purposes other than serious public need such as roads, schools etc. Your property cannot be involuntarily taken from you and given to a private or commercial entity. This is necessary due to a recent U. S. Supreme-Court decision that opened the door to this misuse of eminent domain. More importantly, Proposition 90 also recognizes and compensates landowners for partial taking of their property by government regulators. I am a member of several forest landowner organizations and the bemoaning of the lack of a partial takings law has been a common theme in all of them. This is an opportunity to remedy that.
Proposition 90 provides that if a government action reduces the value of your property, even without a complete taking, they must pay you an amount equal to the partial loss in your value or their action becomes void. (Presently, you are entitled to compensation only if the entire parcel is condemned or if the value is driven to absolute zero by a government action.) As an example, under Proposition 90, if, as a condition of your harvest permit, you are required to leave a 50 foot buffer of uncut timber at your boundary, reducing your harvestable timberland by five acres, the government would either have to pay you the market value of five acres of timber or abandon that restriction.
Proposition 90 is similar to an Oregon initiative, Measure 37, that was passed by the voters a couple of years ago and has since withstood numerous legal attacks. Measure 37 has significantly reduced the power of governments to whittle away the land values of the Oregon landowners by a continuous incremental process of land use restrictions.
The main opposition to Proposition 90 comes from environmentalists and government bureaus that have become far too accustomed to making rules without feeling the impacts of those rules themselves. Contrary to prevalent misinformation, it does not change any existing zoning laws, will not cause any present environmental regulations to be thrown out and does not apply to any government actions taken before its adoption. Please help us pass the word to landowners and responsible voters that Proposition 90 is a step toward restoring the intent of James Madison and his associates when they wrote the U. S. Constitution.
EXCELLENT!
"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
One of the dangers of using sarcasm as much as I do is people tend to assume that I'm always being sarcastic. In this case, I wasn't.
I think Debra has made the most rational argument for opposing Prop 90 that can be made. But, as I mentioned above, it wasn't enough to convince me.
As long as it is for the common good, it should be done.
"As long as it is for the common good, it should be done."
As in "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs"???
Do you have any spare change?
What part of her argument do you consider rational?
I like Debra, even though I frequently disagree with her. She gets extra credit just for being a rare voice of conservatism at the Comicle.
Debra managed to present her argument without resorting to the hysteria used by most opponents of Prop 90. She is correct that Prop 90 goes way beyond Kelo, and the language is indeed "inartful". Since "just compensation" isn't defined in the measure, it means that some judge will end up defining it. That does bother me, but it didn't stop me from voting for the measure.
OBTW - Hillary called me a few minutes ago asking me to vote against another initiative. I told her that I really wanted her to run for President in `08, but as usual, she wouldn't shut up long enough to listen to anyone else.
1. Qualify the proposition
2. Relentlessly advertise, spend millions
3. Vote
4. Loser goes to court
5. Court rules unconstitutional, overturns.
If we know that this is the inevitable result, then why have us go through this Kabuki Dance at all? Why not just let the judges decide and save us all the money and trouble?
Better yet, why not let the Legislature do their job in the first place?
-PJ
Do you have change for a $20?
...Please share this with all your 'right-minded' friends who vote in California.
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.