Prop. 90: Will Courts Have to Correct a Voter Mistake? [Judicial Tyrants Alert]

Ukiah Daily Journal ^ | 10/20/2006 | Thomas D. Elias

[ozoneliar]

The complaints often come long and loud when courts strike down part or all of various ballot propositions after California elections because they're either unconstitutional or so vaguely written that no one can tell just what they mean.

But sometimes these court actions are flat-out necessary, either to protect vital rights or to fix problems the voters never knew they were creating when they passed an initiative.

[4rcane]

yea, thats right, the people are stupid to know whats best for them, says the smarter than everyone else liberals

[Carry_Okie]

LOL, this one has the land-thugs and their enablers in the press really scared.

[Repeal The 17th]

From the article:
"...Relatively unpublicized sections demand, for instance, that property owners be paid for any change in a law or regulation that results in substantial economic loss.

Prop. 90's compensation rules could affect government actions relating, for example, to employment conditions, apartment prices, endangered species, historical preservation and consumer financial protection.

In short, if a city declared a small structure to be historic, thus preventing its owner from tearing it down to clear the path for a skyscraper, the city might have to pay the owner the equivalent of the value of a high-rise building in that location..."

My inclination is that if the city wants to preserve someone's historic building,
why don't they just buy it from them
instead of mandating what the owner can and can not do with it?

[AZRepublican]

Anything the people enact themselves is unconstitutional until a federal court says its not, unless of course it is a liberal law by liberals.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Of couse it was the courts that started this whole mess in the first place with the Kelo decision that lead to people across the nation working to put on the ballot measures like Prop 90.

[jiggyboy]

In short, if a city declared a small structure to be historic, thus preventing its owner from tearing it down to clear the path for a skyscraper, the city might have to pay the owner the equivalent of the value of a high-rise building in that location.

An astonishingly poor example to use to argue that we shouldn't vote for Prop 90.

[free_at_jsl.com]

" My inclination is that if the city wants to preserve someone's historic building, why don't they just buy it from them instead of mandating what the owner can and can not do with it?"

You're right. I've seen cities try to limit what a homeowner can do. Two examples are less than a mile from me. One in Hermosa beach where the owner of a 'historical' home had his renovation halted by the city council, and another in Redondo Beach where a 'historic' home was sold to a business but the landowner had to agree to many conditions such as no modifications to the property.
I'm all for prop 90 and I think it will pass readily. The sections that the article complains about are just fine by me. How would you like it if your city re-zoned your neighborhood and reduced the value of your home by 50%? This law says the city must compensate people under such conditions. There are cases pending in court right now where these very events took place.

[Lancey Howard]

I started copying and pasting parts of this guy's article with my easy refutations following each excerpt. Unfortunately, I gave it up because there were so many logical fallacies, red herrings, and outright lies in the article that the exercise got to be ridiculous.

The article is a waste of time and the author is a clown.

[Lancey Howard]

Here's another article by the same author in which he denounces Prop 85, the parental notification initiative. He thinks a mother and father should be kept in the dark if their young daughter wants an abortion.

Swell guy, this Thomas D. Elias.

[Repeal The 17th]

It seems so simple to me.

The city could simply buy the property from the current owner, put whatever deed restrictions on the property that they wanted to and then turn right around and put the property back on the market again. Then the new buyer would know exactly what they were getting into from the get-go and would have no room to complain.

The city's problem would come when that first owner does not want to sell, but 99% of the time that would be because they have not come off enough bucks. Other than that, the money talks and the BS walks.

[raftguide]

"But sometimes these court actions are flat-out necessary, either to protect vital rights or to fix problems the voters never knew they were creating when they passed an initiative."

Funny, how initiatives from the right in California oft need such judicial review and overturning, but those from the left just sail right through the same court system without any problem. Doubt there's any type of bias, but it sure is a curious observation!

[Uriah_lost]

He is either astoundingly incompetent or intentionally dishonest, but I suspect him of both.

[Lancey Howard]

Huh. On the other hand, Thomas D. Elias shows a lot of good sense on issues such as dumping bi-lingual education and saying "no" to the bond issues.

[newzjunkey]

You just don't understand. Your way would be fair and sensible! It could be obstructionist to the dismantling of property rights by gov't!

[newzjunkey]

Like you said, the author is a clown.

[sergeantdave]

I would think that restoring property rights to individuals, especially the right to lawfully use property as outlined in our English common law tradition, would be repugnant to the Marxists running the state. The fascist soviet socialist model of government has been pretty well established in California as it manages private property for the good of the state, as defined by the state.

One would think that citizens would find the idea of unelected bureaucrats writing law repugnant, if not outright illegal.

Prop 90 is certainly a giant step in destroying the unelected soviet socialist councils and reining in their abusive law-making powers.

[Seadog Bytes]

Good article - Short, sweet and exactly right... Oregon did it.  ...Californians can too.

 

Daily Press, a Freedom Communications Newspaper                                                 Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Why they fear Prop 90's passage

As we've noted, we favor passage of Proposition 90 because we believe that, at the very least, government should be severely restricted in its ability to take private property, and should fully compensate property owners for their loss as a result of government action.

Not surprisingly, the possibility of keeping government out of the business of transferring property from one private owner to another in the interests of increasing government revenues has prompted an unholy alliance of big business, government and environmentalists. Well, perhaps that's not exactly right. The environmentalists have climbed on board to oppose the proposition because 90 will also require government to compensate private owners who have their property taken either directly, or have had its value reduced through more restrictive zoning or other regulations. 'Regulatory' takings are just as dangerous

Such "regulatory takings" — and a huge number of those are because environmental activists have gone to court to stop a private property owner from developing his own property — are just as offensive as other eminent domain abuses. It matters little whether the government takes 100 percent of your property by invoking eminent domain or, say, 25 or 50 percent of its value by passing regulations. In both cases, Prop 90 would require compensation.

While the proposition admittedly has its drawbacks (it vaguely requires government to compensate property owners for "substantial" economic loses caused by new regulations and leaves open-ended such eminent domain justifications as "blight"), it does offer property owners throughout the state some real protection against governments' most egregious eminent domain abuses.

How important is such protection? Well, it turns out that California is one of the most active states in condemning properties for the benefit of other private parties. Between 1998 and 2002, according to Adam B. Summers, a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation, California cities and redevelopment agencies have condemned at least 223 individual properties for the benefit of private parties — and threatened at least another 635.

It could happen to anyone

For those who think such eminent domain abuses will never happen to them, consider: Why are governments, the state Chamber of Commerce, and any number of large businesses throughout the state so opposed to Proposition 90? Can it be because they understand full well that California's various government bodies will have no compunction about invoking eminent domain when it suits their agenda, and that agenda may suit their own agendas as well? Perish the thought.

Some critics of Proposition 90 have warned that, if it becomes law, it will spawn an endless number of lawsuits, and thereby become a job market for lawyers. So it might, but only at first. Once precedents have been established, through the courts, about what Prop 90 can and can't do (and thus what cities, counties, developers and environmentalists can and can't do under the new rules) litigation will dry up. And, more importantly, so will those abusive and unjust raids on private property.

Steve Williams

http://www.vvdailypress.com/2006/116109275360140.html

 

   

(Please FReepmail if you want on, or off, this list.   I certainly have no desire to increase anyone’s stress-level. Thanks!!!)

[Defender2]

CNN = Communists News Network!!!!
CBS = Communists BULL Sh*t!!!!
ABC = ALL BULLSH*T COMMUNISTS!!!!
NBC = NOTHING BUT COMMUNISTS!!!!
CNBC = COMMUNISTS, NOTHING BUT COMMUNISTS!!!!
MSNBC = MATTHEWS SUCKS NOTHING BUT COMMUNISTS!!!!
C-SPAN1 = Communists-Socialists Pandering *ssholes Network #1.
C-SPAN2 = Communists-Socialists Pandering *ssholes Network #2
BBC = Bill's Bullsh*t Communsts!!!!

The demoCommiecRATic Party, the MSM(Including CNN), the New York Times (Correction: SLIMES) and Reuters....known 5th columnists....communists, socialists, terrorists and enemy's friends....terrorists lovers....the demoCommiecRATic Party, the MSM(including CNN), the New York SLIMES (Times) and Reuters performs fellatio with our enemies....the demoCommiecRATic Party, the MSM(including CNN), the New York Slimes and Reuters loves every communists, socialists, terrorists around....the New York SLIMES (Times) and Reuters....commie trash rags!!!!:-(

The MSM's, the MSM(including CNN), the New York Slimes (Times), Reuters and the demoCommiecRATic Party's friends:

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html (Nancy Pelosi's organization)

democratic socialist members in Congress:

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/dsa_members.htm


This IS why we cannot let the 'RATS win in November, VOTE to keep the 'RATS OUT!!!!


Fair Weather wichever way the wind blows FOX including Mr. whichever way the wind blows O'Reilly sometimes Rocks.

The Mighty MAJA RUSHIE, Rush Limbaugh, Rules the Airwaves and FRee Republic IS the Best NEWS Network!!!!:-)

D2

[BenLurkin]

I read the whole article. Don't see any legal reason identified for the courts to get involved.

It is an outrageous suggestion that the courts have the authority to restrain the will of the people absent a patent illegality (for the "common good" evidently!)