Nothing, unless you're a socialist editorial writer for the 'Bee. 
Posted on 10/22/2006 8:40:32 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed two bills that tighten use and oversight of eminent domain in California. These bills make Proposition 90 unnecessary. They also should make clear to Californians the real agenda of the well-financed outside groups promoting Proposition 90: They want to redefine "takings" in the United States.
--snip--
These people want California voters to believe that Proposition 90 is about "fixing" eminent domain abuses. But don't be fooled.
The California Legislature held hearings in August, October and November of last year to assess the eminent domain situation in California after the Kelo v. City of New London (Conn.) decision by the Supreme Court. Legislators found California's law is significantly more restrictive than Connecticut's, requiring findings of "blight" before any taking of property for redevelopment. ...
--snip--
... the 2006 Legislature approved reform bills, and the governor signed them Sept. 29.
One, Senate Bill 1206, requires governments to show specific, quantifiable evidence of physical and economic conditions in the project area before exercising eminent domain. ...
--snip--
The second bill, Senate Bill 1210, makes it harder for local governments to rely on old redevelopment plans. ...
--snip--
But Proposition 90 never was really about eminent domain. The real agenda is an aggressive and radical campaign to halt virtually all new government regulation "unrelated to public health and safety" that owners might perceive as damaging their private property. Those regulations -- from land use and environmental protection to business regulation -- would be redefined under Proposition 90 as a "taking" of private property.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Just Vote Baby!!
Don't sweat the details!
The editorial makes this statement sound like a "bad" thing.
Private property is the underpinning of a free democratic society, in fact as well as in theory; it is what distinguishes it from fascism (the political state, not the epithet).
If there is a real argument in this editorial, I have yet to see it, reading the exerpts.
I was going to vote no on everything until I saw the 48 hour notification proposition.
That gets my yes vote.
For a Conservative this sounds like the perfect foil for the creeping socialism by regulation agenda of the Democrat machine. What is wrong with this?
They write this as if it is a bad thing. I understand the need for some regulations, but it is way too easy for small special interest groups to control the legislature and have laws written that control the rest of us. Anything that slows these people down is a good thing in my book.
I do not get it. What is wrong with this?
It deprives Democrats the power to sell political favors through corrupt regulatory land control schemes.
Bottom line, anything that will permanently prevent this abuse and its repetition is justified, no matter who proposes and financially supports it!
As things stand, looking at recent local and state decisions, merely showing that another use of your property (by other individuals) would generate more tax revenue for the "benefit" of all, is enough to apply eminent domain "taking" in the absence of blight, deterioration, or any other factor.
Yes. Your perfectly maintained suburban fifth-acre, under those cicumstances, could be taken. There is no question about that. It has already happened.
Arguing that the proposal is a bad thing by listing who "supports" it, it the most despicable form of fraud.
I would rather hear criticism of the merits of the proposition, thankyouverymuch.
Or substantive arguments, other than "apple pie", the environment, Mom and "I've got a plan"!!
All of this can be fit inside the pink house theory; if it's ugly, it must be wrong for the planners.
Sorry about the excerpts, it is worth a read in its entirety.
Your comments about the need for specificity are well taken as is the comment about no matter who is supporting it sometimes that if it can actually be beneficial in the near-term if not the long-term to preserve owners property rights, then it's OK.
This also sounds like a nice counterbalance to the Green Commies declaring every farm with a mud puddle on it is a National wetland crap. An almost identical article was printed in this month's The Nation rag trying to whip the eco-nuts into a frenzy. And no I don't subscribe, I just like to read through it. Know your enemies type reading.
Yeah, from the liberals who believe that if some government agency declares an obscure insect species to be "endangered", and one is found on your 40 acre farm therefore making your 40 acre farm useless to you and valueless on the market, then the government can just shrug and say, "Oh well... Them's the breaks."
Prop 90 says that if the government screws you like this, then they owe you.
Vote YES on Prop 90 and ignore the liberal scumbags at the Sac.
Nothing, unless you're a socialist editorial writer for the 'Bee.
The net result is too often that the resource used to justify the taking suffers significant environmental damage via mandated neglect, whether by exotic species, fire hazards, depleted soils, etc.
Why don't I see any mention of PUBLIC USE in there? Unnecessary? It's just as necessary as ever!
For some reason, I always think of that paper as "the sac".
The implicit argument here is that Prop 90 is really about making government smaller, less "activist," and less intrusive, by robbing it of the power to tell you how you can use your legally-acquired land without compensating you for any restrictions.
If I buy a piece of forest land with the intent of harvesting the timber, and pay a premium for the land based on the amount of timber on it, and somebody comes along and tells me I can't cut any trees, for example, I think that same "someone" should pay me what that timber is worth.
This kind of thinking is pure anathema to the likes of those writing this editorial.
They never stop trying do they? In light of the possibility that Prop 90 might actually pass, the legislature and the Governor panic, and quickly "do something" and then announce that Prop 90 is unnecessary.
1. Why didn't you people do something a long time ago? You KNEW that the people were angry about the bullying by the Government and were fed up!
2. The problem here is, what the legislature and the Governor can do, it can undo. Sure, they fixed it now, but in the future, they can, and will, unfix it.
3. What the people do, the Governor and the legislature will have a difficult time undoing. They will challenge it in the courts, who will of course, "undo" the will of the people.
4. And as for the SAC BEE - pfffffffffffffffft!
The CA legislature is famous for trying to get out ahead of initiatives that would enact measures that they've been resisting for decades. Any time I hear "we've fixed that, so you don't need to vote for the initiative," I know they're just trying to blow sunshine up the public's skirts.
Ditto!
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.