Posted on 10/24/2006 3:25:41 PM PDT by SmithL
Like the surprise ending to a long, dreary novel, Proposition 90 sits at the very end of this fall's crowded California ballot, a subtle plot twist that seems out of place among the more obvious turns that precede it.
But take notice. This unassuming proposal is the most important question voters will confront on Nov. 7.
Polls show that few voters know what Proposition 90 is about, much less understand its significance. No wonder, given that relatively little money has been spent so far communicating messages for and against the initiative.
And unlike some of the other measures on the ballot, Proposition 90 comes with no easily identifiable target, such as the tobacco industry or the oil companies.
The proposal's promoters are selling it as a reform of eminent domain, the process governments everywhere use to force the sale of private property for public purposes. But it is much more than that. It is a sweeping change in the state constitution that could potentially affect just about every new state or local government regulation adopted in the future.
The part of Proposition 90 that deals with eminent domain is simple enough. It would limit the use of eminent domain to sales needed for a specific public use, such as a road or a school, or to remove a narrowly defined nuisance, such as an abandoned home or business that has become a danger to the community.
Proposition 90 would prohibit government from forcing the sale of private property and then selling that property to another owner for private use. Government would have to retain ownership of any property it took through eminent domain, and if it later decided to sell the property, the original owner would have first call on buying it back.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
The more restrictions on government the better. I still have yet to see any negative to this proposition.
It's the only proposition I'm voting "yes" on.
Just got my vote.
I don't know how Prop. 90 is going, either. But with the rest of the ballot, I'm going to do my usual: vote "R" and "no."
Boy, there's a real bunch. Anything they're against, I'm automatically for.
I'd hope.
If the left wing opposes it, let's wait until someone decides that Kelo enables taking property away from some minority owners and gentrifying the area for those evil rich white folks who can sure pay a lot more in property and sales taxes.
I've yet to see even a scintilla of a reason to vote other than YES on Proposition 90.
Taxpayers will vote YES; the Tax Eaters will be opposed to anything that might yank them back from the trough.
Sounds like something that's going to be blown to pieces on appeal (probably Jerry Brown's first job, when he's not fighting to keep his office...)
But I'll be voting yes...
And Weintraub has a problem with that?
YES on 90 - YES for Freedom!
"Here is a list of the mostly left-wing and big-government groups that are funding a campaign to stop an initiative designed to stop eminent domain abuse.
California Police Chiefs Association
California Fire Chiefs Association
League of California Homeowners
California Small Business Association
League of Women Voters of California
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California State Council of Laborers
The Nature Conservancy
Small School Districts' Association
Transportation & Land Use Coalition
National Coalition of Hispanic Organizations
Los Angeles Metropolitan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
California School Boards Association
American Farmland Trust
California Housing Consortium
Consumers First
Coalition for Economic Survival
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club California
Defenders of Wildlife
Planning and Conservation League
League of California Cities
California State Association of Counties
Association of California Water Agencies
National Wildlife Federation
Quite a lineup...tax-eaters, every one of them.
Contributor | Contributions |
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SECURITIES ASSOCIATION- ISSUES PAC | 400,000 |
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES - NON PUBLIC FUNDS | 300,000 |
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CITIPAC | 290,000 |
FOREST CITY RESIDENTIAL WEST, INC. | 250,000 |
CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (NON-PUBLIC FUNDS) | 208,284 |
NO ON 90, CONSERVATIONISTS FOR TAXPAYER PROTECTION | 205,000 |
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - NON PUBLIC FUNDS | 160,000 |
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS- ISSUES MOBILIZATION PAC | 100,000 |
CALIFORNIA NATIONS INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION SOVEREIGNTY PROTECTION FUND | 100,000 |
SEMPRA ENERGY | 100,000 |
WILLDAN GROUP, INC. | 50,000 |
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER, LLP | 25,000 |
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. | 25,000 |
MCDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN PC | 25,000 |
ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, LTD. | 25,000 |
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES ASSOC. ISSUES PAC | 20,000 |
OVERLAND PACIFIC & CUTLER, INC. | 20,000 |
RBC DAIN RAUSCHER | 20,000 |
STONE & YOUNGBERG, LLC | 20,000 |
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP, CALIFORNIA PAC | 12,000 |
JONES HALL, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. | 10,000 |
MCLARLAND VASQUEZ EMSIEK & PARTNERS, INC. | 10,000 |
Grand Total | 2,502,387 |
Look who shows up at the top of the list--the public bond brokers.
The League of California Homeowners appears to be a group supporting Contractors, not Property owners.
http://www.homeowners.org/
http://www.homeowners.org/LCHO_gen_faq.php
The only poll I have seen was sampled last month and showed 61.3 percent of likely California voters supported Proposition 90, 24.0 percent opposed and 14.7 percent were still undecided
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.