Daniel Weintraub: Proposition 90 is the sleeper in this fall's lineup

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.

There were several initiatives in work in 2005, as well as legislation that was introduced by McClintock (that didn't get very far). The current Protect Our Homes Act (Prop 90) took the eminent domain language similar to that being proposed by McClintock and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers's Association and added the portion on takings. The latter addition was included in the initiative filing, which showed the name Anita S. Anderson as proponent. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Anderson is associated with Howard Rich, a New Yorker who has largely bankrolled the initiative through various advocacy groups. [Mogul's network bankrolls Prop. 90 - Web of advocacy groups funnels millions to pass property rights initiative] See also an article posted at FR from Capitol Weekly about Rich's efforts. [New York developer's eminent-domain crusade comes to California]

Below are the contributors to the Pro-90 side.

PROTECT OUR HOMES COALITION, In Support Of Protection Of Private Property From Government Acquisition,
Sponsored By THE FUND FOR DEMOCRACY, With Support Of ADVOCATES FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR	AMOUNT

THE FUND FOR DEMOCRACY	1,500,000.00
AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT, INC.	1,000,000.00
MONTANANS IN ACTION	600,000.00
CLUB FOR GROWTH STATE ACTION	220,000.00
FIELDSTEAD & COMPANY	200,000.00
MIMI WALTERS FOR ASSEMBLY 2006	55,200.00
COLORADO AT ITS BEST	50,000.00
THE COLONIES PARTNERS, L.P.	50,000.00
IRVINE CITY, SCHOOLS AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE LEADERS COMMITTEE	20,000.00
NFIB - CALIFORNIA SAFE TRUST	15,000.00
LUCERO FARMS LLC	10,000.00
THE SHELBRAN COMPANY, INC.	10,000.00
GILLIARD BLANNING WYSOCKI & ASSOCIATES	7,725.00
ATEL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC	5,000.00
SOUTH COUNTY LEADERSHIP PAC	2,333.86
AARON EPSTEIN	1,000.00
All other (78 small contributors)	9,764.00

Grand Total	3,756,022.86

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.