Posted on 10/31/2006 3:22:17 PM PST by calcowgirl
With a week to go before the election, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken a position in opposition to his own Republican party and a host of conservative groups like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association by coming out against Prop. 90 -- the eminent domain initiative that opponents say represents a regulatory nightmare which could tie up many infrastructure improvements in a legal chokehold.
"Rebuilding our schools, roads, levees and housing is a critical priority of my administration," writes Schwarzenegger in an op-ed piece released today. "Unfortunately, Proposition 90 also includes language that would make rebuilding our system or public infrastructure prohibitively expensive. When agencies must acquire property to build vital public works projects, current law provides for just compensation based on fair market value of the property. Proposition 90 makes changes to this system that would require inflated payments, at taxpayer expenses."
"For these reasons, while I can sympathize with the intent of those who support Prop 90, I have no choice but to oppose this initiative," the governor writes.
The following is the complete text of the letter:
(snip)
On November 7, California voters will have an opportunity to vote on Proposition 90. I have carefully analyzed this measure, however, and have come to the conclusion I cannot support Prop 90. Let me tell you why.
The proponents of Prop 90 added provisions that I believe will undermine basic government laws that protect our home values, safeguard our environment and allow for the building of safe roads, schools and other essential infrastructure. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Arnold is yet again wrong, yet right.. The Governor can take comfort in that once Prop 90 passes, he can finally start unloading the property that the state has taken over the years, at reasonable prices, to the previous owners.
Sigh...
Who is surprised?
But that's more ammo for when we purge him and his ilk from our state party next year.
Vote "Yes" on Aaaahnold. Vote "Yes" on 90.
I don't understand what you mean. Prop 90 has no retroactivy so how would that affect property currently owned by the state?
For me, he and McCain are one and the same. I never know when they're gonna do the absolute right thing, or when they're gonna go leftie on us.
We are? I don't particularly like Arnold, but don't you think he's the best shot we have at a "conservative" governor in CA?
It's of course not surprising he took a position opposite conservative groups because he's not a conservative.
How about no fancy laws.
Just one that says "Eminent Domain shall not be used for the benefit of private parties"
Simple. Neat. Special interests see something good, they sabotage it by asking for too much.
In Florida IIRC the amendment up for vote sounds great until you read that the legislature can override it for specific projects with 60% of the vote. IOW, a trick to raise more dough from developers and related lobbyists.
In other words, you still have the problem, but you've also guaranteed a steady flow of government monies to certain well-connected parties' pockets...
Because 30% of the vote is entirely too much.
Well, there you go. If anyone had any doubts about Arnie this should settle it. RINO!
No.
I'm a Republican because I think the values of the Democrat Party are BAD for California. Candidates that support those values are BAD for California. He's not the "best" anything.
I'm not disagreeing with you on that. I'm only saying that because California is such a bastion of liberalism, I just don't think its possible to get anyone into the Governers office who's more conservative than Arnold. I'm not happy about it, but I can't see any true conservative getting elected here.
I have a serious question: is Proposition 90 a litmus test for conservatism, or might there be a reasonable conservative argument against it?
I have carefully analyzed this measure. . .In Oregon, where a similar measure was passed in 2004, more than 2,600 claims have been filed seeking more than $6 billion in compensation. Many of these claims are unfounded and from speculators simply looking to cash in on the public's dime.
He obviously didn't study it very hard. Oregon's measure allowed existing environmental rules and government restrictions on the use of land to be overturned. California's does NOT.
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.