Posted on 11/01/2006 6:22:57 PM PST by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced his opposition to a property rights initiative on the November ballot, but his Democratic opponent is questioning why it took him so long to decide.
Up for re-election, the Republican governor had withheld his opinion of Proposition 90, which has been championed by conservatives in his party but criticized by environmental groups whose support Schwarzenegger has also sought.
A spokesman for state treasurer Phil Angelides, Brian Brokaw, said the governor “had to be repeatedly prodded to take a position” on the ballot measure.
“Phil Angelides never hesitated to oppose Prop. 90 and the devastating repercussions it would have on environmental protections in California,” Brokaw said Wednesday.
Schwarzenegger campaign spokesman Matt David said the governor didn't delay taking a position on the initiative until late in the campaign to avoid criticism from its supporters.
“This is when the governor made his decision,” David said. “There was no strategy to wait until later.”
Proposition 90 is described by supporters as a property rights fairness issue, but it is much more sweeping than the advertised reining in of governments' eminent domain powers. The initiative could hamper local and state government ability to pass any law that impacts a landowner's property value, opponents say.
In a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle, Schwarzenegger allied himself with the more 400 groups that have warned that the measure would “undermine basic government laws.”
“The measure is so broad and poorly drafted that I fear it will result in a barrage of frivolous lawsuits from individuals and property owners who claim the most rudimentary new laws have caused them economic harm,” Schwarzenegger wrote.
Proposition 90 supporters said in a statement that the governor had “been very poorly served in a full and fair representation of the facts” of what the measure would do.
In a nod to conservatives, Schwarzenegger said he was disappointed by last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision expanding government power to take property from unwilling sellers.
The ruling in that Connecticut case, Kelo vs. City of New London, has galvanized property owners around the country seeking tighter controls on eminent domain. There are property rights initiatives on the November ballot in 11 states.
Put on the ballot by property rights activists, Proposition 90 would amend the state Constitution to make it harder and more costly for governments to condemn property or pass regulations that affect land values.
The California Budget Project and the Legislature's budget analyst have said the proposition could cost billions of dollars each year.
The initiative would require that governments compensate property owners for any “substantial economic loss” on their property if they change laws, rules or regulations.
A similar initiative approved by Oregon voters in 2004 has given property owners the power to seek money or waivers from government land-use regulations. For example, farmers in areas zoned for agriculture can now build homes on their land or be compensated by government.
More than 2,700 claims seeking more than $6 billion in compensation under the Oregon law had been filed as of Oct. 20, according to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.
Critics of Proposition 90 fear a similar scenario in California.
“Its provisions would allow lawsuits and potential payouts of taxpayer dollars over new laws and regulations intended to protect open space and the environment; laws and regulations intended to protect consumers; and laws and regulations designed to restrict undesirable businesses in our neighborhoods,” Schwarzenegger said.
On the Net:
www.ss.ca.gov
www.90yes.com
www.noProp90.com
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Still, the only real control the government has in California is WATER, and if you don't have any it won't matter what you build.
Hi HO Hi Ho..
It's off to court we go.
Hi HO HI ho..
--
I should have gone in to law. damn.
Yes on 90... and yes on Noonan! Caulifohneeah!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
What an incredible piece of ugly design eh!
Los Angeles (October 18, 2006) – Proposition 90 establishes reasonable property rights protections for homeowners and small businesses, according to a new Reason Foundation report that analyzes the anticipated consequences of Proposition 90.
The Reason study also concludes that Proposition 90 is not a "taxpayer trap" and would not cripple local budgets or undermine environmental and growth regulations.
The report says that while a similar measure in Oregon has produced over 2,000 claims from landowners seeking $5 billion in compensation from state and local governments, California's Proposition 90 is significantly different in a key way: Proposition 90 applies only to future laws and regulations and no landowner would be allowed to challenge any existing regulation. In stark contrast, Oregon's Measure 37 did not include such language and allowed landowners to challenge laws that had already been implemented.
"The costs related to new regulations will be minimal," stated Leonard Gilroy, a certified urban planner, policy analyst at Reason Foundation and author of the report. "Local governments can exempt individual landowners from new laws by issuing things like conditional permits, thus restoring their property rights at little or no cost. Since Proposition 90 does not impose any new taxes or costs, the government would only incur expenses if it destroys the value of your land with a new law and chooses not to give you an exemption."
Don't buy it! McClintock says vote YES!! And I did!!
The California Republican Party endorsed Proposition 90 (known as Save our Homes), the November ballot initiative that will restore our basic property rights. The endorsement came Sunday at the GOP’s state convention in Los Angeles.
“The Republican Party’s endorsement is important, but this issue is neither Republican or Democratic—it is fundamentally American,” said State Senator Tom McClintock. “This is about restoring the original property rights protections of the American Bill of Rights that were ripped out of the Constitution by the Kelo decision of the U.S. Supreme Court a year ago.”
During the convention on Saturday morning, Tom McClintock led a workshop on protecting our property rights. The Protecting our Property Rights workshop was held to raise the awareness of Proposition 90 and build support for the initiative among Republican faithful. Senator McClintock was joined by Assembly member Mimi Walters, Orange County Supervisor Chris Norby, Orange County Register senior editorial writer and columnist Steven Greenhut and Bob Blue, a business owner of a luggage shop in Hollywood who has been a victim of eminent domain abuse. About 100 delegates to the CRP’s convention this weekend attended the workshop in support of the initiative.
McClintock said last year’s Court decision broke the Social Compact that gives government its legitimacy and opened a new era when the rich and powerful can use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain. Government may now literally take the house of a person it doesn’t like and give it to a person that it does like. Stripped of all the sophistries and euphemisms, this is what it comes down to.
“There are 6,000 public agencies in California that now have the power to seize your home, pay you pennies on the dollar for it, and then give it to somebody else for their own personal gain and profit,” McClintock said. “Since this decision in June 2005, California lawmakers have failed to act, failed to ‘fix’ the Kelo decision and restore our property rights. Sadly, it now falls upon the people of California to take action and pass Proposition 90.”
Please include in your explanation: what constitutes an unpublished opinion or order?
I need to explain this to a whole host of suspicious family members and neighbors.
Unpublished opinion. An opinion that the court has specifically designated as not for publication. * Court rules usu. prohibit citing an unpublished opinion as authority. Such an opinion is considered binding on only the parties to the particular case in which it is issued. (source--from Black's Law Dictionary)
The following is from an excellent paper on Prop 90 from Steven Greenhut, "RIGHTING PROPERTY WRONGS, Proposition 90 and California property rights" (Recommended reading)
p.36From a Nevada property rights website that had the exact same language included in Nevada legislation:Given the post-Kelo public sentiment, few critics want to go on record as opposing eminent domain reform. So critics have focused on regulatory takings and on perceived technical flaws of the initiative. Here’s one example: The initiative states that “Unpublished eminent domain judicial opinions or orders shall be null and void.” The language was apparently a reaction to an unpublished eminent domain case in Nevada. The idea of including similar language also was raised at the Legislature’s Joint Committee of Redevelopment and Eminent Domain Reform on November 17, 2005, where Pasadena attorney Chris Sutton made that suggestion.54 Critics say this is confusing. Yet, in many areas of law, the issue of unpublished opinions is controversial. For instance, the Rose Bird court decided cases outside precedent and depublished orders as a way to avoid scrutiny. This provision keeps eminent domain opinions in full view, where they can be readily quoted and scrutinized. Critics of Prop. 90 also argue that some of its language is vague. That is no doubt true, although the five-page initiative is remarkably intelligible to average voters, in a way that many voluminous initiatives are not. All initiatives in California ultimately get hashed out in the courts. There’s no way around this, so this complaint strikes this writer as a minor quibble.
Unpublished opinions allow the court to produce fiat rulings rather than binding precedence which they should be forced to follow in the future. If State Supreme Court decisions are not result oriented, then they should be published for the public to read and rely on as the law of the land for future generations.
I finally found the "official" "publication" of his position:
http://www.joinarnold.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=jkIVLdMTJrE&b=1808163&ct=3217817
Governor's View
No on Proposition 90
November 1, 2006
By Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Private property rights are a foundation upon which this country was built -- a vital piece of the American dream and the United States Constitution. That's why I, like so many Americans, was disappointed by last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirming the right of a city in Connecticut to condemn a private home for the sole purpose of economic development. The Court also reaffirmed the role of individual state and local Legislatures to establish policies governing how eminent domain is carried out for "public use."
To protect California property owners, I signed legislation this year that provides added safeguards for our homeowners and small businesses and further restricts how eminent domain is used for re-development. And I am committed to working with the Legislature to do even more.
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. According to a variety of independent fiscal analyses, some provisions in Proposition 90 threaten to increase costs for taxpayers by billions of dollars each year.
That's why Proposition 90 has attracted opposition from a unique coalition that includes property rights advocates, taxpayer watchdogs, farmers, environmentalists, police and fire officials, small businesses and homeowner groups. Some 50 California newspapers have also come out against this ill-advised initiative.
Proposition 90 would change our state constitution to allow any landowner, business or enterprising trial lawyer to sue the government and its taxpayers any time a state or local agency passes a law that someone claims has resulted in "substantial economic loss" to their property.
The measure is so broad and poorly drafted that I fear it will result in a barrage of frivolous lawsuits from individuals and property owners who claim the most rudimentary new laws have caused them economic harm.
Its provisions would allow lawsuits and potential payouts of taxpayer dollars over new laws and regulations intended to protect open space and the environment; laws and regulations intended to protect consumers; and laws and regulations designed to restrict undesirable businesses in our neighborhoods.
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.
Rebuilding our schools, roads, levees and housing is a critical priority of my administration. 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.
Hey Governor! Your stupid rant is pure unadulterated HOGWASH!!!
This measure is to reign-in GovernMental abuses galore against private property owners in the regulatory onslaught of out-right theft that makes many eminent domain cases pale by comparison!!!
It seems to me that "the axis of evil" can sometimes be found quite close to home, nested and infested in our own multi-level governments!!!
"More" meaning that he'll reverse the puff legislation the he signed to preclude Prop. 90.
What a weasel.
Here is a link to the legislation he is touting (all Dem bills) and one example.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1710853/posts
SB 1650 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) prohibits a public entity from using a property for any use other than the public use stated in its resolution of necessity, unless the entity first adopts a new resolution that finds the public interest and necessity of using the property for a new stated public use . . .
Still, I don't see Greenhut providing a good answer as to why this section 19(b)(3) is included. If Nevada drinks poison, does that mean it's okay for us?
---------------------------------------------------
Dan: I'm told you sat on the committee that put this initiative together.
Who insisted on this provision? Do they have a past property taking they want reversed? How can any sane person not be skeptical about this one possible stinker? It wouldn't be the first time someone snuck in wording for their own personal gain to a widely wanted bill, and to hell with the consequences for everyone else.
Doesn't this section permit any past domain condemnations that haven't been published to be contested? Why aren't retroactive reversals prevented like in other sections of this measure? Permitting retro-reversals seems quite radical, not conservative.
It looks like the person or persons who inserted this language intended us to accept this as an all or none bargain. Nobody can be certain that the courts will sever this one section. It is a costly gamble for the voters to lose. They who inserted this provision can easily look at it as a possible win for them or a poison pill for the rest of us.
That is, "if the voters won't give me my past losses, well, f*** them, they're not getting their protection."
Even without my above speculation as to why someone would insert this language, the language sounds radical. Maybe that is because it is!
I need to know what this is all about. I want to vote for Prop 90. Help me explain it to those who have raised these questions.
If you want to vote for it, I'm sure you will, but just how strong is your desire? Could some of the thefts be working in your favor? How could an honest man not support this proposition?
If there were thefts, that's not eminent domain, it's something else, and for justice sake needs to be addressed accordingly.
As Greenhut pointed out, this is one of those molehills that the Anti-prop 90 folks are trying to build into a mountain. (Given the post-Kelo public sentiment, few critics want to go on record as opposing eminent domain reform. So critics have focused on regulatory takings and on perceived technical flaws of the initiative. Here’s one example: The initiative states that “Unpublished eminent ...)
As the definition indicates, an unpublished opinion is unpublished for a reason--it is unusual for whatever reason and only applies to the case at hand. If the judge intended for it to be precedent setting, they would publish it. I think this is a non-issue, personally.
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.