Schwarzenegger opposes eminent domain measure

Sacramento Bee ^ | April 25, 2008 | John Hill

[calcowgirl]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Friday that he will oppose an initiative on the June 3 ballot to restrict governments' ability to use eminent domain to seize property.

Schwarzenegger said he was opposing Proposition 98 in part because it might block the building of water projects crucial to farmers and residential users.

"Eminent domain is an issue worth addressing," Schwarzenegger said in a prepared statement. "However Proposition 98 would undermine California's ability to improve our infrastructure, including our water delivery and storage."

... Proposition 98 bans the use of eminent domain to transfer property to a private party, and would phase out rent control. It bans taking property for its natural resources.

Opponents argue that the measure might also restrict governments' ability to pass environmental or land use laws - an assertion that backers strongly deny.

Opponents and some experts also say the provision barring taking land for the natural resources could prevent the building of water projects.

The California Farm Bureau Federation, one of the sponsors of the initiative, obtained a legal opinion saying that water storage projects could still be done under Proposition 98.

[calex59]

Good old Arnold, he doesn't care what it cost people, take their land, tax them blind, who cares as long as the government gets their share and he can appease his wife.

[Perdogg]

There are some people who want the govt to use eminent domain to build the trans-border security fence.

[Shermy]

The Californians did this before. Instead of creating a law that simply says EM cannot be used for private purposes, the proposers of the new law tack on all sorts of other things in their peculiar interests.

[DB]

This is about transferring private property to other private parties, not to government.

[Shermy]

EM?

I meant ED, eminent domain.

;)

[bubbacluck]

Proposition 98 bans the use of eminent domain to transfer property to a private party,....It bans taking property for its natural resources.

This is a good thing.

How can a Republican Governor be against this...oh, wait, never mind.

[South40]

We need this law to prevent instances such as this.

[calex59]

There are some people who want the govt to use eminent domain to build the trans-border security fence

< And that makes imminent domain alright? as I have said in other posts, the ends does not justify the means, this is a communist ideology and has no place in America.

[DesScorp]

Eminent Domain should be a measure of last resort for public projects, not private. It should go for infrastructure stuff, period. Anything else is theft.

[Lizavetta]

Maybe he got his marching orders from the skirt:

[South40]

this is a communist ideology and has no place in America.

So can we assume you don't drive freeways and roads because the land used to build them was taken from private landowners using the "communist ideology" of eminent domain?

[LexBaird]

Well, Arnold, it’s nice to see that when developers and enviral nuts buy your support, it stays bought.

[calex59]

Emminent domain is an abomination and a blot on the constitution of the USA. The communist ideology I was talking about was taking private property and giving it to private land holders, such as Wal-Mart. But as long as you ask, Yes I drive on freeways on land that was stolen from private owners, I have ridden railroads, the biggest rip off of private property in the history of the US. If you are comfortable using stolen property for freeways and such, fine, I am not comfortable and will fight it legally when ever I can.

[Wuli]

since it would only inhibit the abuse of eminent domain in the government forced transfer of land between private owners, is it arnold’s point that PRIVATE developers of “water” and other “infrastructure” projects should not have to use their own resources to coax out the sellers of the land they need????

[South40]

I, too, oppose using ED to give the land to private developers and said as much in post #8 of this thread.

What I don't oppose is using the land for infrastructure that we all need and use.

If you do, fine. But you'd make a much more convincing argument if you weren't hypocritically using the highways built through the very process you decry.

If you do not oppose the taking of private land for use in infrastructure you need to revise your comment that ED has no place in America, it does.

[knyteflyte3]

So can we assume you don't drive freeways and roads because the land used to build them was taken from private landowners using the "communist ideology" of eminent domain?

Typical Commie Boy, Let's Just Sidestep/Divert the issue, tho thweet.

[South40]

Typical Commie Boy, Let's Just Sidestep/Divert the issue, tho thweet.

I've addressed the issue head on.

Judging from the mindless nature of your post, I'm not surprised that fact has escaped you.

[goldstategop]

Thank goodness! Where would California be with property rights? Or that what's the Governator wants the state's residents to believe.

"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 Palelologus