Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Editorial: Reject both Proposition 98 and Proposition 99
Sacramento Bee ^ | 5/22/8 | Editor

Posted on 05/22/2008 7:58:15 AM PDT by SmithL

Both would load up the state constitution to attack a problem that just doesn't exist -

It's back. Yet another initiative – Proposition 98 – is on the ballot masquerading as "eminent domain" reform and trying to scare people with the prospect that their homes might be "taken" by the government.

Yet Proposition 98 is really about a sweeping agenda to lard up the California Constitution to end forever the ability of local governments to enact rent control or affordable housing ordinances, to set rules that set liquor store hours or to require developers to pay fees to build schools.

In Sacramento, for example, the city's Mixed-Income Housing Ordinance would go if Prop. 98 passes. Whether to set requirements for affordable housing is something city residents and officials should be able to decide. It is not something that should be banned by the state constitution.

The worst part of Proposition 98 is a vague line prohibiting any regulation that would "transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner." What? Any regulation that has a broad public purpose – such as limiting the number of liquor licenses – might incidentally benefit some private individuals over others. All these could be wiped out.

This initiative also would ban government from using eminent domain for "consumption of natural resources." Be ready to say goodbye to future water storage facilities and energy projects if Proposition 98 passes.

Voters should reject Proposition 98 as they rejected a similarly sweeping initiative in 2006. Proposition 98 advocates are trying to capitalize on public sentiment against the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London. But California is not Connecticut. Here eminent domain for redevelopment can be used only to remove blight, and that power is rarely used.

(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: eminentdomain; kelo; prop98; prop99; propertyrights; proposition98; proposition99
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
For the record: Prop 98 is the good one.
1 posted on 05/22/2008 7:58:16 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I love it when the MSM editorializes against private property rights. They can't have that in California, where Red Arnold and the Democrats know best.

"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

2 posted on 05/22/2008 8:00:01 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
This editorial writer is a nut.

Who knew it was ok to violate someones rights if it is rarely done?

3 posted on 05/22/2008 8:05:53 AM PDT by Mark was here (The earth is bipolar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
It's back. Yet another initiative – Proposition 98 – is on the ballot masquerading as "eminent domain" reform and trying to scare people with the prospect that their homes might be "taken" by the government. Yet Proposition 98 is really about a sweeping agenda to lard up the California Constitution to end forever the ability of local governments to enact rent control or affordable housing ordinances, to set rules that set liquor store hours or to require developers to pay fees to build schools.

That is the very definition of eminent domain reform.
4 posted on 05/22/2008 8:12:42 AM PDT by arderkrag (Libertarian Nutcase (Political Compass Coordinates: 9.00, -2.62 - www.politicalcompass.org))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

My first thought when I saw the headline: two propositions to vote for.

You can still make good decisions about what to do by reading newspapers. You just have to know *how* to parse what is written.


5 posted on 05/22/2008 8:16:32 AM PDT by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag
Liberals of course, are adamant government should have the right to take your liberty, property and pursuit of happiness anytime it wants, no questions asked.

"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

6 posted on 05/22/2008 8:17:52 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Prop 98 is the good one.

Yup.

You could put the brains of the editors of the sac bee, merc news and la times and the rest of the lib rags in a thimble and still have room left over for more.


7 posted on 05/22/2008 8:35:18 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE toll-free tip hotline 1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRget!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I know someone in West Hollywood who lives in a tiny, one bedroom, rent controlled apartment on Sunset. Great view if you like night life. The landlord is evicting everyone to develop the property. He told me that the rent control ordinance, after limiting the landlord to well below market rates for who knows how long, forces him to pay the tenants by some formula to make up the difference between the old rent and whatever the new rate would be for a period of time. In his case it would amount to $17,000 over a year's time. I was floored. I had no idea such craziness existed.
8 posted on 05/22/2008 8:37:21 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Of course the CA Supreme Court will throw 98 out if it passes. The Bee is basically the Ca Demo Party’s Pravda. To quote a letter writer to the Bee:

“I have seen arguments for and against these propositions, and I was still undecided, but leaning towards yes on 98. However, I knew that I could always count on the Bee to point me in the right direction. When in doubt I always take whatever the Bee recommends and do the opposite.”

Luckily, McClatchy Media will soon be bankrupt.


9 posted on 05/22/2008 8:39:20 AM PDT by stop_fascism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Far out and good for California! This hopes to wipe out a whole slew of vicious local government abuses.

Three cheers for both propositions!


10 posted on 05/22/2008 8:42:50 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

YES on 98

NO on 99


11 posted on 05/22/2008 8:49:01 AM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Whether to set requirements for affordable housing is something city residents and officials should be able to decide. It is not something that should be banned by the state constitution.

Yes it should.

12 posted on 05/22/2008 8:52:01 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
There you have it: The big-government loving Democrats of the Sac Bee recommend against Prop 98 (they all but ignore 99 in this "editorial", surprise surprise) so that means Californians should enthusiastically vote for Prop 98. I guess the Sacramento Bee ("the sac") is good for something besides lighting the woodstove.
13 posted on 05/22/2008 9:00:06 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again. The first two paragraphs of this column are the best argument yet for passage of Prop 98.

Thank you, Sacramento Bee.


14 posted on 05/22/2008 9:23:15 AM PDT by DPMD (~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I heard some lib in California (off-topic on a book board) saying he’d have to leave the state and settle somewhere in the red-state midwest if this prop98 went through. They never seem to get it, they pass all these laws messing with supply, demand, and property rights, then they throw a hissy fit when the exact opposite of what they intended comes about and the laws have to be repealed before prices can come back down.

And then, at the end of the day, they move along to some place without all the stupid regulation and inflated costs, having learned nothing.


15 posted on 05/22/2008 9:23:29 AM PDT by underground
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

I’m voting yes on 98, and no on 99, especially when you see the major sponsors of the latter are developers and municipalities - yeah, because THOSE two would never be in bed together.....


16 posted on 05/22/2008 9:26:20 AM PDT by Right Cal Gal (Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

“Here eminent domain for redevelopment can be used only to remove blight, and that power is rarely used.”

Baloney. It was used in Oakland to shut down a tire company.


17 posted on 05/22/2008 9:28:11 AM PDT by Flash Bazbeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I am so glad to see this thread, because the usual political "fun and games" (or outright lies) are being employed.
I have lived in California all of my life except the first 8 years, and have seen the same dirty trick work over and over again...

When a group which produces nothing, spends uncontrollably, or maneuvers for financial advantage at the expense of the taxpayer all support a proposition, I instinctively vote against it.
That strategy has never failed me. See who supports it, and that tell me what it's about more clearly than anything else.

Supporters of 99 and opponents of 98:

League of California Homeowners. This endorsement has elicited a response from Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who says, "While this attractive name may cause many voters to think this is a broad-based statewide homeowners organization, it is actually a corporation whose primary function is to act as a contractor referral service."
California League of Conservation Voters
They produce nothing, they work endlessly to take property permanently off the tax rolls and contribute nothing but additional taxpayer burdens.

California Police and Fire Chiefs Associations
No comment necessary here. Their budget is never high enough.
Defenders of Wildlife.
Again, if you think that the Bugs and Bunny crowd has the best interests of the taxpayer at heart, there is no hope for you.

California State Assembly members Hector De La Torre, Mark Leno, state senator Carole Migden...
No comment necessary about those tax and spend on socialist issues nutcases.

Need more proof?

Check out the financial contributors!

Prop 99 Contributors

18 posted on 05/22/2008 10:50:48 AM PDT by Publius6961 (You're Government, it's not your money, and you never have to show a profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Yes on 98!
NO on 99!

19 posted on 05/22/2008 10:55:34 AM PDT by Publius6961 (You're Government, it's not your money, and you never have to show a profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The Sac Bee never should be read, touched (unless tongs are used) or subscribed to. It may be burned as a fireplace starter.
20 posted on 05/22/2008 1:54:15 PM PDT by afnamvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson