Posted on 05/22/2008 7:58:15 AM PDT by 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.
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 ...
"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
Who knew it was ok to violate someones rights if it is rarely done?
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.
"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
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.
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.
Far out and good for California! This hopes to wipe out a whole slew of vicious local government abuses.
Three cheers for both propositions!
YES on 98
NO on 99
Yes it should.
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.
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.
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.....
“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.
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!
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.