Posted on 05/22/2008 7:58:15 AM PDT by SmithL
Prop 98 is indeed the good one. : )
The SacBee does not fail to disappoint!
.
Here eminent domain for redevelopment can be used only to remove blight, and that power is rarely used.
If the City of Oakland shut down a tire company, with what was it replaced?
The definition of “blight” is so vague that the City of Beverly Hills wanted a redevelopment agency! Can anyone imagine Beverly Hills with ANY parcel of property within its city limits described as blighted? Give me a freakin’ break!
The redevelopment agencies (either cronies of the mayor and/or city council or members of the city council itself) help themselves - without oversight - to all the monies over and above the initial assessment of the “blighted” property. In other words, the city gets the taxes off the “blighted” property but the redevelopment agency gets all the monies over and above the original assessment - for upwards of 45 years. Thus, the city never sees a penny of the “new” monies for fire/police, other city services as all the money goes to the redevelopment agency to do as it chooses with the money. (Anyone remember when Hollywood, CA took $25,000 out of the redevelopment money and spent it on glitter to spread on Sunset and/or Hollywood Boulevards?)
In Orange County, California, Supervisor Chris Norby is dead set against redevelopment and has been fighting it for years, thank God! One of the things that Chris Norby’s assistant, Bruce Whitaker, noted was that cities WITHOUT redevelopment agencies were more prosperous than cities WITH a redevelopment agency.
AARP is running an ad against Prop 98.
Scaring seniors, as usual.
Too bad they aren’t looking our for seniors that own property.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqANQQQno3g
This is remarkable beyond words!
Feel-good socialism run amok and masquerading as news.
"Developers" don't pay a thing.
People who buy the homes, or who pay increased prices for goods as a result of rent-inflation pay every cent of that "invisible tax money"
YES on 98
NO on 99!
Wrong!
The way 99 is written, even if 98 gets more votes, a simple majority for 99 invalidates 98.
You think the average (unconscious) voter can tell?
Posts like this one make me lose hope.
Obviously, the reader has not done his homework.
Prop 99 was created explicitly to prevent 98 from passing. Nothing else.
Prop 98 scared the tax-and-spend crowd into hysterics.
Prop 99 is the response.
NO on 99!
“...even if 98 gets more votes, a simple majority for 99 invalidates 98.”
The left in this state gets more and more ingenious. I have not heard of this tactic before. There has been dueling propositions before, but not like this.
Is that even really legal? Even if prop 98 wins, if prop 99 gets a “simple majority”, it wins INSTEAD? How can that be?
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.