{Eminent Domain/Rent Control} Prop. 98 failing, 99 a toss-up - Field Poll

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 5/29/8 | Charles Burress

[SmithL]

In the battle over two state propositions on Tuesday's ballot that would restrict government seizure of private property, nearly a majority of California voters support the more limited Proposition 99 while giving thumbs down to Proposition 98, which would abolish rent control, according to a Field Poll released today.

A survey of 660 likely voters conducted May 17-26 found 48 percent favoring Prop. 99, with 30 percent opposed and 22 percent undecided, according to the poll results. Those supporting Prop. 98 stood at 33 percent, with 43 percent opposed and 24 percent undecided.

Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo said he'd give Prop. 99 a better than even chance of passing. He noted that it still lacks the needed majority of voters and that most undecided voters end up voting no on state propositions, but he said that he nevertheless expects enough undecided voters to vote yes.

The results contrast with the two surveys by the Public Policy Institute of California that showed declining support for both propositions between March and May. Those polls showed support among likely voters for Prop. 99 declining to 44 percent from 53 percent, while support for Prop. 98 fell to 30 percent from 37 percent.

Mark Baldassare, president of Public Policy Institute of California, said Tuesday he couldn't assess the Field Poll results because he had not seen them, but he added that the results of his organization's polls are consistent with a general pattern of voters becoming more cautious about changing the law as the election nears.

The Public Policy Institute's more recent poll surveyed 1,086 likely voters from May 12-18. The Field Poll results announced today are from that organization's only survey on the two measures.

[SmithL]

Property Rights in the People's Republic of California?

Don't be silly!

[clamper1797]

Poll taken in SF where most respondants are reners in favor of strict rent control

[clamper1797]

Poll taken in SF where most respondants are renters in favor of strict rent control

[CounterCounterCulture]

Lying, greedy Big Government Nazis to trump the freedoms and liberties of the people... again.

[goldstategop]

Californians are hostile to the idea of property rights. They want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave. Like I'm surprised.

"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

[HKMk23]

Finally heard an ad for Prop 98, this morning, that noted the specific type of rent control it would abolish has already been outlawed by the Legislatures of 44 other States.

So, I’m guessing that the six States where this kind of rent control is still legal would be CA, MA, NY, NJ, RI, and IL (or perhaps MN); all the great bastions of Conservative thought, no doubt.

[norton]

"Eminent domain allows government to take private property for public purposes, with private developments sometimes defined as serving a public purpose."

Odd, my understanding of eminent domain put 'serving a public service' in the forefront, and that the problems metastasized when 'public service' got defined as 'strip malls and housing developments'.

That said, AARP is spearheading the ads against 98 so I'm voting FOR both propositions.

[Haddit]

http://web.mac.com/waltermoore/WalterMooreForMayor/Essays/Entries/2008/5/28_How_You_Should_Vote_On_June_3%2C_2008.html

I got this today:

By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles, WalterMooreForMayor.com

Recommendations

Prop 98 - Yes.

Prop 99 - No.

District Attorney - Steve Ipsen

County Supervisor: Martin Luther King Aubrey

Judges:

Note: I am omitting the 150+ uncontested, one-candidate elections, because those candidates automatically win anyway.

Office 4 - Ralph Dau

Office 69 - Havey Silberman

Office 72 - Marc Alain Chomel

Office 82 - Cynthia Loo

Office 84 - Lori-Ann C. Jones

Office 94 - Michael J. O’Gara

Office 95 - Patricia Nieto

Office 119 - Jared D. Moses

Office 123 - Allan A. Nadir

Office 125 - James Bianco

Office 154 - Rocky L. Crab

[newzjunkey]

Do not vote for 99. It’s a sham. Also if 99 passes too, 98 will not be in effect. It has a poison pill provision.

[newzjunkey]

I’m sure you’ve heard the commercials. I don’t think it’s a failure of CA’s not supporting property rights but not enough of them separating out the BS in the hair storm of ads.

[Publius6961]

That said, AARP is spearheading the ads against 98 so I'm voting FOR both propositions.

Please don't do that. AARP has many good features, but logic and stategic thinking is not one of them. Prop 99 has a poison pill that would invalidate Prop 98 even if it gets more votes!

I have found by experience that the best measure of the quality of a proposed measure is the people supporting (or opposing) it.

Who supports 99 and opposes 98?

League of Women Voters: This presumably non-partisan public service organization went over to the dark side decades ago. No spending is too much if it's for the "chil'run" or for public employees of all stripes. It is firmly socialist in fact if not in theory, and has been for the longest time. Spending control is not their thing.

California Police Chiefs Association: Police and Fire departments never get paid enough. They typically are the main means (aside from "education") of bankrupting a city. Look into how well that worked out for that bankrupt California City, Vallejo.

League of California Homeowners: This brand new "organization" created just to defeat Prop 98 is a total sham and fraud*. It is a single individual funneling special interest money. What does that tell any intelligent voter-taxpayer-homeowner about the honesty of the anti-98 people?

* See for Yourself

[Publius6961]

Finally heard an ad for Prop 98, this morning, that noted the specific type of rent control it would abolish has already been outlawed by the Legislatures of 44 other States.

Lost in all the fraud and yelling is the obvious reality that "rent-control" is taking from one citizen to benefit another. Exactly what the abuse of "Eminent Domain" has become. There is no inconsistency or contradiction.

I have seen so many different ways that the socialists have worked the eminent domain scam to the detriment of tens of thousands of home purchasers state wide. Do you know how many tens of thousands of $s you paid to include "affordable housing" in your new community? Why do you think homes have tripled in price in the last 12 years?

Sure, some of you don't mind, and can afford the increased costs forever, including the real estate taxes based on the inflated price you had to pay.
But most of us can't afford those "feel-good" luxuries.

Wouldn't it be great to have a say in the matter?

[HKMk23]

Hey, you’re preachin’ to the choir, here; I’m with YOU on this.

I’ve seen the skeletons in the Eminent Domain closet; up close, but fortunately not personal. City of Concord pulled one of these grab and give scams on behalf of COSTCO. Because the City got involved directly, landowners got rooked out of land they did not want to sell at the price they were ultimately forced to accept, and COSTCO got bare dirt at a bargain price. That’s total B.S. If COSTCO wanted dirt, they should have had to pay the going rate for it, not get some City Council thugs to go bust kneecaps to get them a good deal.

I raised the point about rent control because opponents of Prop 98 have been trying to use that as a foil to scare people away from supporting it. I think highlighting the fact that such controls are illegal in almost every other State in the Union helps quash that tactic.