Eminent domain is not complicated...
The government takes your property and allegedly pays you what it is worth at the time it is confiscated.
A simple question...
Lest we forget, the eminent domain issue is fairly simple: do you want to allow the government to confiscate your privately-owned land to give to another private individual (developer) so that they can profit from your misfortune?
Do you want to expand the government's powers by allowing these egregious acts to occur based on a "public purpose" which can be simply to raise money for the government or "public use" which demands that the property have a true public use -- not just a politician making a deal with developers to gain money for the government.
Proposition 98 would demand that property be confiscated for a "public use" not a "public purpose."
Proposition 99 was designed by supporters of the government; the unions, the conservationists and others who want to allow the government to "conduct business as usual." According to the Impartial Legislative Analyst, Proposition 99 has little or no effect on what the government is currently doing.
The language of lies...
I just received a multi-page folding flyer from the "No 98/Yes 99 committee" a sponsored committee of the California League of Conservation Voters, 1121 L. Street, Suite 803, Sacramento, CA 95814 -- which, as we have seen before, turns out to be one of the "high-sounding names" operating out of the offices of the commercial advocacy service of Bicker, Castillo & Fairbanks.
This flyer characterizes Prop.98 as a "costly scheme" while claiming that Prop. 99 'protects homes."
The truth: Proposition 99 does little or nothing to alter the way the government currently does business; hence the financial impact on the government is negligible. However, Prop. 98, the true reform bill, would result in increased court actions (and costs) because the government would have to "defend" its actions in the courts when the government has done something patently egregious. Considering the amount of money that the government currently wastes, I believe these costs would also be negligible because Prop. 98 sets clear guidelines that property can be taken ONLY FOR PUBLIC USE -- not PUBLIC PURPOSE!
The distorted language describing Proposition 98:
"just another special interest ballot measure with a hidden agenda that will lead to more frivolous lawsuits and cost taxpayers billions" is false and misleading. Talk about your special interests, Proposition 99 is supported by the government advocacy groups like the environmentalists and the trade unions. More government money has been spent because of the unions and the environmentalists than any private group in the history of California. These two groups are primarily responsible for the fiscal crisis we are in today. No lawsuit is frivolous if a private individual must sue the government to get a fair and equitable value for the property that is being confiscated by force.
"increases costs for business, local governments and taxpayers" ... is true only in the sense everybody pays more when the government behaves badly. Sad, but true.
The secondary cause of increased costs might be that government has to pay more for the property it takes from a private individual only points out that they were unfairly valuing property in the first place. This is the cost of doing the people's business and is a false argument. Private individuals who have their property confiscated by the government should get the fair value of their property if it is required for a "public use."
"invites countless lawsuits and hurts our economy" ... again is true only when the government behaves badly and the citizens must turn to the courts to demand redress.
And the distortions promoting Proposition 99...
"Protects Homes. Genuine eminent domain reform. According to the impartial California Legislative Analyst, Proposition 99 does little or nothing to alter the current way government handles eminent domain issues.
"Prohibits governments from taking homes for private development." Check the words "under certain conditions." It says nothing about commercial property, multi-family dwellings and other property which can be confiscated for the expanded meaning of "public purpose" which would replace Proposition 98's "public use."
"Preserves land-use regulations and laws protecting seniors and renters." It preserves the government's current way of doing business. There is no mention of renters or seniors that can be found in the language of Proposition 99.
Financing...
The Committee declares that "Prop 98 is a deceptive measure financed by a few wealthy apartment and mobile park owners with a hidden agenda." But fail to state that Proposition 99 is financed by a larger, more malevolent group of trade unions, environmentalists and government sycophants like lawyers and lobbyists. All to preserve the government's current way of doing business. The hidden agenda: to allow private individuals to be free of government interference with their property, is not a "hidden agenda." It is the main purpose of Proposition 99 and is clearly stated upfront.
"Prop 98 is another abuse of the initiative process." If the Committee really believes it is another abuse of the initiative process, what do they consider Proposition 99 is: which is a demonstrable abuse of the initiative process as it serves only to counter the people's Proposition 98 and preserve the government's right to do business in its current fashion. "Clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black."
"Prop 98 is the worst kind of special interest proposition. It benefits the wealthy few at the expense of millions of working families and seniors on fixed incomes." What an Orwellian world we live in. Where the politicians and special interests accuse the people of being special interests and engage in the "class rhetoric" that the socialistic far-left is so fond of. These are the far-left, liberal socialists who believe that the "collective" should prevail over the rights of the "private individual." With them being on top calling the shots, of course.
The true "tale of the tape" ... From The California Secretary of State
NO 98/YES 99 -
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS 1/1/2008 - 03/17/2008
$2,548,885.99
YES PROP. 98 -
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS 1/1/2008 - 03/17/2008
$1,274,088.53
So where are all those wealthy "fat cat" Prop. 98 developers who are fighting the unions and special interests who want to continue "business as usual" under Proposition 99.
The rest of the flyer is not even worth commenting upon because it is simply more of the same.
What can YOU do?
Realize that this initiative fight is to curtail the ever-increasing power of government to confiscate private property from private individuals to give to other private individuals who are truly special interests who have often contributed heavily to politicians to be allowed to plunder the public's pocketbook.
We need to eliminate egregious property grabs and reserve legitimate eminent domain activities to those for a "public use" such as highways, firehouses, police stations and the needs of public infrastructure. Not the taking of private property to build luxury condominiums and prestige "handbag" and yogurt shops to increase the government's tax revenue.
Demanding that you rent your property below market value is every bit as much a "confiscatory" practice as the government's outright taking your property to be run for one of their social engineering projects like supporting the illegal alien population of Mexico.
Proposition 98 has safeguards to protect that small number of people, seniors and those on a fixed income, who may fall between the cracks. Unlike the government's wholesale removal of seniors and others for their "re-development" projects.
The goal for the government is to be fair and truthful. Something which is impossible without citizen input and re-asserted control, Vote YES on 98, NO on 99. Send the message: you can't continue to steal land for your friends the developers.
Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for their personal philosophy, power, prestige or profits.
-- steve
Quote of the Day: "Goodness is the only investment that never fails." --Henry David Thoreau, 19th-century American essayist and nature writer
A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…
The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius
Reference Links:
California PROP. 99 CAMPAIGN LIES IN E-MAIL?
No more social engineering for illegal aliens on the backs of ordinary citizens.
I notice you make no mention of rent control which is the major concern of senior citizens who live in mobile homes whose equity would evaporate without some level of rent control.
Get off your high horse and get real.
=====================================
Overlooking the fact that you have not read all of my blog entries on the subject and their associated comments, which most definitely mention rent control, I have a single question for you. Should the government be allowed to compell you to keep your rents/leases artificially low, in perpetuity, to prevent you from using YOUR private property as you wish? After all, why do they call it "investment" property if you cannot obtain a return on your investment?
From the lofty heights of my "high horse," I cannot fathom why I owe you, your family, your friends and relatives or any other citizen the fruits of my labor and/or any portion of my property so that you may live in a rundown building located in an upscale neighborhood. A property upon which lenders will often refuse to lend the required sums needed to repair and maintain the property due to artificially capped rents.
Are you a socialist who believes that the "collective" needs to support those individuals who can no longer exist without government subsidies? Don't get me wrong, I contribute to may favorite charities and the government is not one of them.
Let us, for the sake of argument, take a trailerpark located next to some desirable beach property. It is up to the owner to mutually negotiate with the leasors for a fair and equitable lease. If the total amount of the lease income does not provide a sufficient ROI (return-on-investment), why should the private individual/owner be constrained by the government from doing what is best for the owner's financial interests? If the government wants to help, let them provide a loan to the collective tenants and convert the property into a resident-owned property. Unfortunately, most residents cannot afford to pay their portion of the loan back ... so it is unlikely the government would accept the deal.
So, I suggest that you "get real" and decide whether or not you are a socialist who believes in the confiscation of private property by corrupt politicians and their special interests or believes in the concept of "individualism" that built this great nation.
Now to address the "equity" issue you mention. I assume that you meant that the renter owns a trailer or manufactured house that sits on someone else's property. And that, having little or no additional discretionary income, they would be forced to what: move to a location with reasonable rents or sell their trailer and move to conventional housing? The controlling factor should be the rental or lease agreement -- not the government fishing for votes.
May I point out that a number of years ago, senior citizens living in apartments lining Sepulveda Boulevard in West Los Angeles were forced to seek other accomodations when the property was re-developed by the University of California Regents to be used as "married students housing." In this case, the government became the landlord and saw nothing wrong with the confiscatory process in spite of quite a few senior citizens who lived on fixed incomes being dispossesed. They provided moving assistance to the renters and that was that.
I still urge a YES vote on 98, a no vote on 99 and await your further comments and suggestions. Thank you very much for adding to the conversation -- steve
Posted by: pete cooper | June 02, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I'm a property manager, I support prop 98/99. like everything else , you need to delete rent control in order to pay for the prop. Vote yes to preserve our old buildings and save our farms.
=====================================
Douglas, thank you for taking the time to respond to my blog entry. Unfortunately, your position makes absolutely no sense. You cannot support propositions 98 and 99 as each contains exclusionary language that cancels out the other. You do not indicate which proposition you urge a yes vote on, but claim that you want to "preserve our old buildings and save our farms" which can only be accomplished by voting YES on 98 and NO on 99. If you vote for 99, you authorizing the government to act as they do now... without any additional safeguards of import. Anyway, thanks for participating. Should you want to clarify your position, you need to do it before the election on June 3rd -- a few days from now. -- Steve
Posted by: Douglas Lightsey | May 30, 2008 at 11:31 PM