IS THE LOS ANGELES TIMES ATTEMPTING TO MISLEAD THE VOTERS ON PROPOSITIONS 98 & 99?
From the headline, the reader is led to believe that the writer, Patrick McGreevy, is analyzing the ads put forth by the proponents of both Proposition 98 and 99.
However, after starting with a summary of the issues, the writer appears to slant the coverage toward the pro- proposition 99 side by only analyzing ads that were aired by the pro-proposition 99 side. Not a word from the pro-proposition 98 side.
From the Los Angeles Times...
Analyzing the ads: Propositions 98 and 99
"Prop. 98 on the June 3 ballot asks voters to decide whether the state should restrict government agencies from using powers of eminent domain to force the sale of properties for use in private development, as well as whether to phase out rent control in California."
"A competing measure on the same ballot, Prop. 99, would prohibit government agencies from using eminent domain to take owner-occupied homes. It does not address rent control."
Up to now, everything is accurate. But the very next sentence is misleading. It should read, "Here is a limited analysis of two pro-proposition 99 advertisements."
"Here is an analysis of advertisements related to both measures:"
Paid for by AARP
"A 30-second television ad by groups opposing Prop. 98 and supporting 99 features a member of AARP, a lobby group for seniors. He notes that the group opposes Prop. 98, concerned that it 'enables unfair evictions of seniors and other renters, so that rents can be raised without limits.'"
"The actor says that AARP calls Prop. 98 a 'deceptive scheme by a few wealthy landlords to eliminate rent control.'"
Analysis: The anti-98, pro-99 campaign has reported more than 3,000 donations, many of them in the amount of $100. Although most of the money came from property managers and owners, some came from donors who are not landlords but support the restrictions on eminent domain.
A true analysis would deal with the issue of whether or not Proposition 98 was funded by a few wealthy landlords.
Instead the author is citing the donations in support of the anti-98, pro-99 campaign. Considering nothing was said about the campaign contributions of the anti-98, pro-99 side, this is a very misleading section. What the writer also omitted from his analysis is that the anti-98, pro-99 side was funded mostly by trade and service unions, ecological groups and those who were beholden to the government... including developers. Not mentioned is that the anti-98, pro-99 crowds is spending millions of dollars to keep the government's right to do "business as usual" deals. WHY? Because they profit when private land is confiscated and low-income housing (for illegal aliens) is made available.
"Prop. 98 would not eliminate rent control immediately but would phase it out. A report by the independent Legislative Analyst's Office says rent control would continue to exist for current tenants as long as they remain in their apartments or mobile home spaces. As people move out, rent controls would be removed from those units. Some current tenants might live in rent-controlled units for the rest of their lives.
This is a true and accurate statement.
'True' reform
"A radio advertisement by opponents of Prop. 98 features a narrator saying: 'Two measures on the state ballot use the words 'eminent domain.' But only one is true eminent domain reform. That's Prop. 99, which protects homeowners from eminent domain abuse. The other measure is Prop. 98. Ninety-eight is a deceptive scheme financed by wealthy landlords. Ninety-eight would eliminate rent control."
The narrator goes on to say that "98 is a landlord scheme that's bad for renters, homeowners and taxpayers."
More rhetoric from the anti-98, pro-99 side. And, again with the mention of the "scheme financed by wealthy landlords."
Analysis: Prop. 98 would provide homeowners with eminent domain protections similar to those in Prop. 99 and would extend those protections to businesses, farms and other properties.
And here, in my opinion, is the big lie: Proposition 98 does not provide homeowners with eminent domain protections similar to those in Proposition 99, but goes much farther to protect an individual property owner's property from being egregiously confiscated and given to other private individuals by the government for the sole purpose of raising the tax revenue base.
There seems to be no discussion of "public use" versus "public purpose" which is at the core of the argument. Likewise, there is no mention of the "inclusionary" laws which give rise to rent control and the taking of private property for the purposes of affordable housing.
"This ad, like the other one, also neglects to explain that Prop. 98 would phase out rent control over time, instead falsely implying that it would end immediately."
A true statement.
"Regarding the claim that the measure is bad for taxpayers, the independent Legislative Analyst's Office concluded that 'many governments would have net increased costs to acquire property, but . . . the net statewide fiscal effect probably would not be significant.'"
A true statement.
So what is the writer doing?
First and foremost, he is filing an inadequate report which does not serve to explain the fundamental differences of the two propositions so the the readers of the Los Angeles Times can make an informed choice.
Second, he is simply analyzing advertisements from only one side, anti-98, pro 99 which is not only unfairly balanced, but repeats misleading information.
And while the article does point out a few salient truths, it simply regurgitates the anti-98, pro-99 position without any strong refutation. In my opinion, a hurried and slipshod piece of work.
What can YOU do?
First, realize that the government's taking of private property from one individual to give to another individual for the sole purpose of enhancing the government's revenue base, undermines private property rights in the United States and is unconstitutional.
Second, realize that legitimate "eminent domain" issues exist when property is taken for a "public use" (roads, schools, hospitals, firehouses, infrastructure use) but may not exist when property is taken for a "public purpose" such as a redevelopment district which allows a private developer to capitalize on the misfortune of the individual property owner so as to generate additional government revenue.
Third, the government's taking of private residential complexes to turn them into low income housing is not an acceptable "public use."
Fourth, the government's restriction on the rent or lease prices of private property in relationship to the prices in the marketplace amount to confiscation of private wealth and private property under the law; especially since the owner is no longer free to use the property as they wish.
And fifth, politicians are mostly corrupt when it comes to big developers and other special interests that fund their campaigns. The danger that elected officials, appointees or employees will collude with special interests to the detriment of individual property owners cannot be ignored.
It is wise to remember that the government and the big developers can take care of themselves, it is people like you and me who need to insure that these interlopers do not continue to trample our rights and freedoms in the process of increasing their personal power, prestige or profits.
I strongly suggest that you research the subject and then VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 and NO on PROPOSITION 99.
-- steve
Quote of the day: '
Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks.' -- Doug Larson
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:
Analyzing the ads: Propositions 98 and 99|Los Angeles Times
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- WHY YOU CAN'T TRUST MAILERS
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- STOP GOVERNMENT PROPERTY GRABS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- OVERCOME PROP 99'S "LANGUAGE OF LIES"
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "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 “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS