Imagine my surprise at receiving an unsolicited e-mail telling me to vote for Proposition 99 over Proposition 98  and which was apparently based on a "BIG LIE: that Proposition 99 will protect homes."

The e-mail...

----- Original Message -----

From: "No98Yes99 Info" <[email protected]>

To: <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:07 PM

Subject: PROP 98 hurts Westlake Village homeowners and taxpayersPROP 98 hurts Westlake Village homeowners and taxpayers

There are two eminent domain measures on the June 3rd state ballot:  PROP 99 protects homes, while PROP 98 is a deceptive scheme by a few wealthy apartment and mobile home owners with a hidden agenda.

PROP 98 increases costs for homeowners, taxpayers and state and local governments.  It also creates loopholes to allow landlords to get around laws that protect our environment.  And PROP 98 abolishes important renter protections.

That's why PROP 98 is OPPOSED BY:

. League of Women Voters of California
. California Professional Firefighters
. National Wildlife Federation

PROP 99, however, provides real eminent domain reform without the hidden agenda.  It prohibits government from taking homes for private development and preserves protections for renters, seniors and the environment.

Protect renters and Protect homes.  Vote NO on 98 and YES on 99.

Please forward this email to your friends and neighbors and tell them to Vote NO on 98 and YES on 99.

Then visit us at to learn more about how you can help.

Paid for by No 98/Yes 99 a committee of city and county associations, taxpayers and environmental groups, League of California Cities and Californians for Neighborhood Protection, a coalition of  conservationists, labor and business. A sponsored committee of the California League of Conservation Voters, 1121 L. Street, Suite 803                           Sacramento, CA 95814

Who really is at 1121 "L" Street - Suite 803

Capture5-14-2008-9.58.14 PM

A professional campaign and media relations firm which supported the following propositions...

  • No on 90 - Eminent Domain / Regulatory Takings
  • No on 82 - New tax for state-funded preschool
  • Yes on 1A - Approval of Local Government Finance Measure (November 2004)
  • Yes on 55 - Approval of Statewide School Bond (March 2004)
  • Yes on 40 - Approval of $2.6 Billion Natural Resource Bond (March 2002)
  • Yes on 39 - Approval of 55% Local School Bond Approval (November 2000)
  • Yes on 1A - Approval of Indian Gaming Amendment (March 2000)
  • No on 30/31 - Defeat of Insurance Referendum (March 2000)
  • Yes on 12 - Approval of Safe Parks Initiative (March 2000)
  • Yes on 13 - Approval of Clean Water Initiative (March 2000)
  • Yes on 1A - Approval of $9 Billion School Bond (November 1998)
  • No on 9 - Defeat of Anti- Investor Owned Utility Measure (November 1998)
  • No on 214/216 - Defeat of Universal Health Care Initiatives (November 1996)
  • Yes on 126/No on 134 - Alcohol Tax Measures (November 1990)
  • Yes on 123 - Approval of Statewide School Bond (June 1990)

Hired guns paid by special interests using mass e-mails created with template software...

You gotta love those "fake" sincere messages that are created with fill-in templates and create mass e-mails; especially when the programmer screws up and repeats a text element ("PROP 98 hurts Westlake Village homeowners and taxpayers.")

The BIG lie:

"There are two eminent domain measures on the June 3rd state ballot:  PROP 99 protects homes, while PROP 98 is a deceptive scheme by a few wealthy apartment and mobile home owners with a hidden agenda."

Truth: Prop. 99 protects few homes and endangers all private property in California...

Yes, there are two opposing eminent domain measures on the ballot, but PROP 99 does not protect homes -- in fact it does nothing to alter the way the State of California is currently doing business... it expands the ability of the government to confiscate your private property for a "public purpose" such as creating a redevelopment agency and then turning your private property over to another private individual, a developer for the sole public purpose of generating additional tax revenues and prestige for the government entity.

According to the impartial California Legislative Analyst...

"This constitutional amendment limits state and local government’s use of eminent domain in certain circumstances. Specifically, the measure prohibits government from using eminent domain to take a single-family home (including a condominium) for the purpose of transferring it to another private party (such as a person, business, or association)."

This prohibition, however, would not apply if government was taking the home to:

  • Protect public health and safety.
  • Prevent serious, repeated criminal activity.
  • Respond to an emergency.
  • Remedy environmental contamination that posed a threat to public health and safety.
  • Use the property for a public work, such as a toll road or airport operated by a private party.

"In addition, the prohibition would not apply if the property owner did not live in the home or had lived there for less than a year."

"Under current law and practice, government seldom uses eminent domain to take single-family homes. Even when it does so, the acquisition often is for a purpose that is permitted under the measure (such as construction of a road or school). Accordingly, this measure would not change significantly current government land acquisition practices."

"In a very limited number of cases, however, this measure might result in government:

  • Savings—because government could not acquire a home that the owner did not wish to sell.
  • Costs—because government might pay more to buy a home than would have been the case if it could have taken the home using eminent domain.

"The net fiscal effect of such actions would not be significant."

The devil is in the details...

In this case, the matter of "public use" is confused with the more liberal "public purpose."

By reading this next section prepared by the impartial legislative analyst, you can see that developers, environmentalists and trade unions prosper under this proposition.

"Government’s Authority to Take Property by Eminent Domain"

"Government may use eminent domain to take property for a public use if it pays just compensation and relocation costs."

What Is a Public Use?

"Common examples of public use include providing new schools, roads, government buildings, parks, and public utility facilities."

Cited here is the very purpose behind Proposition 99 -- to allow these egregious activities...

"The term public use also includes broad public objectives, such as economic development, eliminating urban blight and public nuisances, and public ownership of utility services."

The following activities have been considered a public use:

Promoting downtown redevelopment by transferring property to other owners to construct new stores, hotels, and other businesses.

Reducing urban blight and crime by transferring substandard apartments
in a high-crime area to a nonprofit housing organization to renovate and manage

Securing public control of utility services by acquiring private water and other utility systems and placing them under government ownership.

In their world, just compensation does not adequately compensate you for the potential value of your property -- no matter how long you have held it or how much you have paid in upkeep and taxes...

What Are Just Compensation and Relocation Costs?

Just compensation includes (1) the fair market value of the property taken and (2) any reduction in value of the remaining property when only part of a parcel is taken. In addition to the payment of just compensation, California law requires governments to pay property owners for certain other expenses and losses associated with the transfer of property ownership.

Proving my point...

The three examples cited are exactly the behavior that Proposition 99 encourages -- taking one private individual's property to give to another private individual to make a substantial profit... if the government also gets their share through taxes and other revenue streams.

Corrupt politicians making a deal with developers...

Thus corrupt government officials (and we have plenty of those in California government at both the local and state level) can cut sweetheart deals with developers -- all approved by the citizens who have been lulled into voting for Proposition 99.

Developer's "cheap cost" Proposition 99 ...

Fair market value -- and what they don't add -- "at the time it is taken" and "exclusive of any property value appreciation that the property neighbors will ultimately receive by being located next to a "prestigious" development."

As for just compensation, consider the following scenario. You have purchased a parcel of land to develop on your own or as part of your retirement fund. A government entity grabs it for the depressed current market price. The developer builds out luxury condominiums and prestige shops for a substantial profit. The government entity gets its enhanced taxes. And you got the depressed value of your property at the time. And, it didn't matter how long you held the property and continued to pay taxes and maintenance or upkeep.


Renter and Rent Control...

The sad truth is that there is nothing in Proposition 99 which mentions renters and rent control.

Again, consider the far-left socialist agenda that is being put forth by these people. They are telling you how to use your property and how much you can make from your property rental -- and just what gives them this power.

It is laws created from propositions such as Proposition 99 which allow the government to enact "inclusionary" laws which demand that private individuals forfeit something of value to the government or one of it's public/private agencies before being able to use the private property that you have paid for and continued to be taxed upon.

An unbiased look at both propositions...

I have taken the time and trouble to prepare a three-part series on comparing proposition 98 and proposition 99. Read for yourself, how the government wants to confiscate your land for a mere pittance and then allow their friends (those developers, unions and associations who contribute heavily to political campaigns) to benefit from your loss.



California Props 98 & 99: SAVING YOUR PROPERTY FROM CORRUPT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR POLITICIANS - PART III - Partisan Politics Playing to the Crowd

What can YOU do?

Protect yourself from the current toxic political scene where government is being run by the politicians for the benefit of the special interests: the big money boys, the trade unions, the environmental associations and others who are pursuing a far-left socialistic agenda -- at your expense.

Read my three-part blog series and start learning about the bone-headed Supreme Court "KELO" decision. Learn the difference between a Constitutional "public use" which is permissible and desired to the current corruption of "public purpose" which allows the government to take your private property for the use of another private individual.

Throw the rascals out. It is time to stop electing politicians with a far-left socialist agenda who pander to the special interests and demand that you foot the bill for their social engineering projects. I would much rather spend my hard-earned money on my family and friends than be forced to give it in support of illegal aliens who are forcing us out of our own formerly golden state by placing an undue pressure on our healthcare, educational, judicial, retirement and cultural infrastructure.

Vote as if your life depended on it -- as it surely does in these days of corrupt politicians and special interest giveaways.

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: "Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest." --Mark Twain

A reminder from 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

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“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