Another misleading e-mail arrives ...

Once again I received a misleading e-mail from the No 98/Yes 99  committee, purportedly "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" operating out of the street address belonging to the professional advocacy group of Baker, Castillo & Fairbanks.

The subject line leads the lies ...

This e-mail's subject line claims that "Prop 98 Increases Costs for Westlake Village Homeowners."  Similar to the equally vague "PROP 98 hurts Westlake Village homeowners and taxpayers." which was the subject line of the first e-mail."

The distorted truth...

Since Proposition 99 permits the government to carry on the current activities with little or no interference, the costs will be negligible. But because Proposition 98 really does impose eminent domain reforms on the government, the costs of the government's legal bills will increase as well as the increased costs of acquired property are also negligible as they are spread over all taxpayers.

The magic question ...

Is that an acceptable cost for the government, and by extension the taxpayers, to assume to assure that property is legally acquired and that payment to individuals is fair? I say YES, vote YES ON 98!

What they don't say ...

The Proposition 99 advocates never explain that their proposition relies on "public purpose" which is an expanded definition that allows private property to be confiscated by the government to be given to private individuals to develop and profit -- as long as the government gets some benefit like increased tax revenues. Under this theory, nobody's private property is safe from confiscation if somebody is willing to show the government how they can use the property to make more money for the government. The proposition 98 people demand that the property be legally confiscated for "public use" for things such as roads, firehouses, schools, police stations. Nowhere does it say that stealing the private property of a private individual to be given to a developer to create luxury condominiums and prestige shops is a "public use."

About those Newspaper quotes...

Proponents and Opponents are fond of displaying quotes from newspapers. Unfortunately, in today's political environment, there are very few unbiased media sources and no special weight should be given to what is printed in today's newspapers. We have all seen stories that have  significantly mangled or misstated the facts. 

First, since no one has enough time to really read the quotes in context, it is helpful to consider the true political nature of the publication that printed the quote.

In the above example, the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and others have a notably leftward bias and thus are more likely to support larger government, more taxes and a government which serves the "collective" rather than the "individual." They pander to their audience, many of whom are content to live in a cradle-to-grave "nanny" state.

Second, one needs to question whether or not these clips came from a news story or an editorial exposition which adheres to the publication's editorial guidelines. Since the quotes are selectively pruned from stories which may be citing negative consequences and the quote may be from someone far left of the political mainstream.

Therefore, particular newspaper quotes should be taken with a grain of salt as more partisan posturing. Advice which applies on both sides of the argument.

What I recommend...

Since I abhor the Supreme Court "Kelo" decision which empowered special "redevelopment agencies" to grab private land for "public purpose," I am for YES on 98, NO on 99 as I believe that private property should ONLY be confiscated by the government for a "public purpose." No to raise additional government funding levels or pandering to special interests.

What can YOU do?

Carefully study the propositions. It is YOUR future and the future of YOUR CHILDREN that is at risk. You cannot afford to make a mistake.

Consider the implications of passing Proposition 99 when the Supreme Court overturns the Kelo decision as being unconstitutional. Talk about lawsuits and increased costs.

Vote for fair and honest government. Do not fall for any Proposition that purports to help the people while expanding government power to steal private property from individuals on the flimsiness of reasons.

VOTE YES ON 98 TO INSURE THAT PROPERTY IS TAKEN FOR  "PUBLIC USE" and NO ON 99 to stop the government from doing business as usual.

Elect honest officials who will do the people's business and not simply pick the public's pocket for their own enrichment.

-- steve

Quote of the day: "

Your true value depends entirely on what you are compared with." -- Bob Wells

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:

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- OVERCOME PROP 99'S "LANGUAGE OF LIES"

PROPOSITION 98 IS A GREAT IDEA: PROOF -- IT IS OPPOSED BY THE FAR-LEFT LIBERALS WHO WANT TO CONFISCATE PRIVATE PROPERTY TO GIVE TO "FAT CAT" DEVELOPERS.

California Props 98 & 99: SAVING YOUR PROPERTY FROM CORRUPT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR POLITICIANS - PART I - The background

California Props 98 & 99: SAVING YOUR HOUSE FROM CORRUPT DEVELOPERS AND THEIR POLITICIANS - PART II - The California Initiatives

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

California PROP. 99 CAMPAIGN LIES IN E-MAIL?