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.
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
YES PROP. 98 -
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS 1/1/2008 - 03/17/2008
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.
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
No more social engineering for illegal aliens on the backs of ordinary citizens.
“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
“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