OBAMA QUITS TRINITY UNITED CHURCH: TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE
LOSING YOUR PRIVACY: ONE DEVICE AT A TIME -- SONY TO FEATURE BUILT-IN CABLE COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE

VOTE YES ON 98, NO ON 99: PERHAPS THE BEST EXPLANATION OF A PROPOSITION IS TO LOOK AT THE OPPOSITION

Why I am more convinced to vote YES on Proposition 98 and NO on Proposition 99 comes from looking at who opposes Proposition 98.

First, a little background ...

The basic fight is over how the private property seized by the government may be used.

The correct way is that private property that is seized by the government using the eminent domain procedure should be used for a "public use" such as highways, schools, firehouses and other needs relating to infrastructure that directly serves the public.

The incorrect way is that private property that is seized by the government using the eminent domain procedure should not be used for a "public purpose" such as the transfer of the property to another private individual who will then profit from the property's acquisition ... and provide a benefit for the government such as increased tax revenues. This is the classic scenario of a redevelopment project where the government seizes your land and then allows a developer to build condos, apartments, prestige stores for their own profit -- but which also increases the tax revenues for the government. You are paid a pittance compared to what profits the redeveloped property actually returns to the developer.

Allied to outright confiscation of private property from an individual is the concept of "inclusionary laws." These laws demand that a private individual give something to the government in return for permission to do something else. Like a local government agency demanding that you buy additional property and deed it to a land conservancy to be held as "open space." Or the imposition of restrictions telling you how you may use your property or what you may charge to lease or rent that property to others.

So, it is with these principles that we look at the supporters of  the anti-Proposition 98, pro-Proposition 99 position.

Supporters of public issues can be divided into four basic and often overlapping classifications:

Beneficiaries who directly benefit from the Proposition, in this case those who want to see the government continue to do "business as usual."

Quid pro Quo, those who are supporting this issue because they are trading their support on this issue for current or future support of issues of interest to them.

Friends, supporters who generally benefit from the government's actions and want to support those currently in power.

Supporters, many of whom have ideological philosophies that support the Marxist idea of the "collective" over the individual rights of property owners.

So let's take a look at who actually opposes Proposition 98...

Capture5-31-2008-2.01.25 PM

The left-leaning liberal media is an easy call: they support the rights of the "collective" over the rights of an  "individual"

The California Teachers Association, the California Professional Firefighters are also easy calls: they are trade unions are are left-leaning liberals by philosophy. They want to subjugate the power and the property of private individuals to the will of the collective and their special interests. In California, the union interference with wages, work policies and retirement benefits  of government workers have driven California into the current financial crisis. Personnel costs are the most egregious part of California's budget -- and retirement benefits which provide 100% of your last salary when you retire in your early fifties.  Not to mention the gratuitous bump in salary classifications prior to retirement.

The California League of Conservation Voters and the Natural Resources Defense Council are another easy call as they are often the beneficiary of "inclusionary laws" where private property owners are often legally required to "donate" something of value (mostly land) to secure the rights to property purchase, zoning, building, renovation or upgrading.

AARP, Housing California, the Consumer Federation of California all are opposed to any idea that would allow an individual to set their own conditions for the use or rental of their private property. They want to perpetuate the government's "rent" control policies which provide the type of affordable housing which should be built by developers -- most of whom are only interested in large, government-subsidized projects or profitable upscale developments.

Truisms ...

Both sides has massive amounts of money, in the millions, invested in this fight.

Both sides have put out literature that is somewhat misleading and glosses over the real benefits and pitfalls of the program.

Both sides cite the impartial California Legislative Analyst when convenient.

My take ...

I am voting YES on 98 and NO on 99 because I want to see the eminent domain process restricted to taking property for a "public use" rather than a "public purpose" and I do not like the idea of inclusionary or restrictive laws which tell you how you must manage your private property for the benefit of the government, their special interest friends or other private individuals.

I have seen, first hand, what the City of Santa Monica, the California Coastal Commission, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and other governmental bodies have imposed on private citizens when they wanted to build or improve their homes or simply live in peace.

If a private developer wants to re-use land that was formerly a trailer park, it is up to the developer to deal with their tenants -- but I do not believe the tenants should be able to hold the individual property owner's property hostage in perpetuity to the distinct disadvantage of the property owner. Which is at the heart of the proposition campaign.

What can YOU do?

If you believe that government should not be able to confiscate private property unless it is used for a "public use" project, VOTE YES ON 98, NO on 99!

If you believe the unions wield altogether too much power and exert too great an influence on government, VOTE YES on 09, NO on 99.

If you are unsure of your position, do nothing or read more about the fundamental differences between the propositions.

-- steve

Quote of the day: "

Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river."           -- Nikita Khrushchev

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 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

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 98 -- STOP GOVERNMENT PROPERTY GRABS FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT

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 PROP. 99 CAMPAIGN LIES IN E-MAIL?

The Latest From Capitol Alert - Capitol Alert - The Sacramento Bee - 'Education leaders,' er, tribes hammer Hancock

Proposition 98/99 Field Poll Results|Sacramento Bee

YES ON PROPOSITION 98, NO ON PROPOSITION 99


“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

Comments