Rights, farms, environment ping.Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
Posted on 10/7/2005, 5:24:09 AM by calcowgirl
The newly established California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights announced that former state Senator and minority leader Jim Nielsen of Woodland was elected to serve as chairman of the board. Serving as the organization's "honorary" co-chairmen are Senator Tom McClintock of Ventura County and Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa of Butte County.
"The Alliance is honored to have Senator McClintock and Assemblyman LaMalfa as part of a citizen led campaign to protect private property from the abuses of eminent domain," said Nielsen. "While today so many elected leaders are quick to join the U.S. Supreme Court in eroding private property rights, these state legislators have led legislative efforts to protect homeowners, small business and family farmers from government-led efforts to seize private property from unwilling sellers."
"Americans are very concerned with the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Kelo vs. City of New London decision granting local government greater authority and ease by which they can seize homes, small business and family farms from unwilling sellers - and rightly so," said Nielsen. "To witness this impressive abuse of power, Californians do not need to look beyond our State's borders to see how government is using its police powers to seize private property from unwilling sellers. The threat to property in California is real and these are extraordinary times for those fighting to protect private property rights."
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo vs. City of New London decision, McClintock and LaMalfa introduced a state constitutional amendment to strengthen California's eminent domain laws. All eminent domain reform bills stalled in this legislative session. One bill that threatens private property rights (AB 1747) is before Governor Schwarzenegger. This bill is related to Yolo County's effort to seize the 17,300-acre Conaway Ranch from its unwilling sellers. Should Yolo County prevail in its taking, it would mark the first time in California history that local government has used gambling profits to seize private property.
"As a farmer, I hold the value of property ownership as a paramount right," said Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa. "If the test used in the Kelo case were applied to agricultural land across California and the nation, in essence taking property with a low tax base from one private owner to hand it over to another private owner, every farm from coast to coast would be at risk."
The Alliance also named Marko Mlikotin to serve as its president. Mlikotin is president of River City Communications and was chief of staff for former Congressman Doug Ose of Sacramento, who served on the House Agriculture and Government Reform Committees.
McClintock Ping List -- Please freepmail me if anyone wants on or off this list
FYI
Bot
BumP
Rights, farms, environment ping.Thank you!
BTTT
BTTT
Where was this group when the smoking bans were put in place?
Could you elucidate the connection between Kelo v New London, eminent domain and smoking bans? I'm not sure I follow.
Thanks for the ping. I couldn't google up a website for this "California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights". Maybe it is too early in their development.
Smoking bans don't take anyone's rights or property. You can still smoke and patronize any business you want in California, you just can't smoke there. Contrary to the smoke filled minds of smokers it hasn't hurt, in fact it's improved business.
The ability of the property owner to determine how he would like to use his property. Many FReepers are all for smoking bans imposed by governments, yet are against the Kelo decision. The difference is that the bans are incremental theft while ED is complete and swift theft.
The ability of the property owner to determine how he would like to use his property. Many FReepers are all for smoking bans imposed by governments, yet are against the Kelo decision. The difference is that the bans are incremental theft while ED is complete and swift theft.
"Smoking bans don't take anyone's rights or property."
Except of course, the property owner's right to chose which customers he WANTS to cater to and how the property owner WANTS to use his property!
Other than that, you're dead on!
OK I thought that was where you were coming from, I just wasn't sure. Thanks.
Dear Swamp Yankee,
Sorry about the dupe posts.
CSM
Thank you.
No amount of legalese
can possibly explain
the sheer abuse and callous use
of eminent domain.
I think you're right--I couldn't find anything either.
Thanks for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.