Posted on 10/03/2006 12:18:26 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Those of us who argue that a system of free enterprise is far superior to one of control by government regulators are always tagged by our foes as lackeys of the rich, the powerful and big corporations. It is true that I often defend wealthy corporations against those who want to loot them. Yet I hold no illusions that corporate leaders are somehow on "our" side when it comes to issues of freedom and property rights.
"[I]t's always been true that business is not a friend of a free market," argues Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. "I have given a lecture from time to time under the title 'Suicidal Impulses of the Business Community,' something like that, and it's true. It's in the self-interest of the business community to get government on its side."
This situation is on full display in the campaign to stop Proposition 90. . . . If it passes, the initiative will mean the end of two troubling and common policies in California. The first is eminent domain abuse, by which cities take property from small businesses and homeowners and give it to big developers who promise to pay more sales taxes than the current owners. The second is regulatory takings, whereby governments "take" property through regulations such as downzoning, often obliterating the value of a property without paying compensation.
Yet instead of siding with a good principle that ultimately protects all business owners, the business guys are pouring money into the "no on 90" campaign. As Friedman understood – and Lenin, for that matter, who said that businessmen would sell the hangman the rope used to hang them – businesses are mostly interested in their own private advantage, and they are more than willing to manipulate government to further that advantage.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
It discusses and debunks the No-on-90 campaign's that this measure is somehow "extreme."
Ping! Greenhut gets it!
Greenhut is the best.
It was the right decision for all the wrong reasons.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
That's not what the measure says. It says that the state has to pay the fair-market value based on the actual, intended future use, not that it has be be valued as if the improvements had already been made. Since the state gets to set values through zoning and other land use restrictions, it seems only fair that we pay the market price when the state changes those restrictions -- even if it's for a legitimate public purpose.
You might also want to read this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1706953/posts
The issue of "highest and best use" is discussed at length. That is a common term in commercial real estate and does not mean a property owner would get excessive compensation; it is simply the method for appraising the market value of the property.
Thanks for the clarification. Not being in RE, myself, that "highest and best use" phrase was a new one on me, and had me concerned about the implications of SEC. 19(5).
I had planned to support Prop90, anyway, on the basis of its other strong property protection elements, but wanted some knowledgeable input regarding the above-noted language to better assess the impact to government -- and, indirectly, taxpayers -- in legitimate E.D. procedings.
Right now, it looks like this will pass. Some good news in a dark season...
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.