EDITORIAL: PROP 90 - Eminently wrong

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 10/16/6 | Editor

[SmithL]

THE MAIN benefactor of Proposition 90, wealthy New York real estate mogul Howie Rich, makes no secret of his desire to rein in the power of government.

The 30-second TV spots portray the "Protect Our Homes" initiative as a constraint on eminent domain. It would prohibit cities from using their condemnation powers to transfer property from one owner to the other, such as was done in the Connecticut case that drew national outrage when the U.S. Supreme Court allowed it. It would also strengthen the negotiating hand of landowners whose property is being sought for schools, freeways or other public uses.

But a remarkable coalition has risen up against Proposition 90 out of a concern with provisions that require governments to compensate property owners when a law or regulatory action results in "any substantial economic loss." The opponents make a compelling case that the measure could effectively throttle -- or at least drive up the cost exponentially -- of any government action that does not fall within the measure's decidedly narrow exception for "public health and safety."

[SmithL]

The SF Comicle is against private property rights.

Of course.

[JRios1968]

The SF Anachronic is against it? It must be a good idea.

[aquila48]

"But a remarkable coalition has risen up against Proposition 90 out of a concern with provisions that require governments to compensate property owners when a law or regulatory action results in "any substantial economic loss.""

This is an especially sweet provision... Can't wait to vote for it!!

I can just imagine how this must drive the environazis nuts!!! I'm sure this will pass - I just hope our insane courts won't nullify an election... again.

[arthurus]

Prop 90 sounds like a model for ALL the states.

[Uncle Hal]

Considering all the groups against Prop. 90, including the MSM, I am afraid it is going to lose. I will vote for it and hope it passes but I feel it will fail.

[GOP_1900AD]

They really hate the idea of takings in response to land use regs, sign ordinances, tree cutting orgdinances, etc. Agenda 21 ping to hedgetrimmer.

[jiggyboy]

The opponents make a compelling case that the measure could effectively throttle -- or at least drive up the cost exponentially -- of any government action that does not fall within the measure's decidedly narrow exception for "public health and safety."

It really is amazing how so many of Prop 90's detractors think this is an ironic, unimaginable, unintended consequence.

[calcowgirl]

The SF Chronicle is Eminently wrong.

[SunkenCiv]

Federal Eminent Domain Reform Legislation
Libertarian Party of New York | 9/25/06 | Richard Cooper
Posted on 10/16/2006 12:58:32 PM PDT by lpnykahuna
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1720430/posts

[goldstategop]

Heaven forbid we make the cost of governmental action against ordinary folks too expensive. But if the government chooses to fleece them of their property and life savings, that's OK in the San Francisco Chronicle's world. By their lights, government can do no evil. Those bent on evil are small government types like Howard Richie trying to rein in its excesses. Vote Yes on Proposition 90!

"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

[goldstategop]

An what is wrong with shrinking government's purview over our entire lives? A good case can be made government meddles too much in our affairs rather than staying out of them like it ought to do.

"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

[Seadog Bytes]

"But a remarkable coalition has risen up against Proposition 90 out of a concern with provisions that require governments to compensate property owners when a law or regulatory action results in "any substantial economic loss."   The opponents make a compelling case that the measure could effectively throttle -- or at least drive up the cost exponentially -- of any government action that does not fall within the measure's decidedly narrow exception for "public health and safety.""

...Passed by the people or not, it'll never be allowed to stand.   Sounds WAY too much like that 'radical 5th Amendment' stuff... and would make business-as-usual theft-by-government WAY too costly.

"...when we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans..." --William Jefferson Clinton (MTV April 20, 1994)

-SB

[Redcloak]

Its passage could lead to a rash of lawsuits against measures to protect consumers and environment,

I don't get it... They say that like it's a bad thing.

[CyberAnt]

McClintock is voting for it! I will be too.