- Schwarzenegger: "I have carefully analyzed this measure, however
Posted on 11/02/2006 9:17:19 PM PST by NormsRevenge
November 1, 2006 By Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
In Oregon, where a similar measure was passed in 2004, more than 2,600 claims have been filed seeking more than $6 billion in compensation. Many of these claims are unfounded and from speculators simply looking to cash in on the public's dime.
Dear Professor Galles,Schwarzenegger: "I have carefully analyzed this measure, however, and have come to the conclusion I cannot support Prop 90. . . . The measure is so broad and poorly drafted that I fear it will result in a barrage of frivolous lawsuits . . . In Oregon, where a similar measure was passed in 2004, more than 2,600 claims have been filed seeking more than $6 billion in compensation. Many of these claims are unfounded and from speculators simply looking to cash in on the public's dime."Please advise Governor Schwarzenegger. He appears to have been misled on this very basic issue.
Thanks,
calcowgirl
http://www.joinarnold.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=jkIVLdMTJrE&b=1808163&ct=3217817
Governor's View
No on Proposition 90
November 1, 2006
By Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Private property rights are a foundation upon which this country was built -- a vital piece of the American dream and the United States Constitution. That's why I, like so many Americans, was disappointed by last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirming the right of a city in Connecticut to condemn a private home for the sole purpose of economic development. The Court also reaffirmed the role of individual state and local Legislatures to establish policies governing how eminent domain is carried out for "public use."
To protect California property owners, I signed legislation this year that provides added safeguards for our homeowners and small businesses and further restricts how eminent domain is used for re-development. And I am committed to working with the Legislature to do even more.
On November 7, California voters will have an opportunity to vote on Proposition 90. I have carefully analyzed this measure, however, and have come to the conclusion I cannot support Prop 90. Let me tell you why.
The proponents of Prop 90 added provisions that I believe will undermine basic government laws that protect our home values, safeguard our environment and allow for the building of safe roads, schools and other essential infrastructure. According to a variety of independent fiscal analyses, some provisions in Proposition 90 threaten to increase costs for taxpayers by billions of dollars each year.
That's why Proposition 90 has attracted opposition from a unique coalition that includes property rights advocates, taxpayer watchdogs, farmers, environmentalists, police and fire officials, small businesses and homeowner groups. Some 50 California newspapers have also come out against this ill-advised initiative.
Proposition 90 would change our state constitution to allow any landowner, business or enterprising trial lawyer to sue the government and its taxpayers any time a state or local agency passes a law that someone claims has resulted in "substantial economic loss" to their property.
The measure is so broad and poorly drafted that I fear it will result in a barrage of frivolous lawsuits from individuals and property owners who claim the most rudimentary new laws have caused them economic harm.
Its provisions would allow lawsuits and potential payouts of taxpayer dollars over new laws and regulations intended to protect open space and the environment; laws and regulations intended to protect consumers; and laws and regulations designed to restrict undesirable businesses in our neighborhoods.
In Oregon, where a similar measure was passed in 2004, more than 2,600 claims have been filed seeking more than $6 billion in compensation. Many of these claims are unfounded and from speculators simply looking to cash in on the public's dime.
Rebuilding our schools, roads, levees and housing is a critical priority of my administration. Unfortunately, Proposition 90 also includes language that would make rebuilding our system or public infrastructure prohibitively expensive. When agencies must acquire property to build vital public works projects, current law provides for just compensation based on fair market value of the property. Proposition 90 makes changes to this system that would require inflated payments, at taxpayer expenses.
For these reasons, while I can sympathize with the intent of those who support Prop 90, I have no choice but to oppose this initiative.
Gosh, I hate to leave on the eve of the election, but the bags are packed, the taxi will be here early, and the absentees are in the mail..
Hopefully, I can hook up from my room in Waikiki tomorrow and on the Big Island election night.. 'Til then..
Aloha!!!
Aloha nui loa!
Have a great trip!
Grrrrrrrr... I don't have plane ticket yet :-(
;-)
Feinstein likes it too. Without Prop 90, they can steal even MORE with the bond money!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-bLJAzzJ8Y
NO problem.. Life's a beach , sometimes. ;-)
Opponents of Prop 90 are lying??
Oh my goodness, those scumbags would never do that, would they?
/sarc
Avoiding_Sulla... Ping!!! Check this thread out, ok???
Thanks SW
McClintock says - YES on 90!
I love the guy, but he's wrong on this one.
Oh please... That reply is so canned it's pathetic. Total ASFE/CELSOC party line for job insurance...
No, you're pathetic. Did you actually read the intitiative? I did. The frivolous lawsuits would have been flying fast and furious if this had passed.
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.