Props 98 or 99 - Reform or Reform Killer? new @ CaliforniaRepublic

CaliforniaRepublic ^ | 6/2/08 | Gary M. Galles

[ParsifalCA]

Protecting Californians from eminent domain abuses headlines our June ballot. There are two Propositions--98 and 99--that address the issue. However, both are portrayed as real reform by backers and as misleading scams by opponents, making it hard for voters to sort through the assertions.

Given both propositions’ backers claim they intend to rein in government eminent domain abuses at the expense of property owners, the best approach is to ask which “reforms” would be most effective at restricting them.

If the intent is to limit abuses, would we want to protect owners of all property—homes, farms, churches, businesses and rental properties—against them (98), or only owner-occupied homes that have been owners’ primary residence for at least one year (99)? [more @ CaliforniaRepublic]

[muawiyah]

You'd think that a minimum the CA "takings" law would keep the authorities from taking the land and property of a poor man to give to a rich man.

The appropriate penalty for a violation would, as in the days of Hammurabi, be death.

[Flying Circus]

My wife and I were just studying these propositions tonight. Prop 98 errs, if at all, on the side of strong property rights. Prop 99 is status quo protection for state and local governments and other busybodies. Prop 99 is disingenuous by presenting a lot of verbage that means nothing because of all the loopholes.

[skinkinthegrass]

If abuses are frequently used to “help” private developments (e.g., shopping centers) rather than traditional public uses such as freeways and schools, would we want to ban such uses, restricting eminent domain to public uses (98), or leave them untouched (99)?

If non-blighted properties can now be condemned because they are “nearby or adjacent” supposedly blighted properties, where the meaning of that ambiguous phrase is left to the discretion of the condemning agency, would we want to limit eminent domain powers to those properties that are legitimate public nuisances (98) or leave that almost unlimited discretion untouched (99)?

If we are concerned about inappropriate condemnations, would we prefer that government agencies clearly state intended public uses in advance and prevent condemnations for other uses (98) or allow them to use such properties any way they wish (99)?

I don't understand, It seems (98) is all thats needed....98, seems to be the best.

[skinkinthegrass]

If abuses are frequently used to “help” private developments (e.g., shopping centers) rather than traditional public uses such as freeways and schools, would we want to ban such uses, restricting eminent domain to public uses (98), or leave them untouched (99)?

If non-blighted properties can now be condemned because they are “nearby or adjacent” supposedly blighted properties, where the meaning of that ambiguous phrase is left to the discretion of the condemning agency, would we want to limit eminent domain powers to those properties that are legitimate public nuisances (98) or leave that almost unlimited discretion untouched (99)?

If we are concerned about inappropriate condemnations, would we prefer that government agencies clearly state intended public uses in advance and prevent condemnations for other uses (98) or allow them to use such properties any way they wish (99)?

I don't understand, It seems (98) is all thats needed....98, seems to be the best.

[skinkinthegrass]

the CA "takings" law would keep the authorities from taking the land and property of a poor man to give to a rich man.
The appropriate penalty for a violation would, as in the days of Hammurabi, be death....

Well, It would solve many problem(s).
...just kill the (stupid) bureaucrat(s) and (sleazy) developer(s) who proposes these "dubious" projects....there would be SO much less paperwork....does this really need a /sarcasm tag

[calcowgirl]

I don't understand, It seems (98) is all thats needed....

i agree. Prop 99 is a ruse and should get a NO vote. It does nothing substantive except give the thieves an excuse to say that no further measures are needed in the future (should 98 not pass).

[latina4dubya]

everyone here where i live, including conservatives, are saying no on 98 and yes on 99... but i am voting the other way around... yes on 98 and no on 99... for some reason people think landlords should not have a say in how much they should charge to rent their own property... i disagree... i think the landowner should charge whatever they want... yes on 98, no on 99!

[calcowgirl]

Why would a conservative oppose Prop 98?

Your acquaintances need an education in property rights!

You have 2 days to help change their minds. ;-)

[Flying Circus]

Have you looked at this website yet? Maybe you can find something that helps change their minds. If nothing else, convince them to vote no on Prop99 since it offers false promise of eminent domain protection AND nullifies prop 98 if it gets more votes.

http://yesprop98.com/

[gogov]

everyone here where i live, including conservatives, are saying no on 98 and yes on 99...

They are not conservatives if that is what they are saying.

[L.A.Justice]

Unfortunately, I don’t think Prop 98 would pass...I have seen anti-98 ads on TV. (Sponsored by AARP) The ad just discusses rent control. Opponents are focusing on rent control. They want to scare renters that they will end up paying more for rent...I think the number of renters in CA has increased because of foreclosures. You just lost a home to foreclosure. Now you are told that your rent will be increased dramatically...I think prop 98 opponents want those voters...

I read a letter to the editor in Daily News, my local newspaper. The guy wrote that he generally believes in libertarian principles. However, he came out against prop 98. He said that he needed rent control. His retirement income was inadequate...(Sir, isn’t it your responsibility to make sure that your retirement income is adequate?)

At this moment, there really is no discussion of pros and cons of rent control...Prop 98 supporters don’t really spend too much time talking about problems with rent control. I don’t know...Why not address the rent control issue head-on? Yes, we prop 98 people believe that rent control is bad for these reasons...Talk show host Larry Elder tried to address that issue on his show several weeks ago.

[muawiyah]

Just thinking Hammurabi got it right the first time many thousands of years ago. Apparantly the Fifth Amendment misses the point or we wouldn’t have cases like Kelo. The judges would have understoodd it implicitly.

[skinkinthegrass]

Hmm...."The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" - it's a lawyer joke...
Few people are unfamiliar with the phrase The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyer. Rueful, mocking, it often expresses the ordinary person's frustration with the arcana and complexity of law.
"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers." Contrary to popular belief, the proposal was not designed to restore sanity to commercial life. Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society....

not that, I'm really saying, "Anything"...."From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Clemenza]

Its nice to see that California continues in its rule-by-the-mob, direct democracy, dysfunctional self.

"Rule by Referendum", which is inherently anti-Republican, is a key reason why the Golden State is all but ungovernable.

[Lizavetta]

I emailed McClintock’s website and asked which one he was supporting - got no reply.

[teawithmisswilliams]

"Its nice to see that California continues in its rule-by-the-mob, direct democracy, dysfunctional self."

In case you missed it, 4 elitists in judicial robes imposed "gay marriage" on Californians by disdaining democracy. Our hopes to retain the real definition of marriage rest on the initiative and referendum process.

A true republic would be better, but we haven't had that for years

[Clemenza]

Those folks who passed the "ballot initiative" failed to consider the fact that existing California law prohibits discrimination of any kind against homosexuals. In other words, only a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage would be sufficient. The judges made the right decision, although 1. for the wrong reasons and 2. for an outcome which I do not care for.

I think it will take an initiative that bans handguns or makes Spanish the official language of the state to wake up "conservatives" to the danger of the populist menace.

[muawiyah]

The mob rule in California doesn’t come from the general public through initiative and referendum. Rather, it starts at the top where an out of control, unaccountable leadership “leads” gangs of homosexuals, school teachers, environmentalist whackos, and Hollywood dopers and drunks into all sorts of attempts to crush popular opinion and belief.