CAGOP Must Endorse CA Property Owners And Farmland Protection Act (Tom McClintock Alert)

Flash Report ^ | 09/06/2007 | Tom McClintock

[goldstategop]

A LETTER FROM SENATOR TOM MCCLINTOCK TO CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY DELEGATES

Dear California Republican,

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial Kelo v. New London case more than two years ago, over 40 states have passed some form of eminent domain reform.

Since California has not passed meaningful reforms, it comes as no surprise that the Institute for Justice, the non-profit organization that litigated the Kelo case, reports that the seizing of private property from unwilling sellers is on the rise in California.

According to the Center for Responsible Government, the League of California Cities and other redevelopment interests have spent more money to defeat eminent domain reforms in California than in the other 49 states combined! They spent over $13 million to defeat Prop. 90 last year and this does not account for the millions also spent on an army of capitol lobbyists.

Our private property rights have never been at greater risk and the Democratically controlled State Legislature fails to act!

I know first hand. Both Assemblywoman Mimi Walters and I have introduced legislation that prohibits government from profiting by seizing homes and small businesses for retail and commercial developments that benefit wealthy and political donors. Needless to say, our efforts to reform eminent domain abuse are opposed by the Democratic majority and redevelopment interests that favor a system that fosters abuse.

The only bill that has been given any consideration is ACA 8 (Assemblyman De La Torre), a Democratic proposal drafted by the League of California Cities that affords different levels of so-called constitutional protections to different types of properties and includes so many exemptions that private property rights experts such as the Institute for Justice call the bill "flawed" and the Pacific Legal Foundation calls it "meaningless."

While efforts to provide real reform through the legislature appear bleak, we are fortunate that an eminent domain reform ballot measure, sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights will appear on the June 2008 ballot.

I am pleased to support the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act and let me tell you why;

* Private property may not be taken by eminent domain for private use under any circumstances (i.e. to build a shopping center, auto mall or industrial park). * Property may be taken by eminent domain only for public use (i.e. freeway construction, parks, schools). * Property may not be taken by government and used for the same purposes (i.e. residential housing cannot be used for government housing). * Family farms and open space are protected from seizures by government for the purpose of selling the natural resources. * If a public agency takes property under false pretenses, or abandons its plans, the property must be offered for sale to the original owner at the price at the time of the taking and the property tax would be assessed at the value of the property when it was originally condemned. * If farmers or business owners are evicted by eminent domain, they would be entitled to compensation for temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business reestablishment costs and other reasonable expenses. * Government may not set the price at which property owners sell or lease their property. However, tenants who live in rent-regulated communities will continue to receive the benefit of those regulations as long as they live in their apartments or mobile homes. * And lastly, this ballot measure was carefully and narrowly crafted to ensure fair and equal private property protections without including regulatory takings provisions that opponents of Prop. 90 claimed threatened legitimate public projects, land use decisions and the environment.

I am writing you because I have submitted a resolution at September's California Republican Convention that calls on our Party to endorse the "California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act." I also urge you to support two other resolutions submitted by Assemblywoman Mimi Walters and former Senator Jim Nielsen opposing ACA 8, as well as a related ballot measure currently being circulated by the League. Both measures are intended to undermine the Jarvis ballot measure --- by denying all property fair and equal protections.

While it is clear that Democrats have abandoned groups that they profess to represent, such as the poor and defenseless, for the League of California Cities and other powerful development interests, Republicans have not and will not.

The Republican Party has always championed private property rights, as intended by our Nation's Founding Fathers. With your support at the upcoming California Republican Convention, we will reaffirm our commitment to the American Dream - homeownership and the security of private property rights.

Sincerely,

Tom McClintock California State Senator

PS: Please join me in supporting the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act resolution by returning the enclosed form and requesting a petition too. For more information on the eminent domain reform ballot measure, visit:

PROPERTY RIGHTS

[Amerigomag]

Thank you Doug.

[HKMk23]

I believe the CAGOP hierarchy thinks corporate land theft is just fine and dandy.

Yup.

City of Concord.

COSTCO

Seizure of private land for development by a private entity on the paper-thin basis that there was a valid public interest in turning that property into a privately held economic engine that would provide jobs and stimulate commerce.

HELLO?! Isn't it mostly the local community that's spending the money at that new retail establishment?? So, isn't all that money actually going FROM the local community TO COSTCO Corporate?? All that stays "local" are the cumulative wages of local COSTCO employees, assorted City business fees, County property taxes, and whatever the County finally gets out of the sales tax revenues, and that's a WHOLE lot LESS than the gross sales dollars this community's pouring into the COSTCO tills.

And for that meager pittance the real estate holdings of a few were savaged by their local municipal government.

Socialists all, and damnable to a man.

[Carry_Okie]

And for that meager pittance the real estate holdings of a few were savaged by their local municipal government.

It would be fascinating to know the effect the prospect of eminent domain has on local property value. My bet is that the property value will drop in the entire area because of the threat.

The landowners could then sue to have their property taxes reduced. That would spread the news that eminent domain can have a depressive effect on total revenue, and is not the bonanza its proponents have sold.

[hedgetrimmer]

Thanks for the PING

[PsyOp]

For your consideration. Perhaps Tom can use one or more of these when debating the subject.

“It is not enough for a legislator to equalize possessions; he must aim at fixing an amount midway between extremes. But even if one were to fix a moderate amount for all, that would still be no use: for it is more necessary to equalize appetites than possessions.” - Aristotle, Politics, Bk. II. 334-23 B.C.

“I have truly no property in that which another can by right take from me when he pleases against my consent.” - John Locke, The True End of Civil Government. 1690.

“A man’s property and honor are the points upon which he will be most keenly sensitive.” - Niccoló Machiavelli, The Discourses, Bk. III. 1517.

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter, — but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!” - William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, Speech on the Excise Bill.

“The only proper, moral purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence – to protect his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to his own property and to the pursuit of his own happiness. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.” - Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” symposium, Madison, WI, February 9, 1961.

“Those of our day are cleverer, for they style themselves kings of France, of Spain, of England, and so forth. Thus, by controlling the land, they can be very sure of controlling its inhabitants.” - Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract. 1762.

You take my house when you do take the prop
That doth sustain my house; you take my life
When you do take the means whereby I live.
- William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, 1596.

“Men who have no property can injure one another only in their persons or reputations. But when one man kills, wounds, beats, or defames another, though he to whome the injury is done suffers, he who does it receives no benefit. It is otherwise with injuries to property.” - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Bk.V, Ch.1, Pt.2, 1776.

[gc4nra]

I am not a “blue badge’r” (delegate) at the present time, but I’m Chair of the 55th A.D. Pubbie Central Comm. and an Assoc. Member. I’m going to the CRP Convention this weekend just to hear Tom on Sunday.

[editor-surveyor]

And yer preachin to th’ choir Revrind.

[fuzzy122]

bookmark

http://www.peteandrews.net/media/Rush/proud_to_be_a_canadian.htm

[fuzzy122]

bookmark

[broomhilda]

Tom McClintock was the last best hope for fiscal responsibility in the state of California. Because of the fear that he was too Conservative (again the liberal news media’s trumpeting) we got a celebrity RINO instead. We now have the once great state of California in a downward spiral towards bankruptcy.