Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

Prop 90 is Classic Bait and Switch: Why It Must Be Defeated to Protect California's Environment, Public Safety, and Consumers

By Tom Adams
Board President
CA League of Conservation Voters

Prop. 90, the Taxpayer Trap, is a classic bait and switch. Proponents want voters to believe the measure is just about eminent domain reform, but it is not. Hidden in the fine print of Prop 90 are unrelated and far-reaching provisions that will cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year, entangle the state in costly and wasteful litigation, and have devastating impacts for our environment, local communities, and consumers.

The small group of anti-government extremists who paid to put Prop 90 on the ballot are using the public’s concern over eminent domain to advance an extreme agenda. Rather than put forth a well-designed reform that addresses eminent domain abuses, they have snuck in far-reaching provisions that are completely unrelated to eminent domain. These provisions would restrict the State, local governments – and even voters – from acting to protect our wildlife, open space, coastline, farmland and other important resources.

Prop. 90 will create taxpayer liability any time the government acts to protect us – except for narrowly-defined public health and safety issues. That’s because the measure redefines “damages,” allowing virtually anyone to sue claiming a new law or regulation has impacted the value of their property or business. Prop. 90 would not only risk taxpayer liability for environmental protection, but also consumer protection, historic preservation, preserving hunting areas, and many other kinds of basic laws that make communities better, safer places to live. It also would make pollution a private property right so that the government would have to pay to regulate or reduce pollution.

After a similar law was recently passed in Oregon (a much smaller state), nearly 2,000 claims were filed – seeking $3.8 billion in payments. Now state and local governments in Oregon are faced with a Hobson’s Choice: pay the claims or waive the regulations. According to a July 25, New York Times story, “Instead of paying property owners, local government agencies have routinely chosen to waive the regulations, clearing the way for numerous developments in rural areas.” In one horrendous example, Oregon allowed a gravel mine near a neighbor’s home. In another, a property owner is insisting on the right to building geothermal mines inside a national monument.

The law will also hurt consumers. It would require the state to pay businesses if it wanted to take new actions to protect medical or financial privacy. New laws to make sure that women actually get equal pay could not be enacted unless the taxpayers paid for the increased wage levels themselves.

In addition to making many environmental and other regulations difficult or impossible to enforce, Prop. 90 would make it prohibitively expensive for public agencies to acquire property for public works projects, new schools, transit facilities, fire protection measures, utilities and other important public works. Prop. 90 essentially eliminates “fair market value” as the standard for payment and substitutes much more costly methods of compensation, This will make the costs of public works projects increase astronomically and taxpayers will have to pay.

Conservation organizations, labor, public safety organizations, business, taxpayer, agriculture and local governments are all opposing Prop 90 because they recognize Proposition 90 will result in degradation of environmental protections, land use, cause community planning chaos and will cost taxpayers billions.

Tom Adams has been a California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) board member since 1995 and has served as President of CLCV since 2001. He is one of the most important and widely respected voices defending environmental protection in California. Adams spends much of his time meeting with Assemblymembers, Senators, and their staff to help argue the merits of CLCV’s priority legislation He specialized in environmental and land use law before then and is a graduate of Harvard Law School.

For more information about Prop 90 or to get involved, please go to www.NoProp90.com

Posted on August 04, 2006

Comments

Great piece by Adams. Concise and to the point. Hope he has authored some of the ballot arguments.......Dave McCabe

Posted by: David McCabe at August 4, 2006 03:10 PM

We must be aware at all times of this prop.90.We will fight till the end, and we will win.

Posted by: Marilyn Phillips at September 1, 2006 12:51 PM

We must be aware at all times of this prop.90.We will fight till the end, and we will win.

Posted by: Marilyn Phillips at September 1, 2006 12:51 PM

City Councils/Redevelopment Agencies have abused the use of eminent domain, and this was endorsed by the widely accepted belief that the Jun 05 US Supreme Court ruling was fundamentally wrong. The author does not tie his criticism of Prop 90 to the clauses that he believes would create probs. So I consider the critique bunk.

We need to protect homeowners and small businesses even if it costs the tax payers more. And hopefully, the Supreme Court will revisit its ruling with a future case and get us closer to "for public use" versus for "public benefit" when the government mandates transfer of property rights.

Posted by: mark bower at October 6, 2006 06:38 PM

Redevelopment agencies spend billions of taxpayers funds each year to private developers. Their debt now is nearly $70 billion to be repaid with property taxes. Not one dime pays for schools or public services. Local government many times restricts the use of private property, and when acquired for redevelopment, the restrictions are eased for new development. To local government, the people are to be used and abused. Those against Prop 90 want government to buy cheap and reap instant extrordinary profit. their control, not onllyl to be used by

Posted by: Don Lippman at October 24, 2006 01:16 PM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker