Even The California Taxpayers’ Association Votes to Oppose Proposition 90

You can add the State Chamber of Commerce, the CA Farm Bureau, and the CA Building Industry Association to the list of "strange bedfellows." Indeed, when they join the Sierra Club and groups like the police and fire, water agencies, and legitimate homeowners organizations who see through this Trojan Horse saddled up by Howie Rich, you're right -- it will be a long, long time before groups this diverse agree on a ballot measure that was placed there via the initiative process. Unfortunately, the average voter might still see this as "save our homes" helped by some reporters who have covered this in the print media who, even after extensive time spent hearing how this measure works, cannot seem to help themselves from writing a story about over-hyped eminent domain abuse element and the David versus Goliath angle. Hopefully, the message gets out about what is at stake for our economy, local governents, and the environment and Prop 90 will go down in flames.

YES ON PROP 90!
Prop 90 is about ethics! The owner of a property has the right to use it for his or her lawful purpose. Yes on 90 stops unqualified false authorities from taking your land and using it for their purposes. It's that simple! American industry has been RAPED by eminent domain in the interest of sloppy housing and Chinese product shopping centers. THIS IS YOUR COUNTRY. WHY DON'T YOU WANT TO PROTECT IT? Don't you wnat to own your own land? Don't you want to be offered a fair business transaction for your property? YES ON 90!!!!!!

Dear Ms/Mr. Libertarian: You fail to address the Trojan Horse nature of Prop 90. If Prop 90 was JUST about eminent domain, we could have a conversation, but it's not. If Prop 90 goes down, and hopefully it will, I suggest you go to the Legisature about your gripes, as I think they are willing to do some "reforming" of eminent domain. But, I bet you LIKE the "damages" portion of Prop 90 because it sounds like you are in the (Senator) Tom McClintock camp who said this: "I think people ought to be able to do anything they want with their property." While this quaint notion was prevalent in the 19th Century, Californians (in overwhelming numbers)today believe that government serves a vital role in protecting our health, safety, and welfare. If you have a problem with that, well, there's always Montana...

Well Bill, Montana may be just perfect for you but here in California where my home, family, and business are I'm promised all the rights and liberties that those in the rest of the United States enjoy. Much ot America has laws eliminating the use of eminent domain entirely.

You have an overly trusting view of your local goverment. Let's review their qualifications.

1) There are NO educational requirements for Civic Leadership.
2) There are NO educational requirements for City Planning positions.
3) There is NO city requirement for a functional City economy.
4) City Officials are often "yes men" for developers.
5) There are NO punitive ramifications for creating bad city design or for the destuction of certain careers.

Ask your self this, Bill. Do you think a small pannel of unqualified control freaks that are immune from prosecution, can actually do what's best for your city? Or do you think ALL THE PEOPLE DECICING TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THEMSELVES IS A BETTER OPTION. Let me know when you're moving to Montana, I'll help you pack.

Maybe environmentalists will think twice before they declare that landowners in the hill can't build on their own property and in general restrict even flatlanders want to do what their own property for the good of us all. On second thought I doubt it. To them its a religion and no cost is too high for even the smallest return.

I believe all of us private property loving homeowners can agree that there are legitimate restrictions on private property rights. For instance, almost all of our hospitals are now private property. If the stockholders of these corporations decided they wanted to tear down the hospitals and build condominiums, our society would crumble. Where would be take the victims of the next terrorist attack if we only had one county hospital left.

The simple fact is that we as a society would not allow that to happen because there is a legitimate state interest in protecting the general welfare of society by having little conveniences like hospitals and a roof over the heads of our vulnerable seniors, disabled and other vulnerable citizens.

The state needs restrictions on Eminent Domain abuse; specially via the Kelo decision of 2005. Why hasn't the legislature taken action on this yet? Why do we have to wait for private citizens to act? Perhaps because it feathers the interests of politicians and public agencies (which termed-out pols may want to join). Never-the-less, we DO need action on Eminent Domain abuse.

As for the rest of Prop 90 (or the 'hidden' sentence), I beleive there's been overreaction and hysteria on this account. '90' would only apply to any FUTURE laws, regs, reqs, etc. It does nothing to invalidate any present enviornmental, planning, zoning, or rent control laws. It would only apply to future actions, and those "EXCEPT WHEN TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY", such as downzoning (but not up-zoning) and other laws negatively impacting private property owners. It would still allow laws and ordinances that provide essential government responsibilities.

And if this were to prove too onerous (which I've failed to hear any legitimate attributions), then I fully expect legislators to post a ballot measure that would restore the ability of CA govmin agencies to continue to do as they please. I'm sure with all the support in opposition to '90' that that wouldn't be difficult to coordinate.

But then, reform of Eminent Domain wasn't a difficult step to take in the first place -- it jsut didn't happen. Govmint bureaucrats rarely give up power without a screeching bleat.
-P

I've lost a home to eminent domain and another piece of family property to a taking masquerading as an assessment that was 12 times the appraised value of my property. I fought the latter in court and ended up having to surrender my land in exchange for its value, for money that I didn't want. I'm voting NO on Prop 90. It specifically exempts "blight" [Sec. 19 (e)] and will not end the abuses of redevelopment in working-class neighborhoods. It will destroy citizen oversight on city council development decisions. It ignores the obligations we owe each other as members of this society. It supports an extreme, individualistic, survival-of-the-fittest economic view of America.

The libertarian right might not be so happy with this proposition once it starts getting applied (assuming passage of course). Sure it will prevent regulatory takings by local governments by slamming the door shut on pretty much all regulatory planning, which given the financally strapped nature of most jurisdiction is a predictable reaction. So no more urban growth boundaries, height limitations or other planning tools used to shape urban development.

So far so good from the libertarian perspective, right?

No, not really.

Like others have said, the devil in the details. What most people don't realize is that with the exception of a few minor examples, most land use decisions ARE discretionary regulatory decisions and WOULD be subject to PROP 90 claims provisions. So while Mr. Libertarian Landowner who would be "protected" from a planning department's recommendation to downzone his property could now have have his project DENIED because of potential PROP 90 claims **to others.**

How?

Suppose his project called for the construction of a million square feet of big box space. In pretty much every jurisdiction, this would require regulatory approval (planning commission, perhaps an elected board) so it would fall under PROP 90's broad catch. Lets assume for a moment, the project included a WalMart or some other large chain store with the ability to undercut local downtown merchants. What is going to STOP those merchants (or the property owners they rent from) from FILING PROP 90 claims over the "financial taking" the new project would have on their businesses (reduced sales, increased vacancies, reduced rent)? Nothing would. Same thing with a housing project. What will stop existing homeowners from filing a prop 90 claim if they can show some form of monetary loss. Unless the project is real small or perfectly designed or located, this can easily be made a point of arguement.

What's the jurisdiction's most prudent course of action in the face of legal action? Simple, not approve the project.

Remember, NOT approving a request is simply preserving the status quo, and as this proposition makes clear, anything in effect prior to its passage is not up for "renegotiation" al a Measure 37. So if keeping Mr. Libertarian Landowner's property at its current use and zoning designation does not represent a regulatory taking while approving his request would, what do you think a local government would do?

Nothing. And that's exactly what we should expect from 90. Not that that is a good thing, but that is how potentially broad this measure is. Basically, the only thing (absent unanimous community approval for a project) that can happen is a freezing all land use planning decisions as they currently exist and suspending all but the most basic projects.

I can't imagine this being what any self respecting Libertarian would want. On the other hand, I could see some preservationists, NIMBYs and BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) coming to love PROP 90.

"Vote for PROP 90 - Because time should really stop advancing...."

-Patrick
(a Land Use Planner)

Liberty First? No - Responsability First!
Prop 90 is a Pandora’s box. Right now Oakland is fighting desperately to reduce crime and poverty. West Oakland is filled with Liquor Stores that just feed the problem and Oakland is limiting the number of Liquor Stores in a comprehensive effort to stop to the downward spiral of violence and poverty. Property ownership comes with responsibilities not unlimited rights. If an individual's actions are detrimental to the community/city the city's duty is to stop that individual. Prop 90 says it doesn't interfer with a City's ability to mitigate blight but everything within the wording of the prop does exactly the opposite and there are no clear provisions defining how cities can address blight other than some meaningless feel good language at the back of the bill. Hell with prop 90 you could build a strip joint across from an elementary school and if the city takes any action it would be forced by prop 90 to pay compensation to the strip club owner.

West Oakland filled with liquor stores...obviously the liquor stores are causing Oakland's problem....duh you have to be goofy to believe this....

Most people's comments here agree that Kelo-style eminent domain abuse should be curbed so I won't waste my time defending that portion of 90.

The way I see it, the argument that is most favored by the NO crowd both here and on the official election guide material goes like this... "If it passes, zoning restrictions will be considered takings and subject to compensation under 90." This is just wrong.

The language involved is intended to prevent actual takings through regulation like the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) where they kept people from developing land which had been zoned for development when purchased. If the cause is important enough to take this drastic of an action, then just compensation should be forthcoming. We don't give up on the rights of the acused because the judicial system costs us too much. The fifth amendment guarantees that nobody shall be relieved of life, liberty or property without due process. In fact, life, liberty and property are different aspects of the same thing -- the self. You can't take my life or liberty without showing I have done wrong. I can sell my time to you voluntarily -- to take it without consent is slavery or kidnapping. Taking my property without my consent is just as wrong. Depriving me of full use of said property is just as wrong.

The founding fathers understood this and that is why life, liberty and property are in the same phrase in the same bill of rights amendment. To propose policy to the contrary is communism in its worst light -- the kind that imposes force.

Prop 90 is progress for the rights of individuals. This website is called Calfornia PROGRESS Report... We need more rights for the people in this country, not more rights for government. When you think of eminent domain abuse, think wireless wiretapping and extraordinary rendition -- they are of the same ilk.

If government cannot afford a taking, it is because it is an improper taking. Stand up for what is good and decent and vote YES on 90.

RE: Spargur Comments
Are liquor stores responsible for blight? No. I have bought liquor at liquor stores and no blight resulted as a consequence. Do some people abuse liquor? Of course they do. Just as much harm is caused by the selling of Mac and Cheese. Obesity is possibly a bigger killer than alcohol in this country -- less dramatic, but just as bad. Diabetes is a national epidemic. Should we outlaw Mac and Cheese too? How about cheese in general? That stuff is laden with saturated fat!! The deaths that occur are less dramatic and therefore harder to gain support for from people who don't use critical analysis.
Maybe people should be held accountable for crimes they commit that actually harm other people such as many of those committed under the influence of alcohol.
In case you still don't understand ... think back to the 18th amendment - prohibition. It didn't work and the moment it was repealed with the 21st amendment, crime went down drastically.
Using eminent domain to shut down liquor stores is just an underhanded way of instituting a partial prohibition effect. It doesn't work. People will still buy alcohol at grocery stores and other outlets.
By the way, the "feel-good, meaningless language at the back of the bill" is the only weakness of this proposition, but I am voting for it anyway. Fact of the matter is, blight has come to be defined as whatever the government thinks it is. It has even been interpreted as an area where the square footage is not within a certain variance from the average square footage for similar areas. If you like your small affordable home, forget about it -- the development company wants to build new zero-lot-line tract homes where your charming cottage sits and the government is going to help them do it -- at your expense.
Now, as far as the strip club goes, could you please give me an example of a strip club open for business across from an elementary school? Assuming you find one, please tell me who allowed a business permit for it to open (or for the school to be built across from one) ?? Could it possibly be the same responsible government officials who want to close said establishment? Even if this did happen, all they would have to do is deny the license renewal. Its a moot question because it is a hypothetical -- not a real-life situation.
I guess Republicans aren't the only ones who like to use scare tactics to influence opinion.

Jeffersonish is missing something in his review of this proposition.

"The language involved is intended to prevent actual takings through regulation like the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) where they kept people from developing land which had been zoned for development when purchased."

If you are expecting compensation for past decisions, keep looking. Prop 90 is not retroactive like Oregons M37 was. If it's to prevent *future* decisions from impinging on the rights of land owners, then that's correct.

I disagree with your statement "Depriving me of full use of said property is just as wrong." The rights of the *community* should outweigh your rights as a property owner. But that's just my outlook. But that should still not obscure the fact that this is one fatally flawed proposition.

Look at subsection (8) where regulatory takings is discussed. Zoning changes are explicitly mentioned as an action that could beget a regulatory takings claim under 90. In fact ANY action that the government undertakes that changes EXISTING codes, statutes, regulations or whatever could be subject to PROP 90 claims. It's in the text. Don't change the zoning or regulations and you are okay. That part is in the last paragraph of Prop 90. But that's just an antiseptic description. Read on to see a real-world application.

In my town there is a massive, half million square feet shopping center proposed on a vacant industrial parcel. The owner owns it fair and square. The firm is now asking the city to change the zoning to commercial and amend the general plan to make it fit. Now imagine 90 passes. This proposal is immensely unpopular with a large contingent of established homeowners and businesses, many of which are in a position to demonstrate a financial loss due to decreased business and lower property values from that (loss of rent) and from negative impacts such as increased traffic and pollution. What's going to stop them from filing a Prop90 claim IF the government CHANGES the zoning to fit the developer? On the other hand IF the government denies the request and keeps the zoning AS-IS, there are no financial impacts because EXISTING ZONING is exempt.

The more I think about this, the more I think this tool is any NIMBY group's wet dream to stop a project.

Please read the text of the proposition and explain how the modifications to Section 19 (b)(8) on regulatory takings and Sec 6. (the last paragraph) on the effective date and logic out these two scenarios:

1) Local government X wants to preserve 300 acres north of town as agriculture, so that it does not have to extend infrastructure and support development out in those areas, keeping the city's "foot print" more compact. These lands have no health or safety reasons for being protected (eg in a flood plain, etc)

2) Farmer Y, after decades wishes to sell his farm to developer Z so he can retire. Developer Z figures that a shopping center and 300 new homes would be quite profitable. The only problem is the land is zoned AG and is under Williamson Act protection. As williamson AG designation, the value is significantly lower than if it had a higher zoning. BUT...the neighbor's view would be compromised by the development, their local school over crowded, their roads congested. Meanwhile, the existing strip mall owner has a 30% vacancy rate and is not looking forward to having to compete against a new, more glamorous strip mall. Tell me, Jeffersonish--what will stop those surrounding landowners from filing Prop90 claims right and left?

THink it over. If you or anyone out there has an alternate reasoning, please submit.

I've been in a rent controlled apartment for many years. It's unfair to the landlord, who is forced to take rent then he deserves, while still having to maintain the property. He, rather than the broader pool of all taxpayers, is being forced to subsidize my rent. Yet, I "take" his money each monthy willfully.
How do I read about Yes on 90 arguments? Where do I look. I'm making more money now than when I moved in and I wonder if it's time to stop enjoying the benefit of my landlord's personal subsidy, which I no longer need.
However, if I move out, the place will no longer be subjected to rent control. I'm allowed to sublet (at no profit to me). Should I continue to victimize my landlord, through subletting, so I can benefit some new, less fortunate tenant that needs this less-than-perfect, but real and available subsidized rent?

How do you know you are "victimizing" your landlord? There are tax breaks
and deductions that he probably takes. In the large scheme of things it is
obvious what to do.
Does anyone know what the phrase is called, to have the general right to build on your property?

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.