So-Called "Eminent Domain" Ballot Proposition is Back and Has Former Supporters Scratching Their Heads

Before the 'progressives' critique the Farm Bureau's new initiative, maybe they should clearly explain to their readers where they stand on the eminent domain issue:
-Progressives are in favor of taking land from one person and giving it to another for purposes of economic development. Period. This is what the debate is all about. After the Kelo Decision cities across California have been taking privately owned land and gving it to developers to build condo's and mixed use projects which are now the soup de jour. Progressives want to maintain the status quo as evidenced by the California League of Cities new initiative which does nothing (see the 'blight exception' in the League's new initiative). Explain to me Mr. Green "how is it right to take property from one person and give it to a developer for the the developer's own profit?".

Doug

Sneak Attack on Property Rights Fails
by Jon Coupal 8/30/07

The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA) is an initiative that would curb government's power to seize private property and turn it over to another private entity that is willing to pay more in taxes. The measure is sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance for the Protection of Private Property Rights who are gathering signatures to place it on the June 2008 state-wide ballot.

Opposed to this effort, of course, are the California Redevelopment Association and the California League of Cities. Both organizations vigorously defend their existing power to take private property for the purpose of handing it over to another private interest, such as a major developer or big box store, for the simple purpose of generating more tax revenues for local government.

To ward off true reform that would protect private property owners, these government organizations are now promoting a much weaker competing initiative that would provide only limited protection for some private property owners but no protections at all for small businesses or churches.

In the most recent skirmish in the property rights battle, the government interests have paid for a self-serving "legal analysis" attacking the CPOFPA which they have been "shopping" to the media. Specifically, the document alleges that the CPOFPA would prohibit the use of eminent domain -- the taking of private property -- to construct new water storage facilities or to fill them with water.

This outlandish claim, however, was quickly debunked by a number of California's water law and property rights experts.

Ironically, this League of Cities analysis runs directly contrary to what the California Farm Bureau Federation -- which co-authored the CPOFPA -- says about the measure. It makes no sense that the agricultural community, which has fought for decades for more water storage, would jeopardize those same projects.

The League of Cities' bizarre charge that CPOFPA would somehow impair governments' ability to build and fill new water storage facilities could not be further from the truth. The initiative does not touch the state constitution's existing authorization that private property may be taken for public use. The initiative's definition of "public use" clearly allows the exercise of eminent domain to build new water storage. It allows eminent domain for any "public use ... including public facilities ... and public utilities."

The League of Cities' fantastic allegations just illustrate how far politicians and bureaucrats -- as well as developers who want help in seizing private property they are unable to buy from willing sellers -- will to go to maintain coercive power over all property within their jurisdictions.

The League of Cities and the Redevelopment Association's attempt to create a controversy over this initiative must be seen for what it is: a campaign stunt.

Still, it is a valuable warning to those working to protect private property rights. If the enemies of property rights use the same playbook they have used in the past, this won't be their last attempt to deceive the public and policy makers about what the CPOFPA does or does not do. It is therefore incumbent for all those who believe Californians deserve the same property rights as those enjoyed in other states to remain vigilant against spurious attacks. CRO

copyright 2007 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers association

I can't understand what Josiah is thinking. Eminent Domain it where politicians take property from the little guy (who don't have the resources to fight back) and give it to their developer and corporate friends. (friends = campaign contributors)

When did you become such a friend of corporations Josiah Green? From what I remember of the Kelo case it was old lady's who lost their homes so that big pharma could get a new corporate campus.

The League of Cities is just a bunch of old career political hacks trying to hold on to as much power as they can.

-Brian

Josiah will learn when he grows out of being a pimply faced teenager, works his tail off to buy a house and watches the guvment come along and take it only to hand it over to WalMart or some evil condo developer.

Josiah will learn when he grows out of being a pimply faced teenager, works his tail off to buy a house and watches the guvment come along and take it only to hand it over to WalMart or some evil condo developer.

Post a comment

Commenters: You must preview your comment before posting. And please only hit "Post" once; it may take a while, but your comment is being processed. Thanks.