Imminent Eminent Domain Rip-Off Threatens California's Environment

I Watch COPS and think the the city and residents would be much better with many Trailer Parks closed. If an OWNER wants to close his Trailer Park or Apartment why should'nt he have the right?

What do you mean, "anti-environment" agenda. I don't doubt that these groups aren't big on the environment, but distinguishing their ideology and their proposal is important

Wishing this was like Prop 90 doesn't make it so. The only regulations this affects are: "(iii) regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner."

PROPERTY regulations which transfer an ECONOMIC benefit from the owner to a PRIVATE person(s) will be affected. Land use, zoning, environment, consumer, etc... regulations don't transfer an economic benefit to a private person. They provide SOCIAL benefits to the PUBLIC. Labor and workplace laws are not property regulations

As for rent control, all current rent control laws will be allowed to stay as long as the current tenant remains.

But that aside, rent controls are barbaric. They ask one group of people to pay for a SOCIETAL benefit when it's not their fault

And the Homeowner Protection Act title should be taken literally. It increases protections to homeowners, while it decreases protections to small businesses, churches, farms, and all other kinds of property. The explicit mention of one thing excludes all others

"(b) The State and local governments are prohibited from acquiring by eminent domain an owner-occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person."

So they are permitted, therefore, to acquire all other kinds of property by eminent domain for the purpose of conveying it to a private person. Small businesses, churches, and farms at least have a fighting chance under current law to prevent their property from being taken for private use. Under this, they won't even have that

While zoning regulations are intended to protect the public they do, in fact, transfer economic benefit to private persons. For example, those who own homes that are near parks that are paid for by developers clearly recognize an economic benefit as a result of regulations that require park dedication. Surrounding property owners receive a benefit when local government limits the hours of operation of liquor stores or noisy businesses. Consumer regulations that limit the rates insurance companies can charge also confer an economic benefit. The list goes on and on. If the objective is to limit use of eminent domain then all of these other provisions are not needed. I guarantee that if the Jarvis bill passes, some local zoning regulations intended to benefit the public will be challenged and it will be up to the courts to decide. As a result, the public will have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers money to defend the types of actions that most people agree are intended to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Note that unlike Prop. 90, this measure does not exempt regulations to protect public health and safety.

Jeff, Ben & Viv:

Enjoy your Christmas dinner with Mr. Burns...errr, I mean Sam Zell.

Post a comment