Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

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

Our latest headlines

Arnold's Freedom to Choose: Subprime Lending Regulation and the Bubble in California
California and the Nation’s Financial Mess: It’s About Transparency
Conservatives Should Be Appalled by the Iraq War and the Administration’s Other Self-Destructive Policies on Terror
Regarding California’s Deadliest Train Collision: What Was Learned and Done Thus Far and What May Lay Ahead
Three Overlapping Seats Winnable in Central California Blue Wave: Congress, State Senate, and Assembly
Taking a Close Look at Prop 4, Californians Will Vote No—As They Have Two Times When Similar Measures Were on the Ballot
Stuck in Traffic? Think a Moment on How Important High Speed Rail is to California

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

Beware of Harmful Rent Control Rollback and Anti-Environment Measure on the California June Ballot

Support True Eminent Domain Reform – The Homeowners Protection Act

By Larry Gross
Executive Director
Coalition for Economic Survival, Los Angeles County

Though we’ve still got to get through the February primary, progressives should be aware of two very important initiatives which just qualified for the June 2008 statewide election ballot. One is an outright attack on rent control, the environment and land-use planning and should be opposed by all progressives. The other will protect the homes of hardworking Californians from being taken by eminent domain and given to a developer. This measure deserves our strong support.

The dangerous measure, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, aka the “Hidden Agendas Scheme,” is being financed by wealthy apartment and mobilehome park owners attempting to trick voters into thinking the measure is about eminent domain. In truth, the landlords’ scheme is nothing but a thinly-veiled attempt to eliminate rent control and renter protections.

Working families, seniors, veterans, widows and other low-income individuals already struggle to survive in California because of the high cost of living. Rent control is an important tool to keep affordable housing available for these hardworking citizens in more expensive, urban communities. The scheming landlords funding this measure want to drive these people out of their homes so they can make themselves even richer by renting out the units at exorbitant costs.

But they face a formidable foe in the form of a strong and deep coalition of senior groups, affordable housing advocates, tenant advocates, labor, environmentalists and faith-based groups who have been working for months to organize to defeat of the Hidden Agendas Scheme. This coalition has held numerous high-profile, highly publicized rallies decrying the greedy landlords, and are organizing regionally and statewide to ensure every voter is aware of the Hidden Agendas behind the Landlords’ Scheme. You can track their progress and get involved in this effort at www.nolandlordscheme.com.

Eliminating rent control is not the only harmful impact of the Hidden Agendas Scheme that progressives should worry about. The measure would also gut environmental protections, including our landmark greenhouse gas reduction laws. Read an analysis from one of California’s leading environmental law firms. That’s why virtually every leading environmental organization has come out swinging against the Hidden Agendas Scheme.

To combat this dangerous initiative and to provide Californians with real eminent domain reform, Eminent Domain Reform Now, a large coalition of seniors, homeowners, business, labor, environmentalists, local governments, public safety leaders, affordable housing advocates has qualified a separate initiative also for the June Ballot: the Homeowners Protection Act. This constitutional amendment protects homeowners by prohibiting government from using eminent domain to take a home and give it to a private developer. The Homeowners Protection Act is a direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Kelo v. the City of New London decision from 2005. It’s a simple, straightforward ballot proposition and doesn’t include any hidden provisions or adverse consequences.

Between now and June 3, members of Eminent Domain Reform Now will be actively campaigning and educating voters about the benefits of the Homeowners Protection Act and the dangers associated with the Hidden Agendas Scheme. For those wishing to get involved and help with the campaign, please go to: www.eminentdomainreform.com to sign up for the coalition and join us.

Founded in 1973, the Coalition for Economic Survival (CES)is a grassroots multi-racial, multi-ethnic non-profit community-based organization. CES led the effort to win rent control in the cities of Los Angeles and West Hollywood, and is dedicated to organizing low and moderate income people to win economic and social justice. CES assists working and low-income people throughout the greater Los Angeles area and surrounding counties in working together to empower themselves to impact the decision making processes that effect their day-to-day lives. CES is committed to actively opposing any type of prejudice or discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, age, religion, income, disability or sexual orientation.

Posted on January 25, 2008

Comments

I'm sorry but this article is a big misrepresentation. CPOFPA would get rid of rent control laws, even the proponents admit that.

Rent controls don't work, and those who support rent controls know that (they don't care though, they think they are still "humanitarian"). They create a shortage of housing, and reduce the quality of what is still available. Plus, for anyone moving into a rent controlled area, rents are HIGHER than in places without.

Plus, even if they did work, why should it be the job of only one group of people (property owners) to fix a societal problem THAT THEY DIDN'T CREATE?

CPOFPA also keeps current rent controls for current tenants, so we don't have worry about them suddenly being tossed out

As far as land use and environmental laws, talk to the legislative analyst. She doesn't put any stock in those claims, and she's right not to. The provision that you (opponents) claim would prohibit those kinds of laws is the following:

(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.

In order for a regulation to be void under this, it must meet the following criteria:

1. It transfers an ECONOMIC benefit
2. It transfers the benefit from the owner to one or more PRIVATE persons
3. It is enacted for the express purpose of 1 and 2 ("in order to")

Rent controls are definitely enacted for the express purpose of transferring an economic benefit to private persons. Environmental and land use laws are not enacted for the express purpose of transferring an economic benefit to one or more private persons. They enacted for the express purpose of benefiting the PUBLIC. They may end up indirectly transferring an economic benefit from the owner to another private person, but that's it

As far as HPA, saying that's real eminent domain reform is like saying that Prop 78 (the drug company phony prescription drug discount proposition in the special election) was real prescription drug reform. They're both sponsored by people who have a conflict of interest against doing what they claim the proposition does, and both are too little too late

The Constitution says "nor shall PRIVATE PROPERTY be taken for public use without just compensation" not "nor shall owner-occupied residences." So this tells people that their property rights depend on the kind of property they own. The Kelo decision affects all kinds of property, not just "owner-occupied residences"

In reality, taking away the roof over my head isn't much different from taking away what pays for the roof over my head, now is it? Any eminent domain reform needs equal protection FOR all kinds of property

What's the worst part of HPA? The poison pill. If this gets more votes than CPOFPA, then CPOFPA is null and void.

HPA is a phony reform that's worse than nothing at all. The proponents of it are trying to prevent any stronger protections, not just by CPOFPA, but in the future as well. This will make voters believe reform has taken place when it hasn't.

CPOFPA is the only real reform on the ballot. It protects ALL property equally from private takings (including for the same use as the current owner, and for consumption of natural resources appurtenant to the property), prohibits the courts from rubber-stamping the government when it declares "blight" or other nuisances, entitles the owner to prompt release of compensation while still being allowed to challenge the amount and/or the taking in court, requires compensation that takes into account the true cost of being subject to eminent domain, and ends the "incidental private use" loophole.

HPA does none of those things, but if it gets one more vote, it will nullify all those things

If you think rent controls are so holy that they must be defended, vote against CPOFPA. If you think eminent domain should be allowed for private use, vote against both. But don't go claiming CPOFPA does things it doesn't

Posted by: Ben at January 25, 2008 12:20 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