Prop 98 Hidden Agenda for California June Primary Is Not So Far Beneath the Surface

If Faller actually did this it's disgusting! I have no defense for him, but a lot of what is said here is disgusting as well:

While proponents want voters to think it’s about eminent domain reform, Prop 98 is the most dangerous right-wing initiative to hit the California ballot in years.

NO IT'S NOT. PROP 73 AND 22 ARE TWO MORE EXTREME ONES. I COULD PROBABLY THINK OF MORE. MANY REASONABLE PEOPLE ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM OPPOSE RENT CONTROLS, I'M ONE OF THEM

It would abolish rent control

GOOD

gut the most basic tenant protections

PROOF?

repeal sensible environmental laws and endanger public water projects.

BULLCRAP! THE COURTS HAVE SAID IT WON'T. http://yesprop98.com/modules/article/list/release.php?id=wyeynszn5msho7&done=index.php%3Fpi%3Dwynxywvh4iozo0%26chunkSize%3D10%26search%3D%26chunkNum%3D0&pi=wynxywvh4iozo0&_adctlid=v%7Cwynx8c5jjesxsb%7Cwzccafgri80252

Another measure, Proposition 99, would reform eminent domain – which Faller opposes because it would “only protect owner-occupied homes.”

TAKING AWAY THE ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD IS VERY MUCH LIKE TAKING AWAY WHAT PAYS FOR THE ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD

In other words, the Prop 98 forces don’t really care about the middle-class homeowner who fears eminent domain. They just want to repeal all regulations of private property.

FAULTY LOGIC! 99 SLIGHTLY PROTECTS OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN LIVED IN FOR OVER A YEAR.

WHAT WILL 99 DO TO PROTECT MOE MOHANNA'S BUSINESSES? http://www.theabuseofeminentdomain.com/

WHAT WOULD IT HAVE DONE TO PROTECT JOHN REVELLI'S TIRE SHOP? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/this_state_can_take_your_dream.html

WHAT WOULD IT HAVE DONE TO PROTECT AHMED MESDAQ'S BUSINESS? http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050612-9999-1m12havana.html

WHAT WILL 99 DO TO PROTECT THE NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY YOUTH ATHLETIC CENTER? http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/06/22/government/710boxing062207.txt

WHAT WILL IT DO TO PROTECT EVERYONE ELSE WHO'S EXPERIENCED SIMILAR OPPRESSION?

THE ANSWERS: NOTHING! THE PROPONENTS ARE TRYING TO MAKE VOTERS BELIEVE REAL REFORM HAS TAKEN PLACE WHEN IT HASN'T, AND IF IT GETS ONE MORE VOTE THAN 98, WHICH WILL PROTECT THOSE KINDS OF TAKINGS JUST MENTIONED, ALL OF 98 IS INVALIDATED

Paul, I agree with your completely about Faller and would love for him to disappear from the campaign after saying all this. But your misrepresentations of 98 and 99 are way off as well. 98 will abolish rent control, and it will stop private eminent domain takings. It will not abolish all property regulations, THAT IS ABSURD!

More on Dan Faller and his WAR on California renters

Dan Faller is not shy about who he is and what he all about.

Dan Faller has declared WAR on California's renters, and the proof is in his own declaration called; How to End Rent Control Now!

>>>>>>>>>

Dan Faller
Founder and President
Apartment Owners Association (AOA)

Headquarters Address:
6445 Sepulveda Boulevard Suite 300
Van Nuys, CA 91411
USA

Website: 
www.apartmentownersassociation.com

Phone: 
(818) 988-9200

Fax: 
(818) 988-5921

***********
Dan Faller, CEO of; http://www.apartmentownersassociation.com/

Dan Faller and his his wife Danette reside in Chatsworth Caifornia.

Dan Faller's home telephone number is (818) 988-9200 and Fax number (818) 988-5921.

DANETTE S FALLER Born  1962   

Home Address
Dan Faller
10320 OSO AVE  
CHATSWORTH, CA  91311

Dan Faller and AOA has a local office in Alameda, CA, and protests should be held in Alameda at the the Northern California AOA office to take the battle to Dan Faller's doorstep...

AOA Northern California
Alison Karnes, Manager
Mon - Fri from 9 AM - 5 PM
(510) 769-7521 Phone
(510) 769-7485 Fax
1128 Lincoln Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501  

***************
(Dan Faller declares WAR on TENANTS)

How to End Rent Control Now! By Dan Faller, AOA President

http://tinyurl.com/yroxbg

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
By Dan Faller, AOA President. The following information is from “Californians for Property Rights Protection”. (CPRP), a Committee formed to qualify and ...

www.aoausa.com/Articles/2007/ 09_September/05_HowToEndRentControl.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/yroxbg

More on Dan Faller and his WAR on California renters

Dan Faller is not shy about who he is and what he all about.

Dan Faller has declared WAR on California's renters, and the proof is in his own declaration called; How to End Rent Control Now!

>>>>>>>>>

Dan Faller
Founder and President
Apartment Owners Association (AOA)

Headquarters Address:
6445 Sepulveda Boulevard Suite 300
Van Nuys, CA 91411
USA

Website: 
www.apartmentownersassociation.com

Phone: 
(818) 988-9200

Fax: 
(818) 988-5921

***********
Dan Faller, CEO of; http://www.apartmentownersassociation.com/

Dan Faller and his his wife Danette reside in Chatsworth Caifornia.

Dan Faller's home telephone number is (818) 988-9200 and Fax number (818) 988-5921.

DANETTE S FALLER Born  1962   

Home Address
Dan Faller
10320 OSO AVE  
CHATSWORTH, CA  91311

Dan Faller and AOA has a local office in Alameda, CA, and protests should be held in Alameda at the the Northern California AOA office to take the battle to Dan Faller's doorstep...

AOA Northern California
Alison Karnes, Manager
Mon - Fri from 9 AM - 5 PM
(510) 769-7521 Phone
(510) 769-7485 Fax
1128 Lincoln Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501  

***************
(Dan Faller declares WAR on TENANTS)

How to End Rent Control Now! By Dan Faller, AOA President

http://tinyurl.com/yroxbg

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
By Dan Faller, AOA President. The following information is from “Californians for Property Rights Protection”. (CPRP), a Committee formed to qualify and ...

www.aoausa.com/Articles/2007/ 09_September/05_HowToEndRentControl.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/yroxbg

Rent control is eminent domain....taking from one person and giving it to another without just compensation. It is an unfair tax on landlords. Not all rent controlled units are occupied by low income tenants! Prop 98 will not evict anyone. When units are vacated they will become non rent controlled. We have vacancy decontrol now on market rents, so what’s the big deal on eliminating rent control? Why should the burden of providing low income housing be placed on the private property owners? Shouldn’t the government pay for this? How about we all pay a “low rent tax” to help pay for the supposedly low income tenants? What, no volunteers ?Yes on 98 – No on 99

This initiative was written by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the folks who brought you Prop. 13 in 1978, effectively bankrupting our state's educational system by capping annual property tax increases at 2%. How ironic that these same people, and the many large apartment building owners who are backing the proposition, think that capping annual rental increases at more than 3% is unfair.

It is also ironic how often the call comes out for tort reform, when Prop. 98 will (among other things) open the door to tens of thousands of lawsuits by property owners against California cities and the state itself.

Why?

The language of Prop. 98 redefines "private" use and benefit to include municipal utilities like water. The language of Prop. 98 invalidates current laws and prohibits future laws that place any economic burden on a property owner--that can be interpreted to include compliance with environmental regulations and local zoning ordinances. And it does indeed jeopardize all kinds of other renter protections, like just cause for eviction ordinances and the 60-day notice requirement (which Faller refers to in his article as a "bomb" being thrown at owners); any law that transfers a benefit to a private party, in this case a tenant, is invalidated by 98, which leaves us all at the mercy of landlords interested in higher profits. They surely will take this to the courts, costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

While it is true that Prop. 99 only includes protection of owner-occupied single-family homes, those are those kinds of properties that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on in 2005, not multi-unit buildings or commercial properties. Prop. 99 specifically responds to the ruling that sparked this fight to overhaul California's constitution.

Vote yes on 99 now if you believe tenants deserve any protection, and then pass another initiative with broader protections that doesn't attack renters. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater here--the baby being the more than 41% of all California households who are renters--is not the answer.

I just want to thank you for your RANT against prop. 98.
You had me scared for a minute. But then I realized that's how Liberals always try to manipulate people to do what they want.
Now I know just how to vote.

YES on 98

Thank You

just want to thank you prop. 98.

YES on 98

NO ON 99

THANK YOU

YES ON PROP. 98

NO ON PROP. 99

THANKS

The old "supply and demand" and "monopoly" are at play here with Prop 98!!! Just like the gas companies! A place to live and a way to get to work, both are necessities. They get a 4% increase every year! What do they want! Homeless??? All the homeowners now losing their homes will need a place to rent, and boy! oh boy! Those landlords just can't wait to stick it to those poor people who have already lost their home. It's because of these high rents in California that nobody can even think of ever saving for the "home of their dreams." Think this smells of GREED on the part of the landlords? Well..., you tell me.

I have never heard of this guy Faller. But, with my limited knowledge of these propositions, here's what I think.

It is a well known fact that rent control will produce ghetto-like environments. Without funds to maintain and improve rental property the owners simply have to let it fall apart. They still must pay the mortgage, insurance, water bill, trash collection bill, sewer fee, paramedic fees, sanitation district fees, special school district fees, misquito abatement fees, fire ant abatement fees, etc., etc. As everything, except rent, gradually increases something must go and that is the living standard of the rental units. This results in a lowered properety value and an eventual blighted condition.

Some landlords with few rental properties, say one, two or three, do not raise the rent as often as they should and eventually come to realize the mistake that they have made. Soon they are using their own support money instead of the separate rental property funds, because there ain't any rental funds left. They are forced to eventually raise the rent or face bankruptcy. If, by this time, there is rent control in place, this will certainly be very bad for the owner. In this case, rent control would allow this owner, who did not raise his rents, to raise the rent to the controlled limit and not have a guilty conscience. But, by this time, will this increase be enough to save the property. Absolutely not.

As for the emminent domain issue, these cities, if they percieve a need, will also take privately owned apartments and other rented dwelings. This would likely affect all of the tenants in an adverse manner, not to mention the grief the owner is going to suffer. However, if the owner was looking to sell this large apartment complex and could not do this due to market conditions, he may very well welcome the city to take it. This would result in many residents being uprooted and looking for other living quarters, which would likely have higher rents.

So, who does Prop 98 hurt? If passed it appears it would benefit tenants and owners. If it fails, governments will continue to use redevelopment funds to close down people's rented homes, private businesses, any church, etc. Of course, if passed, this could spell an end to redevelopment. Many cities are in dire need of redevlopment. This is a two sided issue that is very complex. Perhaps a piece of legislation or initiative needs to be introduced that requires governments to pay more than the present market value of a property, say 125% to 150%, if taken by emminent domain for redevelopment. This would leave the owner with a feeling of not being ripped off. The funds for this "redevelopment" would come from the feds, right? Then the city would have to eat it when they sold the property for a lower 100% of the market value to the desired next business developer. But, would they really eat it if the feds were paying in the first place?

Of course tenants would also have to be compensated in some manner. Say all moving expenses and rent and utilities paid for one year by the government agency that is doing the evictions.

No on 98
Yes on 99

Thank You!

Rent control is governemt taking.

Sure, there always are issues of fair treatment of tenants, i.e. due process in eviction procedures, assuing landlords live up to their obligations, providing reasonable time frames and notifications for any changes in rent, and so forth.

But none of that changes the simple fact that rent control, in and of itself, is nothing more than forcing someone to sell a product at an arbitrary price, defined outside of the market.

No group, not tenants, and not the government, has the right to tell a private owner what to charge for a good or service. That is, unless one feels that the US constitution has not actual meaning. If you don't believe in private property, then I have not argument. But, in that case, we're not talking about America as we know it.

Further, read California's own independent legislative analysis on prop 99. It say, in effect, that 99 has no actual "reform" qualities. All it really does is say thay a private home, owner occupied, can not be taken from one owner for development into a new home by another private entity.

That is rarely what happens in redevelopment schemes, so 99 has no tangible impact on current goverment/developer operations in the area of property takings.

Prop 98 is, indeed, the real deal. Prop 99 is nothing more than a decoy.

Post a comment