Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

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

Our latest headlines

Mark Leno Sure Looks Like California Senate Winner Over Migden and Nation in SurveyUSA Poll
The Assembly Democratic Perspective on the May Revise and California’s Budget Crisis
California Proposition 98 Would Eliminate Rent Control, Tenant Protections, and a Lot More
The So-Called "Independent Expenditures" in California Assembly District 40
California Secretary of Food and Agriculture Responds to California Progress Report Article on Moth Spraying
To Win the Presidency, Democrats Need to Mobilize the Mexican American Vote Nationally—-As We Do in California
California Prepares to Vote: Registration Deadline is Monday for June 3 Primary

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.

Deceptive Campaign Ads Funded by Landlords in Favor of June Ballot Prop 98 Blasted by League of Voters and AARP

By Frank D. Russo

Today both the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and the California League of Women Voters are wasting no time in denouncing as “shameful and deceptive” radio ads that apartment and mobile home park landlords started airing yesterday in support of Proposition 98 on the June ballot. They say that those who have bankrolled this initiative are trying to trick voters into believing Prop 98 is only about eminent domain, when in fact the measure was written by landlords, bankrolled by landlords and is for the sole financial benefit of them.

The record is clear. Apartment and mobile home park owners spent millions to place Proposition 98 on California’s June 3 statewide ballot. One picture says it all. Based on information from the California Secretary of State’s office through April 18, landlords and organizations that represent them have contributed 80% of funding behind Prop 98. Mobile home park owner interests have contributed the most to Yes on 98: (45%) in the amount of $1,770,699, followed closely by apartment owner interests (35%) in the amount of $1,373.84.

These folks don’t care about eminent domain. They’ve cleverly hidden provisions in Proposition 98 that would abolish rent control and renter protections. This would be devastating to millions of California seniors, veterans and others. They also wrote loopholes in Prop 98 that would gut environmental protections, which is why every leading environmental organization in California opposes Prop 98.

We’ve seen this before. It looks like a repeat of Prop 90— which California voters defeated in the November 2006 election. Then, supporters got greedy and went way beyond what was necessary to solve the problems created by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Kelo case. Only this time, the measure is written in even more of an extreme manner and is a bit of a sleeper on the June primary ballot. In their sheep’s clothing they are counting on a low turnout without a presidential primary race on the ballot to draw attention.

The failed Prop 90 was defeated with a wide spectrum of political groups that often oppose each other were united in their opposition. The same is happening on Prop 98, with the announcement that in addition to Democratic, environmental, and many government reform groups, this June’s attempt is opposed by some very conservative folks, such as former Republican Governor Pete Wilson, who issued this statement yesterday:

“Proposition 98 poses serious risk that it can be used to obstruct for years the development of critically and urgently needed water resources to California. That is simply an unacceptable risk.”

“Therefore, I oppose the passage on Proposition 98 on the June 2008 ballot.”

He was preceded in opposition by Republican Congressman George Radanovich of Mariposa. Mike Madrid’s Republican oriented blog
presciently put it this way before Wilson’s announced opposition:

“[B]oth the California Building Industry Association and Congressman George Radanovich came out and publicly declared their opposition to Proposition 98.

“This breakdown in support amongst conservatives comes on the heels of the California Chamber of Commerce and Western Growers opposing the initiative. CCN sources tell us this is just the beginning... stay tuned for big developments this week.”

Fortunately, we have a choice in not only voting no on 98. We should vote yes on 99, to solve the real problems with eminent domain, and so we won’t see an endless stream of Trojan Horse initiatives like Prop 98.

Make sure you and your friends vote and mark their ballots on this one and know it’s there and the full story on it.

Posted on April 23, 2008

Comments

The way I understand it, Prop.98 will protect all property including churches,farms, and businesses.Prop99 only protects single family homes.Prop99 has so many loop holes it looks like swiss cheese. If they want your house all they have to do is rezone to commercial! so it does absolutely nothing.I vote Yes 98 No 99!!!!!

Posted by: Bill at April 23, 2008 10:32 AM

Prop 98 has eminent domain AND rent control provisions. So it's about both

Stop overexaggerating the effect on those in rent controlled apartments: "This would be devastating to millions of California seniors, veterans and others."

No, if you actually read the initiative, it maintains all current rent controls for current tenants.

"At such time as a unit or space no longer is used by any qualified tenant as his or her principal place of residence because, as to such unit or space, he or she has: (a) voluntarily vacated; (b) assigned, sublet, sold or transferred his or her tenancy rights either voluntarily or by court order; (c) abandoned; (d) died; or he or she has (e) been evicted pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4) or (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 798.56 of the Civil Code as in effect on January 1, 2007"

This doesn't get rid of "renter protections." Patently false, as shown by the text of the initiative.

And it doesn't touch environmental regulations. Your side tried suing to get that in the summary, and the Courts ruled that it wasn't part of the initiative.

Prop 90 delved into regulatory takings. This does not, and is nothing like Prop 90

John Revelli lost his tire shop, owned by his family since 1949, for large housing development. Had Prop 98 been in effect, John Revelli's tire shop would still be there. What would Prop 99 have done for him? Nothing!

Ahmed Mesdaq lost his cigar and coffee bar for a Marriott, when another Marriott was already in view from his property. That new one never got built, but the property instead is about to be (if not already) flipped by the new owner. Had Prop 98 been in effect, Ahmed Mesdaq's cigar and coffee bar would still be there. Prop 99 would have done nothing for him

The Community Youth Athletic Center in National City, which has been acknowledged as an effective crime prevention tool, is under threat of condemnation in order to make way for luxury condos. If Prop 98 goes into effect, the Community Youth Athletic Center will be saved. If 99 gets just one more vote, the Community Youth Athletic Center will still have the threat of condemnation hanging over its head.

If you believe only owner-occupied homes should be protected (and vaguely at that, kudos to Bill) from transferring to a private owner, vote no on 98 and yes on 99. If you think rent control is so worth defending, vote no on 98. But don't go making up reasons to vote against 98 that have nothing to do with the initiative at hand

Posted by: Ben at April 23, 2008 09:49 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