Probably like most of you, I have one of the popular antivirus programs on my computer. Every once in a while when I am online, I get a message that the antivirus has stopped a Trojan horse worm from secretly infiltrating my computer and killing off my data, leaving nothing but itself. If only we had a similar program to detect and foil political Trojan horse worms from squeaking through the vote and becoming law. One such worm, a classic of bait-and-switch techniques, is Proposition 90.
Funded by some of the same types of Coyote land barons Tom McEnery talked about in his column yesterday, the proposed reverse-Robin-Hood law would take from the working taxpayer and give to the rich land speculators. Proposition 90 is nothing but a masquerade. It co-opts the current hot-button issue of eminent domain and diabolically twists it into a new profit center for megarich bastards. These same people wouldn’t think twice about using eminent domain themselves if they could.
There may be some issues of definition related to eminent domain in a modern context that need to be cleared up. Even though its application to acquire private land for “public use” and paying “just compensation” is adequately addressed in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution and by precedents of subsequent legal decisions, there have been instances of abuse. Some of the abuse has come from interference by the private sector, like the people who back this proposition, who have employed armies of attorneys in an attempt to redefine “public use” and “just compensation” by taking them through the looking glass. Let’s not forget that the case in Connecticut that brought this issue to the forefront of national politics concerned the taking of homes by local government so the that land they were on could be used by private interests to build yet another giant shopping mall.
Proposition 90 severely limits the democratic rights accorded to the people under the Constitution and the authority voters give to government. Eminent domain actions of federal, state and local governments are already governed by the 5th Amendment and settled law. This is a Constitutional issue and any necessary legislation needs to come from Congress, as specified in the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Connecticut case that many seem to have misunderstood.
Instead of what it claims—that the new law will look out for the little guy who gets caught up in an eminent domain case—this proposition gives billionaire landowners who can afford big-time lawyers the ability to sue and collect from taxpayers any time a new law is passed that regulates land use through claims that such laws reduce the value of their land (that they bought to speculate with). Just think about that. These rich high rollers could conceivably buy land just for the purpose of speculating on what it’s going to be worth to them when some new law is passed and then they can collect in court; no need to actually do anything with the property. The way the law is written, these land speculators can then essentially bankrupt the government body they go after for payment, i.e., the taxpayers. Of course, this is a huge bonus—destroying government of, by and for the people is exactly what these right-wing plutocrats would like to do.
Proposition 90 would alter the California Constitution and restrict democracy on a number of levels. It will undermine the U.S. Constitution, voters, infrastructure and environmental protections among other things. Don’t fall for it.
Reed with a 12 point lead!
THE GOOD, THE BAD, THE UGLY FROM THE MORNING PAPER
Today’s Merc—
Good: Reed is winning. Anyone else think the last Merc poll was an attempt to make the race look closer to sell more papers?
Bad: Manny Diaz is hiding his ill gotten gains from lobbying. At least this time, the Merc nails him. Go Liccardo.
Ugly: Ash Pirayou is a lobbyist and disloyal. He was Manny’s treasurer and then offers to raise money for his opponent. But I guess saying lobbyist are bad characters is like saying vomit is gross.
Jack, I fell out of my chair. We agree about something. But please don’t fall out of your chair; we don’t necessarily agree for the same reasons. Having lived downtown for 15 years I know what blight looks like. I think the government should be able to “condemn” property and sell it to private, of my God, profit making purposes.
However, I do think there needs to be legislative attention to insure the developers properly compensate the property owners. I don’t think someone living in a $300K dump should become a millionaire but they should be provided enough to find a reasonable replacement. And I’m sure that would amount to more than $300K…
Without imminent domain we have houses stuck in the middle of the Arena parking lot, a house stuck in the middle of a new apartment complex. I’m sure you’ve seen them in downtown.
Just think, we’ll vote the same way. Will wonders ever cease?
Jack said :“Eminent domain actions of federal, state and local governments are already governed by the 5th Amendment and settled law. “
Unfortunately, Jack, that is not true. The decision in Connecticut by the US Supreme Court completely unsettled the law that had been in place since 1789.
Boy, talk about a harsh dose of reality—last evening I came home to find several political mailers in my mailbox; but the only one I remember is the “Senior Citizen Voter Information Guide” out of LA. What a shock—I’m now known statewide as a senior citizen. I’ll be crestfallen all day.
Jack: While I admire your writing ability and thank you for your wonderful tributes to Leonard, you are still a “progressice” in the same sense that the CPUSA sued the word in the ‘30s and 40s.: ” megarich bastards” indeed! What part of the Fitth Amendment is it that you don’t understand?
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said,” A strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving that desire by a shortcut rather than the constitutional way of paying for the change…”
A “taking” is what happens when a government of any sort prevents a property owner from using his or her property. That is what Justice Holmes was talking about.
Prop. 90 reminds governments of that 5th Amendment, it will not prevent law suits. In all probilility it will increase those suits as will it is Measure A which purports to protect hillsides, limit development and “preserve” land for agriculture. Do not these aims constitute a “taking” of private property for a public purpose? A taking without payment.
Is not a general plan reduction in value, a “taking”?
The Supreme Court has held that the even the withholding of permits is a temporary “taking” that requires compensation, “… no… action of the government can relieve it of the duty to provide compensation for the period during which the taking was effective.” Vote NO on A and YES on 90. Protect ALL of us, not just the
megarich bastards.
Jerry
Over 1 Million voter signatures placed the Protect Our Homes Initiative on the November ballot since Legislature failed to act under pressure from Redevlopment lobbyists, bond underwriters and local governments that use redevelopment to raise local taxes and enrich the $2 billion per year redevelopment industry many times at the expense of working people and small businesses without resources to fight government to get a fair price for the taking of their property
Most of the abuses occurs when governmetn threatens eminent domain and low ball the appraisals and the property owners can nnot afford to cost and time to fight the taking to give to a politically connected developer who has given contributions to local elected officals and will make large profits
Your statements are both inaccurate and show your misunderstanding of the issues and actual use of eminent domain in California
” may be some issues of definition related to eminent domain in a modern context that need to be cleared up. ” – like taking private property below market rates to enrich private developers justified by government desperate for increased taxes
” Even though its application to acquire private land for “public use” and paying “just compensation” is adequately addressed in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution and by precedents of subsequent legal decisions, – Not true since local government uses their police powers and the redefined ” public use” defination to increasing tax revenues which is not the orginal defination of public use under US Constitution
A major misstatement by oppoents of Proposition 90 and Mercury News editorial is that Oregon passed a “similar” measure in 2004.
Oregon measure applies RETROACTIVELY to all Oregon laws passed decades ago and was approved because the majority of voters saw decades of property rights abuses by local governments for tax increase purposes and envirnomental groups rezoning private property which decreased property valuse and restricted uses for ” comunity benefit ” with no compensation to property owner
California envirnomental groups have extensively used down zoning without compensation which is a violation of previous US Supreme Court decsions on property rights and ” open space through the imposition of a conservation easement (however styled) if Measue A passes expect to see a federal court case based on
TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et al
” Any state or local government that
seeks to preserve open space through the imposition of a conservation easement (however styled) is free to do so, for any period that it desires; however, it cannot constitutionally
force the landowner to bear solely a burden that benefits that entire community. “
Making such a comparison to Proposition 90 is simply factually wrong since Proposition 90 is prospective, but also allows current laws, rules and regulations to be amended without ANY taxpayer liability.
The Mercury News editorial against Proposition 90 sums up nicely the reasons to vote no.
1. It would require the state or local government to pay property owners for “substantial economic losses’’ that result from any new laws and rules except those directly affecting health and safety. And it places no limit on lawsuits, so that even the most frivolous claims will lead to costly litigation.
2. The state could no longer set rules to, for instance, shield the Pacific salmon from extinction unless it could pay huge additional costs. Protection of coastal land would be out the window. Air and water quality would erode.
3. A wide range of consumer protection also could be wiped out or prevented. For instance, laws to protect privacy could cost the state billions of dollars a year in claims by businesses—telemarketers, Internet search outfits—and even by charities whose income is limited as a result.
4. it will curtail the ability of communities and homeowners to influence development plans—unless taxpayers are prepared to pay millions to builders and land owners whose projects are rejected.
5. Proposition 90 will dramatically limit California’s ability to build new roads, schools, parks, flood control—any public project involving land. It will increase rates for electricity and other utilities that use eminent domain to acquire rights of way. All of this will further damage California’s ability to keep, let alone attract, jobs.
#6. JMOC: Don’t feel bad. My dog regularly gets credit card offers from B of A.
I do not.
This makes me wonder: who has the better credit score, me or my dog?
There you go Jack!. You did it. You got ‘em away from the Mayors race. Isn’t Chuck Reed voting for Prop 90?
To JM O’c, The reality is that you’ll get used to being a senior citizen and will enjoy your discounts. And if things were right, you should, with the experience of years, be able to vote twice. Can’t think of any other way to clean up some of the messes our pols have created.
Chuck Reed does not support Prop 90. You should check the facts before putting out a statement like that. Your questions should read: “Is Chuck Reed voting for Prop 90?”
Glenn Smith:
Voting twice is old news. Being from Chicago, they teach us how to vote after we are dead. That is, as long as you are voting for the right candidate.
#10-Vote no: An average voter’s thoughts on your (and the Merc’s) arguments against 90.
1. If our local politicians concoct new laws that affect the value of property I already own, I should be over compensated. (A premium to current market value to deter the action)
2. I have no problem with Pacific Salmon going extinct.
3. What?
4. So your saying I should be able to tell my neighbors (who own the property) what they can and can’t build, and if they don’t like my opinion I can use politics to stop them?
5. Again, if the gov’t decides to build a road right through my property, I should be paid current market value plus a premium.
I think property rights are one of the most important values we have in this country, and cringe every time I see political measures, propositions, and layers of red tape added to tell people what they can and can’t do with the property they own. The gov’t should not be in the business of owning property. If groups of like-minded people want to join together, pool money and seek donor support to buy property in order to preserve it, build a home or put in a business, they should do so. They should not be able to use politics to preserve and/or develop land.
Mal# 11 & Glenn # 13—thanks for the words of encouragement!!!
#10- I gotta agree with # 16, except his # 2—I’d like to see pacific salmon remain viable. But it will be tough when “native americans” can gill net, but no-one else can.
Re your # 1, Vote No on Prop 90—substantial economic losses does not equate with frivoulous lawsuits.
When Bill Clinton called asking us to vote for Cindy… I wanted to interrupt and let him know she’s not running for Congress… Opps, I forgot, that was a recorded message.
Since he gets $500,000 per speaking engagement, does the Cindy have to declare those phone calls as a campaign contribution?
Let’s see…. one speaking engagement is say 5 hours to include set up and schmoozing.
At $100k/hr. that’s about $500 a call… times how many calls?
WOW, she may need that gaming and tobacco money after all.
By the way Bill… if you come to San Jose, be prepaired to bring your own coffee.
A historian friend pointed out that many of the railroads were build with private use of eminent domain. Not the golden spike, but the little ones up and down the east coast.
Back in the 1830s, government granted private companies the right to use eminent domain to acquire the land for private railroads.
This went far further than the Kelo case. Not only was eminent domain used for a private company, but the private company got to decide which properties to take, and even got to initiate proceedings.
The point is that eminent domain wasn’t as clearly settled as we all thought. In 1830, a final private use was apparently ok, so long as the public benefited from that use.
Does anyone know how this works for modern utilities? How does PG&E build a new high tension line, for example? Is that also a use of eminent domain that transfers ownership to another private owner?
(Don’t read this as an endorsement of Kelo. Railroads and power lines are not the same as an office park, and they need different rules.)
(slight apologies for the re-post):
Did everyone get a chance to read this morning’s Merc?
Even though Richard Robinson predicts that we have this in the bag, the reality is that we don’t. This race is close right now, and it will be close on Tuesday.
Expect Manny Diaz to hit us with last-minute negative campaigning—not only has he done it before (and don’t forget that he has won elections in the past by doing it), but as the truth comes out about his lobbying activities (see today’s Merc), we fully expect him to throw everything at us.
We’ll have little time to counter any last-minute attacks through mail, so we’ll need help this weekend to walk the neighborhoods to tell voters.
We know that just like the last few elections for the downtown seat, this one is going to be decided by a few hundred votes. Let me respectfully reiterate: this one is not in the bag.
Please call us if you or someone you know can spare an hour or two any time in the next five days. This is for the future of D3 and the future of San Jose.
Thanks,
Mikey Lee
Campaign Manager, Liccardo for City Council
(408) 283-0646
When I heard my recorder pick up the Clinton message for Chavez, I wanted to pick up the line just so I could hang up on him.
The ballot propositions this year in particular point out how corrupt the initiative process has become. This process was designed to protect the voters from special interests taking over the agenda in Sacramento. Now, special interests have figured out how to use the initiative process to go around Sacramento, because the voter is easier to fool with a few choice buzz words.
I say, vote no…on EVERYTHING. The initiative process has gotten completely out of hand.
David D: Cindy just gave Slick Willy a box of cigars and he called it square.
Personally, I plan on giving my usual NO vote to all local and state sales taxes and bond measures. We must hold our elected officials more fiscally responsible with our existing revenue instead of passing debt to our (grand)children.
Vote No for Status Quo on ALL propositions and Measures – Make Legislature and Supervisors do their jobs
JM O’C. wonder which brand and how big those cigars are!
#20 RIP
The sad thing about the initiative process is that there was a grass roots group trying to get eminent domain on the ballot. They were focusing on Kelo, only Kelo. They didn’t even come close to getting the number of signatures needed.
Prop 90, on the other hand, has a pile of money behind it, and had no trouble getting on the ballot, even though it is a far far worse law.
Same with 89. It takes a pretty good idea- public financing- and uses it to hide an attempt to rewrite the initiative rules in favor of the nurses union. Even the Chron couldn’t endorse it.
It’s really not a citizen process anymore. Pure grassroots groups have a very hard time actually gathering the signatures to use it.
To #8: Did the people signing the petition for Prop. 90 really have a thorough understanding of what they were signing? Really, did they? Initiatives are complicated things, and I can’t imagine the clipboard folks going door to door or striking up conversations at farmers’ markets actually explained it in full.
Prop. 90 is a complicated initiative. Relatively brief in its complete text compared to some other initiatives, but still complicated. The text can’t be explained simply. And do we really believe the signature-seekers actually explained it without bias?
C’mon, surely only a sliver of the signers are of minds like Howard Rich and the Reason Foundation. The rest are undecideds or half-decideds who either thought “sounds good” or “I don’t know but I guess I’ll sign anyway.” How is this kind of successful petition drive any more valid than a push poll?
Remember, #8, “over 1 Million voter signatures” is not a “yes” vote; a November 7 win is a “yes” vote.
…And a November 7 loss was a very good choice on the part of Californians.