« Claire Bogaard on Arroyo Seco and the National Register | Home | New City Manager of Pasadena Already Selected? »
The Great Debate on 98 (and 99)
By Centinel | May 13, 2008
I just wanted to alert readers to an upcoming series of posts that I think a lot of people will be interested in. Two of our excellent commenters, Wes and Gilman, have agreed to debate the merits of Props. 98 & 99 (a debate that was already occurring in the comments).
The format will be relatively simple: each writer will make an opening statement, then they’ll each have the opportunity to respond in a separate post, and finally each will get a concluding post. The first posts in the series will go up tomorrow morning so be sure to check back in for a battle of minds.
To whet your appetites, here’s a couple snippets from their opening statements:
Gilman:
It has become crystal clear that the variety of government agencies, bureaucrats and well connected developers, who oppose Prop 98 intend to distort, mislead and plain scare folks into opposing these important safeguards.
Wes:
I readily admit that I take an extremely jaundiced view of statewide initiatives: they have long ceased to be a vehicle to express the popular will and have been high jacked by special interests pursuing their agendas, hidden and otherwise.
So, now that you’re outraged by the slivers I published out of context, be sure to return for the full story tomorrow, and the beginning of the debate.
Last 5 posts in Main Page
- Feed Portantino's Election Reelection Campaign - July 23rd, 2008
- Alvarez Waterboarded! - July 23rd, 2008
- Morning Linkfest: 7 Reasons to Hate Corporations - July 23rd, 2008
- Even the Cost of Underwear Is Increasing - July 23rd, 2008
- Pasadena Has a New City Clerk - July 23rd, 2008
Topics: Main Page, Government |
May 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I will surely return for that. Game, Set, Match.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I hope the following topics are discussed:
1) The differences between Connecticut and California eminent domain law;
2) All of 98’s components including how environmental impact legislation will be considered a taking and requiring compensation to property owners(including zoning and planning changes and amendments)
3)A thorough discussion of the offer process in California, the requirements under the law (FMV, relocation, property tax issues, what the government must pay for on behalf of the property owner, like appraisals, lawyers, etc.)
4) If possible, actual data regarding what governments have paid to home owners in CA as FMV versus prevailing home prices at the time (as opposed to the usual anecdotal evidence of I knew a guy that the city offered a mule and a hen to for a 8000 sq foot mansion in the hills of Arcadia).
5) A legitimate and fair discussion over what the definition of “public good” is. E.G., in Kelo, although the process was atrocious and unfair, the reality was that if the government in that instance didn’t do anything the entire city would effectively “died” from an economic stand point, and all of those people whose houses were taken would have been worth squat, and possibly would have had to move anyway. Sure, it’s easy to say a hospital, school, or road is public good, but what if the economic reality is that without using eminent domain a jurisdition will have larger and more long term problems for all of its residents/property owners, as opposed to a smaller directly effected populace if it is used.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Anonymous, you HAVE to be kidding me. You know that Pfizer never even ended up moving to New London? The whole project that prompted the Supreme Court case fell through. The idea that without the genius of some city council members a city could “die” is ludicrous in the extreme. Guess what makes a city “live”…you have three guesses, and all of them should be “the people, the people, and the people.” NOT “the community redevelopment agency.”
May 13th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Centinel: The project falling through is hindsight; you can’t use it to villify the decision that was made.
The People (et. al., since your hyperbole necessitated multiple listings) do not bring in business, and thus jobs. Now, in CA, especially southern CA, a major employer moving out isn’t so big of a deal–we can commute and get a job somewhere else. But in some places, no business = no jobs = no jobs = no money for “the people” to live on as well as no tax money into the City to provide basic service.
There’s a difference between thinking that Kelo was a mistake in the specific, and thinking it a mistake in the big picture. In many instances, the community redevelopment agency is the difference between the economic death knell of the City and true revitalization of a City.
Are there times where the power of eminent domain is used in a way that creates a folly? Absolutely.
Does that mean that using eminent domain for a “public good” that is entirely ecnomic and results in turning over property to a private enterprise is always going to be the work of the devil? Absolutely not.
Leave your skepticism of local politicians and anecdotal evidence at the door–I’m talking about the value of a system, not how some bad apples and unintelligent civic leaders may use and/or abuse that system.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Fight on..and I support Prop 98.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Centinel, don’t think for a minute that anonymous is kidding, instead he/she is simply illustrating the need for real eminent domain reform.
I particularly like the claim that “the community redevelopment agency is the difference between the economic death knell of the City and true revitalization of a City”. Good to know that the bureaucrats are here to save us from free market factors.
So we are to believe the “system” is good, just sometimes abused? The system is broken AND being abused!
I think I will continue with my “skepticism of local politicians”, god knows they have earned it.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
@Anonymous:
Whoa, are you serious? How else do you evaluate the decisions you make if not by looking at their consequences and, you know, seeing if you made…a…good…decision.
Just curious: where does this “business” come from? Is it the creation of the redevelopment agency? Or is the product of an entrepreneur who is providing a service that fulfills a market need? I’m curious. Jobs don’t just appear out of thin air or materialize at the command of the local city council. Businesses don’t succeed or fail because someone at the redevelopment agency says so. They succeed because people like what the business is selling and buy it. That’s it.
It doesn’t matter whether you are in Kalamazoo or Calabasas. If you are in Small Town USA, competition will be an issue (think flight of manufacturing jobs), but all that tells me is that people need to find a way to compete or disappear.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:04 am
[…] two commenters (Firefox says that isn’t a word) is rapidly approaching. The subject? Prop 98 vs. Prop 99. The battle between the intelligent people who support Prop 98 and the people who want to ruin […]
May 14th, 2008 at 8:33 am
No discussion of 98 & 99 is fair and complete without a comparison. Specifically, why is either better than the other.
They typical argument for 98 over 99 is “the evil redevelopment agency.” Well, the reality is that many legit, not redevelopment groups support 99, a moderate reform over 98. There are other facts that are forgotten too.
http://www.noprop98.org/
http://www.ecovote.org/no98yes99/
Typically, the FC is pretty even handed on its analysis. I will reserve more detailed comments on environmental impacts and senior housing costs until I see what FC has planned.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:29 am
[…] The Adventures of Aaron Proctor two commenters (Firefox says that… […]
May 14th, 2008 at 9:30 am
[…] The Foothill Cities Blog The Adventures of Aaron Proctor two commenters… […]
May 15th, 2008 at 9:57 am
[…] post info By Miss Havisham Categories: Pasadena, CA Elections: [Hi three people that read this blog!] Props to Foothill Cities Blog. […]
May 16th, 2008 at 11:54 am
“Whoa, are you serious? How else do you evaluate the decisions you make if not by looking at their consequences and, you know, seeing if you made…a…good…decision.”
We’re talking about two different things; I’m talking about villifying a decision made when faced with two undesirable results. You’re talking about the global understanding of what happened including unanticipated consequences.
For example, it’s considered “smarter” to put your money in the stock market as opposed to under your mattress. So you put you savings in a mutual fund, then the market takes an unexpected catastrophical dump. You lose have your savings. Sure, after the fact it’s easy to say “you’re an idiot for putting your money on the market,” but it’s not fair to judge the DECISION on unknown after the fact circumstances.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
@Anonymous: Good point.
However, I think it’s precisely because of those unanticipated consequences that the city shouldn’t have been in the position it was in. I don’t doubt that the folks in the city government of New London were honestly trying to help revitalize the city. And I also don’t doubt that they were putting a lot of effort into trying to come up with a deal that would actually follow through. The problem is who faces the consequences of that deal going south.
If it was a private developer who had assembled parcels of land and then tried to lure Pfizer to town, the deal collapsing would have been catastrophic: they would have lost huge amounts of money, and probably the person responsible for the deal would have lost his or her job.
What happened to the people in the redevelopment agency in New London? Did any of them lose their jobs when the deal fell through? Or do any of them get bonuses if a deal is completed?
The point I’m trying to make is about incentives and the degree to which the proper incentives can minimize the impact of unanticipated consequences. The city council, the redevelopment agency, anyone in city government: none of these people have the same incentives as someone in private industry trying to accomplish the same task. They may be motivated by political reasons or career reasons or altruistic reasons, but they aren’t motivated by the same fear that has to be an issue with a private developer. Why? Because unless they really, really, really screw up, nothing will happen to them. So, they don’t have the same pressure to really examine the unintended consequences of their actions.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Centinel,
Your points are well taken. And while I’d argue that the electeds would/could/should lose their job for poor judgment (election cycle), the bigger point is this: None of that really speaks to whether eminent domain is a bad or good thing.
For every Kelo there are numerous communities that have actually done great things for their city and residents through eminent domain for the “economic” public good. (both big and small communities).
So, the problem with 98 (and even 99) is that you have a populist revolt that results in throwing out the baby with the bath water because people in California are enraged over something that happened in Connecticut. When, in reality, the biggest problem with what happened in Connecticut was a lack of protections and procedure for property owners–something that would not happen in California. Most redevelopment projects using E.D. evolve over a 20 year period. From when the redevelopment area is approved from to when a project is actuallyd designed, to when peoples’ homes are actually bought, a time period of such length has usually passed that the electorate could have used several election cycles to stop the process.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:58 am
[…] The Great Debate on 98 (and 99) […]
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
PROPOSITION 98
What’s undisputed:
• The measure would bar state and local government from taking private property to transfer to a private party, such as is sometimes done by redevelopment agencies to revitalize “blighted” neighborhoods.
• It would ban rent control in apartments and mobile home parks. But existing rent-controlled units would still be subject to the caps until the current tenants moved out.
• Private property could not be taken for a purpose similar to how it was already being used. Neither could it be taken to consume its natural resources.
• The measure gives more power to judges to decide eminent domain cases without deferring to what the local government said.
• The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says the initiative also likely will weaken local laws that require developers to build affordable housing as part of their projects.
In dispute:
• Opponents of Proposition 98 – and some legal experts – see a host of dire consequences for environmental and land use regulations, water projects and property law. The initiative’s language says that property may not be taken “in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.”
They say that much government regulation does just that. Forcing a property owner to comply with an environmental law, for instance, costs the owner and benefits everyone else.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office does not agree, and Proposition 98 backers say the claims are nothing but scare tactics.
• Opponents of 98 cite a provision that bars taking property for its natural resources as preventing much-needed water projects.
Again, the Legislative Analyst’s Office disagrees. While getting land to use the water rights would be barred, it says, condemning land to build dams or water lines would not.
PROPOSITION 99
The debate over Proposition 99 focuses not on its potential consequences, but on whether it would do anything significant at all.
Proposition 99 would restrict governments’ ability to take an owner-occupied single-family home to transfer to a private party, as long as the owner has lived in the home for a year. Exceptions would be permitted for public health and safety.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office says Proposition 99 wouldn’t have much of an effect on how governments do business because they usually don’t seize owner-occupied homes.
Opponents say Proposition 99 would not prevent governments from taking small businesses or any other kind of property.
If both propositions pass:
• If Proposition 99 gets more “yes” votes, none of Proposition 98’s provisions would go into effect.
Above from Sac Bee
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
In response to below:
You are correct, Prop 98 doesn’t outright “bar” the issues below. I don’t believe I or anyone else has made that argument. But it does signficantly increase the COST of doing those things, thus, resulting in a de facto bar.
I mean, a minimum wage worker in new york city is not “barred” from traveling to hawaii, but in reality, how often does it happen?
————-
• Opponents of Proposition 98 – and some legal experts – see a host of dire consequences for environmental and land use regulations, water projects and property law. The initiative’s language says that property may not be taken “in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.”
They say that much government regulation does just that. Forcing a property owner to comply with an environmental law, for instance, costs the owner and benefits everyone else.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office does not agree, and Proposition 98 backers say the claims are nothing but scare tactics.
• Opponents of 98 cite a provision that bars taking property for its natural resources as preventing much-needed water projects.
Again, the Legislative Analyst’s Office disagrees. While getting land to use the water rights would be barred, it says, condemning land to build dams or water lines would not.
May 30th, 2008 at 11:43 am
A question for opponents of Prop. 98: Have you people actually spoken to “non-greedy” landlords about the affects of rent control or do you just assume all landlords are greedy? Of course in your world there are no “greedy” tenants. All tenants are good-hearted, well-intentioned people.
Oh, wait, that is, of course, not including the residents of my historic West Hollywood building. What you say? A greedy tenant in the midst? How dare he.
Have a listen:
In the parking garage of my historic WeHo building I have in excess of well over a million dollars in automobiles. I have two Aston Martin Vanquish S’s, several Range Rovers, a complimentt of BMWs and a fat Mercedes Benz or two not to mention a sporty Lexus to round out the curve.
BTW, a Vanquish S runs for about $250,000. Can you imagine the payment and insurance on that ride? Whew! And you thought rent was high.
So what’s the problem? Well, all of these poor good-hearted people benefit from rent control. And benefit they do. They go out into the free enterprise marketplace and charge and receive what the market will bear for their services while their greedy landlords are bound by rent control. Fair penance, you say, for being greedy.
But did I mention how handily these good-hearted tenants benefit? Oh, yeah, most of them keep a nice rent controlled apartment here in WeHo for a fraction of market price, while spending the majority of their free time (they have a lot) in pads in Santa Barbara, Palm Springs, Laguna Beach, and New York.
Nothing like a sweet deal on a pied de terre.
Then again, so much for taking care of the elderly and poor.
No, rent control has become a device for people to reach into someone else’s pocket (some call this greed) and put it in their own. By the way, this someone else would be your “greedy landlords” who by all accounts are single-handily financing your activism.
Now, if you were really willing to walk your talk, you’d propose legislation to create a tax so that our municipalities could finance affordable housing and we could all pitch in fairly and evenly.
But wait, that won’t fly because those same activists (sorry, that’s you) don’t want to pay a tax or reach into their golden pockets. Oh, no, you want to reach into someone else’s pocket and call it progress.
So who’s the greedy one now?
May 30th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Thanks for posting that, Sundell.
I’m sure voting YES on 98 and NO on 99.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
just like the C.A. R.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
So, get rid of rent control then. But 98 is phrased in such a way that it could get rid of a whole slew of other, unrelated zoning protections. It wouldn’t take much legal maneuvering to show that SM’s Measure V wouldn’t be allowed under 98.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
So Wes, a Yes on 98 would be the same as a No on V?
May 30th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Probably not that simple. If 98 had passed before the Measure V election, people probably would have voted the way they did. But any one of the aggrieved property owners affected by the reduced development potential could easily sue the city to be compensated for their loss of value. How the courts would come down on that is anyone’s guess; but if 98 really does pass, there will be plenty of other cases that will be along these lines.
And it’s probably all moot: 98 will lose. Polls show it getting only 33% from likely voters, less than a week to go.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Ah, but if it wins V will me challenged much more easily! And the City will end up paying lots of money on lawsuits becuase of V as expected. Its hypocritical to be Pro V and Pro 98. These people are nuts, as we knew.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
You’re right about the hypocrisy, but I don’t think 98 will let you challenge laws already on the books.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Hypocrisy comes easy to people like Diane Handicapper.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:30 am
Crickets
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:06 am
[…] in a point-counterpoint by a couple of realtors and investors that comment there often. After an introductory post by the Centinel, Wes and Gilman took off with their analysis of one measure then the debates took […]