« The Great Debate: Prop 98, A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing | Home | “Sweetheart” saga continues: MCN alleges 162K gift to CM »
The Great Debate: Prop 98 Is the Real Deal
By Gilman | May 14, 2008
[Note: this is the first of three posts Gilman will be contributing as part of the Great Debate]
Voters this June will have an opportunity to decide the fate of what may be the most important property rights initiative to ever appear on a ballot in California - Prop 98.
Drafted by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association (the same folks who brought us the protections of Prop 13), Prop 98 takes a straight forward approach to limiting the unfair “taking” of private property by government agencies. This includes addressing the current unfair eminent domain practices, as well as more subtle taking practices, such as the use of various rent control ordinances.
Eminent domain powers were intended as an important tool, to be used by the government for the building of public projects such as roadways, schools, parks, etc. Unfortunately, the trend has increasingly been to use the government power of property seizure for the benefit of politically well-connected developers, not to construct public projects. All too often, we are seeing local agencies use their eminent domain powers to further the construction of a Wal-Mart, auto mall or shopping center.
The Institute for Justice, a non-profit organization dedicated to reforming eminent domain practices, recently reported that California redevelopment agencies currently own $12.9 billion worth of property. They further state “redevelopment has mutated into a multi-billion dollar profit machine in which hundreds of redevelopment agencies and thousand of private developers, lawyers, consultants and bankers continuously strip valuable property from people of modest means to give it to big business.” A good local example can be seen in the City of San Dimas, where an entire neighborhood was taken via government seizure, not for a park, not for a school, but instead to build a Costco complex.
Here in California, the government usually wants to take these properties quickly, before the amount of just compensation has been determined. In these “quick take” eminent domain cases, the government agency simply deposits an amount which they believe is the “probable” amount of compensation and moves to immediately take the property….the whole process usually occurs within a few months! Should the affected owner accept any of these deposited funds, they surrender their right to challenge the government’s action at a later date.
Under the current system, affected property owners are forced to pursue litigation to simply determine, and obtain, “just compensation” - as only a judge or jury can make such a determination. Additionally, the owner whose property has been seized, runs the very real risk of being out thousands in legal fees, simply in an attempt to receive fair market value for their taken property.
Prop 98 simply puts an end to this nonsense. It clearly mandates that private property may not be taken by eminent domain for private use under any circumstances (i.e. to build a shopping center, auto mall, or industrial park). Furthermore, it defines “just compensation” (as fair market value) and allows for the recovery of legal fees when a government agency attempts to seize property without paying the fair market value. These important added protections will help relieve the court system currently clogged with these property seizure cases. Of course, Prop 98 does leave intact the governments ability to use eminent domain for actual public projects, such as parks, schools, etc.
Prop 98 also prevents other, less well known property “takings,” which the government has been utilizing over the last several years. For example, the government will no longer be able to seize private farms and open space for the purpose of selling off the natural resources, such as natural gas deposits.
Lastly, Prop 98 prevents the government from setting the price at which private property owners may sell, or rent, their property. This is the part of Prop 98 which opponents love to mis-characterize…claiming it abolishes rent control, puts the elderly and poor out on the street, eliminates important rent deposit protections, etc. Of course, Prop 98 does none of these things and these opposition claims are little more than an attempt to scare voters.
Prop 98 makes NO change in the laws related to rental deposits, property safety, code compliance, etc. Furthermore, it provides that existing rent controls will stay in force until such time that the affected tenant chooses to move out. Then, and only then, will the property owner be free to charge a market-based rent to a new tenant versus being forced to charge a price set by a government authority.
For those that might be unaware, rent control is the process whereby a government agency sets the amount of rent a private property owner may charge. The government does not subsidize this lower than market rent, nor do they offer the property owner any decrease in the government imposed charges associated with property ownership (i.e. property taxes, property assessments, inspection fees, utility charges, etc)
Simply put, it is the government “taking” from the property owner and giving to the tenant, without providing any compensation. My take is simple: if the government feels it is important to provide housing at a below market rate, then they should provide it – not force private property owners to subsidize others.
Imagine your local city declaring they will set the price at which you can sell your property – don’t laugh, it has been discussed by various government agencies. What about the price of food, or cars, or other products you might offer in the marketplace? Prop 98 will put an end to this unfair practice. Forty-five of the other 49 states provide this basic protection and we are long overdue in protecting our property owners.
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. Of course, these are the very same people who have had years to bring forth some meaningful reform and have elected to do nothing. Instead, they have been content with the continued abuse of the powers afforded them under the current laws.
I think the Ventura Daily Press sums it up pretty well in claiming that Prop 98 is “the real deal,” and the opposition to it’s passage is “backed by the government groups who abuse eminent domain and want to continue the practice.”
Vote Yes on Prop 98!
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, (Re)Development, San Dimas |
May 14th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I’m voting Yes on Proposition 98.
Why should the government tell someone how much to sell or rent something for?
Look at it this way: If I want to sell my AMC Gremlin for $2 million - I have every right. Nobody’s gonna buy it - but I have every right to do it.
Besides, rent control ruins neighborhoods. It turns prosperous neighborhoods into slums which in turn raises crime which in turn causes anybody putting money into a City to leave that place for another place….
I used to be a staunch supporter of rent control until I read the facts and realized all of the above.
Nobody in LA cares, though, because what the fuck do they care about someone’s farm getting taken away? It’s time to end these elitist attitudes and realize we’re all Californians.
Prop 98 is good for California and it’s about time we start passing some laws out here that make sense - not stuff like banning smoking at bus stops.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:56 am
The mere mention of Jarvis and my ears perk up.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Aaron, for someone that complained so heartily about renting and the out of reach rents in Pasadena - that’s awful big talk…but typical. Once you’re good - who cares? Like someone that has gotten out of the fire and pulls the ladder up - same thing with immigration - once your people got in…who cares about the rest.
Here is the big picture - It isn’t all about you.
Take it in for a bit…not all about you.
There are people on fixed incomes, people barely scraping by - but this Proposition will fail, 99 will pass - and you can go back to hoarding all your stuff Scrooge McDuck.
Who votes…the elderly? Who will this impact the most…the elderly? It was a power grab and it will fail.
That’s the theme most often in posts like this - fear. Fear there won’t be enough, fear someone will take what you have, and fear you are getting your fair share. You want fair - go to Pomona.
Do I worry about money for our mortgage or having enough to send kids to college - sure I worry - but I don’t let it take over my entire life. If I spent every waking moment thinking every person with brown skin was here to take my job, or all the things I don’t qualify for because of my ethnicity or my gender…when exactly would I have time to live? Stop worrying so much about what everyone else has and see what you can add to the world, instead of what you take from it.
And this is a State Initiative - not an LA one - so farms are a huge deal in the State of California - again…not all about you and your microcosm of a world.
I can appreciate there are things that won’t be equitable but I have faith people are trying to do their best.
You are so cynical for someone that hasn’t even lived.
And now the dark side has you…it’s a shame. Lighten up…have a drink
May 14th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Alex, I’m having trouble discerning what on earth your point is, other than discontent with AP.
My question to you: do you think the elderly, the poor, those on fixed incomes are better off with affordable housing programs/rent control or without? I think they are better off without, because the facts tell me so, not because someone made an emotional argument saying, “This grandmother will be out on the streets.”
I’m just as interested in old/poor/unfortunate people as your are. If rent control/affordable housing/a massive government intervention was going to solve those problems (without crushing our personal freedom), then I would be all for it. But the facts lead me to believe that’s not the case. What should I do? Argue against reality?
May 14th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Yes on 98….No on 99
May 14th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Now that I’m “in”? I make $10/hr. Not hardly “in”.
And I thought it *was* all about me?
I agree - if you want to live cheaply, don’t live in Pasadena. It’s a price to live in paradise.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Err..that’s “hardly in” making $10 I mean.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Oh and, if you read what I said, I stated I *do* care about the farms, etc.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Proposition writers seem to be incapable of writing a proposition that just does one thing, which is why we get these “free ice cream for everyone, and tax the lesbians” propositions.
I’m sure that someone can construct a theoretical justification of how government taking property and government setting rent prices are the same thing, but to people in the real world these are two separate issues, and should be treated separately.
I’m voting against both 98 and 99.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
“free ice cream for everyone, and tax the lesbians” - now that is funny.
What is so complicated about a proposition that restricts the government from taking private property from one party and simply giving it to another? That seems like what Prop 98 intends to accomplish.
I know the people in my “real world” get it, but I am sure those opposed to Prop 98 would like to make it as confusing as possible.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Prop 13 protects property owners from market-based increases. And that’s good! (if you’re a property owner)
Prop 98 removes protection of renters from market-based increases. And that’s good! (if you’re a property owner)
Ah. I think I get it.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Oh, it is crystal clear now.
Renters don’t have to pay any property taxes. And that’s good if your a renter.
and Renters don’t want to pay the going rate for rents. And that’s good if your a renter.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:30 am
Let’s at least get the story straight. Prop. 98 does not end rent control for residents currently under it. Rent control is terrible policy, but good politics. It is not right to impose housing subsidies on property owners, effectively forcing them to pay for an affordable housing program. Prop. 98 stops new cities from adopting rent control. It also effectively creates “vacancy decontrol” for existing properties. Rents can be increased when existing tenants leave.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:30 am
Let’s at least get the story straight. Prop. 98 does not end rent control for residents currently under it. Rent control is terrible policy, but good politics. It is not right to impose housing subsidies on property owners, effectively forcing them to pay for an affordable housing program. Prop. 98 stops new cities from adopting rent control. It also effectively creates “vacancy decontrol” for existing properties. Rents can be increased when existing tenants leave.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:21 am
[…] The Great Debate: Prop 98 Is the Real Deal […]
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:22 am
[…] argued the merits and pit falls of Prop 98. He ran an intro on 98. Then he explained what it actually will do. His final post explained how 98 would stop […]