« The Great Debate on 98 and (99): Rent Control’s Invisible Demise | Home | Pomona Brush Fire Grows To 30 Acres; Homes Threatened - News Story - KNBC | Los Angeles »
The Great Debate on 98 and (99): What Does Prop. 98 Actually Do?
By Gilman | May 16, 2008
I want to start by thanking the organized No on Prop 98 machine for reminding me of the first rule of politics today, which is….there are no rules!
It appears they are content to employ the infamous “kitchen sink” strategy, so common these days amongst the professional politicos. The technique involves throwing everything they can at you, regardless if it is true or not, and hope that some of it “sticks”. Some of the opposition claims would have you believe that Prop 98 would;
- Gut laws that protect our air, land, water, coasts and wildlife.
- Eliminate protections related to rental deposits and vacancy notice requirements.
- Gut laws we need to combat global warming.
- Throw the elderly and students out on the street with no place to live.
- Jeopardize our ability to protect the quality of our drinking water
- Result in a huge surge of frivolous lawsuits.
- Result in higher crime.
- Prevent local cities from enacting zoning regulations
Of course, there is only problem…none of these assertions are true! As I read these various claims, I couldn’t help but ask myself - did these people even read the initiative? And then it dawned on me, of course they did, they just don’t want you to!
It is eerily reminiscent of the strategy used in the attempt to defeat Prop 13, and later Prop 218. If you recall, the opposition claimed our society was going to cease to exist as we know it… you know, cities would be forced into bankruptcy, parks and schools would close, basic services such as fire and police would stop. Of course, none of that happened …instead, bureaucrats and politicians were forced to live within a budget, just like we do.
Here again, we have a proposal by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, the same folks who have a long record of protecting the average California property owner and taxpayer.
Prop 98 is not complicated. Prop 98 is not vague. Prop 98 has no hidden agenda. To the contrary, it’s mandate is pretty simple - the government can not take private property for non-public uses and the government can not force the sale or rental of private homes, apartments or other property at below market, government mandated prices. Heck, 45 of the other 49 states already provide this basic protection. It is about time we take the action needed to protect our property owners as well.
[Editors note: You can read the full text of Prop. 98 here, albeit in PDF form]
Yes, that means the government will not be able to invoke rent control in the future. And why should they? Please somebody, anybody, give me a good reason why the government should be able to take the property of one person and simply give it to another? Somehow, I don’t think that is what our founding fathers intended when they drafted the Tenth Amendment.
And why stop at letting the government set the price of rent? Why don’t we let them set prices for food, gas, cars, clothing and artwork? Yes, I said artwork, as in paintings and photography.
After all, artwork enriches the life of everyone and contributes to the “public health, safety, morals and welfare”. (Ok, this one was for Frazgo, but you get my point.)
So, who are these guys that so vehemently oppose the passage of Prop 98? And where are the millions of dollars being poured into this opposition coming from? Well, I promise you won’t want to believe what I am going to tell you…..after all, YOU are the one paying the bill. Unfortunately, there just isn’t enough space left to deal with this critical, but overlooked, aspect of the opposition campaign….so I will cover it in depth, in my last posting. I promise, if you are anything like me, you will be outraged at what you learn.
In the meantime, if you are taking the time to follow these discussions, you obviously want to better understand the issue… I applaud you for the effort. So don’t believe my explanations and please, don’t believe the No on Prop 98 nonsense. Instead read the actual text of Prop 98 and decide for yourself. You can find the text of Prop 98 on the California Secretary of State website.
Vote Yes on 98 and No on 99.
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 16th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Gut laws that protect our air, land, water, coasts and wildlife.
–If agencies have to compensate any land owner whose property is affected by any law that protects the above (which under 98, they would) then these laws will be gutted, b/c no agency will be able to afford to enforce them.
Gut laws we need to combat global warming.
–ditto
Jeopardize our ability to protect the quality of our drinking water.
–ditto
Result in a huge surge of frivolous lawsuits.
–Given our litigous society and how 98 would allow for property owners to pretty much sue the govt. for ANY impact to their property by any government action, you better believe there will be a surge in frivolous lawsuits.
Prevent local cities from enacting zoning regulations
–See the first point. It doesn’t outright prevent them, but if the cost is too great to compensate any and all property owners for changes in zoning regulations, then it will prevent Cities from enacting them.
May 16th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Just the usual crap from that quarter. In the end this is all about money and how much can be made from seizing private property and redeveloping it. And anything that stands in the way of these people is blistered with lies and more lies. We here in Sierra Madre saw this in spades during the Measure V election. There is nothing redevelopers and realty corporations (and their little butt smooching minions amongst our elected so-called representatives - you know, junketeering League of California types), won’t do to help separate people from their property.
I’m voting for 98. This has all got to end. My property is sacred, and nobody should be allowed to build a f*cking shopping mall on it.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Question:
hypo #1 - I live next to a historic bungalow court. The owners want my property for more parking, but my price for purchase is more than they want to pay. Can they go to the city and ask them to use eminent domain to get my property at a price more favorable to them?
Does this initiative eliminate the possibility of this happening? Or, do we have existing protections?
I still don’t understand why rent control is thrown into this.
Thank you.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
hypo #1. No. To use eminent domain there has to be a an established redevelopment zone, a finding of blight, and an established redevelopment plan. Your property for parking wouldn’t fall into any of those categories.
Mr. Dobbs, while I’m sure your passion is well meaning it is quite misplaced. 98 is about entirely more than shopping centers.
And while property rights might be sacred, your property is not. The ability of the government to buy your property for the “public good” (we can argue on the definition of that) is not only built into the social contract, but the very constitution that bestows on you the property rights you love so much.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
If you want an honest description go to the on-line voter guide prepared by the Secretary of State (http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/).
Regardless of your view on these propositions, Gilman makes an unfair argument. How’s that? Gilman argues that the No on 98 people overstate the damage that 98 will create (a reasonable argument), but they Gilman does exactly the same thing in the other direction.
Limiting rent control is a major issue. It is not overstating it to say that limiting rent control, especially in senior mobile home parks has the real potential to destroy the senior affordable housing market.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Anonymous - The govt is capable of flawlessly determing what the “public good” is? And that this is all part of the “social contract?” You actually believe that?
Then explain George W. Bush, please. Or Joe Mosca for that matter.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Mr. Dobbs,
Who said flawless? Why take it to the absurd extreme? Nothing based on humanity is “flawless.” The process of E.D. development in California is a decent one. You’re talking about the execution. For example, the process of the federal government, the election of the President, checks and balances, represented government, all of that, from a purely theoretical standpoint, is as close to a fair government as man kind has created.
The execution (dubya), has been botched several tims. But does that mean we revolt and scrap the entire constitution and create a new government?
Giving up absolute control over one’s dominion (which, arguably, humans have never truly had in human history, but I digress), in return for the ability to collectively improve a community’s lot (and the definition of community can be fluid, city, state, nation, etc), is the basic premise of the social contract.
So, while, in the past, our definition of the “public good” was the building of roads, schools, parks, hospitals, times have changed. In the prop 13 times of government, all jurisdictions are struggling to provide the necessary services for all residents to prosper, because of financial constraints. So if the taking of public good to revitalize a community, infuses much needed tax base revenue (to pay your beloved MPOA and get them above the “poverty line”), how is that not a public good?
What good is an old definition “public good” (hospital, road, school, etc.) if you don’t have the funds to maintain them?
Elected officials very often leave much to be desired and are far from flawless. However, that is the “execution” not the proecess.
Analogy:
A police department has a history of having unnecessary shootings and killings of unarmed victims. The police officers in that department obviously are far from having “flawless” judgment. Is the answer to (a) enact legislation taking guns away from cops or (b) to get new cops?
May 16th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
You missed the point. I neither trust the govt or believe that it has the ability to make decisions that are in the best interest of the people. Your blithe and airy assurances that all that they do is wonderful and that I should somehow “go with the flow” and turn over the rights to my property upon the request of the all-knowing state (ie: to the whims of a bunch of half-assed bureaucrats), is not only childish and inane, it is also undemocratic.
Government works best when the people of this country watch over it like a hawk. Giving them the right to decide what is best for others is paternalistic nonsense. Schools and roads were built because we the tax payers demanded them, not because some clown decided for us. And we are about to decide that govt and the corporations many of them lackey for can no longer take our property.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
98 covers all property. 99 maintains the status quo, because there are enough loop holes in the Prop. that allow local agencies to rezone.
It is primarily done to counter the elimination of rent control…..they just threw in protection for the property owners, as a cover to oppose the repeal of rent controls in Prop. 98.
Rent control allows government agencies to control what the property owners/landlord returns on his property, even though this may not be market value. No government agency should be allowed to dictate to a property owner what he can or cannot get a return on his property.
They should NOT be able control what is BUILT on property, that’s entirely different.
Rent control has been declared illegal in 44 states.
Both Props concern rent control.
I will vote YES on 98 and NO on 99.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
“Giving them the right to decide what is best for others is paternalistic nonsense.”
Not always nonsense, there have been times when the people were in favor of policies that were destructive to other people, and it was the government that protected us from ourselves, in that instance, and we grew better for it. That is the bright side. Then there is…
May 16th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Because “Anonymous” seems incapable of grasping what it is I am discussing here, I have prepared a short video message. Please observe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pgodXOvx1c&NR=1
May 16th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
And the attempt to mislead continues.
Anonymous @1 seems to think the government will cease to operate if Prop 98 passes. “taking” is DEFINED in Prop 98 and doesn’t effect any of the issues the opposition would have you believe.
The definition is “taken” (taking) includes transferring the ownership, occupancy, or use of property from a private owner to a public agency or to any person or entity other than a public agency, or limiting the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property.”
thejay @5 says that limiting rent control is a major issue. I agree, however I think it is one that is long overdue. Why should the government be able to set the price of property that you, or I, own? If the government is concerned about seniors, they should subsidize their housing and everyone could contribute to that program (via taxes) But to make one person, or one group of people, fund that social program is patently unfair.
Ms. Havisham @3 - yes under the existing laws, they could get the city to step in and take your property using eminent domain.
Some steps would have to be taken, as outlined above, but these steps are being taken everyday throughout our state. And yes, Prop 98 would stop this from happening.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Mr. Dobbs,
I’m not incapable of grasping your point. I understand it quite well. Indeed, it is the contrary (you failing to understand my poitn) that has been demonstrated by your taking of my comments and twisting them to absurd lengths.
For example you wrote:
“Your blithe and airy assurances that all that they do is wonderful and that I should somehow “go with the flow” and turn over the rights to my property upon the request of the all-knowing state (ie: to the whims of a bunch of half-assed bureaucrats), is not only childish and inane, it is also undemocratic.”
I’ve not made any such assurances. Again, there is a difference between a system, and how it is executed. You seem hell bent on assuming that I’m talking about how a system is executed in any particular fashion (…”all they do is wonderful…”), when I’ve made it clear I’m talking about the system.
I agree with you that the execution, the specific instances of how a policy or police power is caried out, is suspect and should always have vigilant citizenry to ensure that he public good is what is first and foremost.
However, both 98 and 99 address an abolishing of the “system,” the procedure.
For example, the Constitution (minus the whole 3/5’s thing, of course) is a system. It is, as I’ve said before, as close to fair as mankind has come. However, men, in the execution of this system, in the specific, have done very terrible things to other men in the name of the system. That doesn’t mean the system is bad–it means the men wielding it were.
In my opinion, E.D. is the same thing. And because there have been E.D. redevelopment successes, it is folly to put an end to the entire thing, just because of a few unfortunate abuses (that, for the record, haven’t even occurred in California for the most part).
Alas, given your acrimony and self-agrandizing, it is probably impossible to have a true debate regarding these principles. It is because of people like you that the Proposition system is broken and has done more harm than good over the past 10 years.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“Ceci n’est pas une pipe”, Dobbsie.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Ms. Female Investor,
While technically your rebuttal to my post is accurate, it is slightly misleading due to key omissions. Namely, the definitions of “damage” to property and “just compensation.” So, while enacting environmental legislation, zone changes or overlays, etc., may not fall into the defintion of “taking”, it surely could fall into the vague and broad definition of “damage.” Thus, if a property owner can prove that changing an area from commercial to R-1 damages his property, the Agency would have to reimburse every property owner affected. If a specific wetlands is home to certain species of animal and thus legislation is enacted to protect the wetlands, every property owner even abutting or near the wetlands can argue that their property value has been “damaged” because nothing will ever be built there.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Also:
“Ms. Havisham @3 - yes under the existing laws, they could get the city to step in and take your property using eminent domain.
Some steps would have to be taken, as outlined above, but these steps are being taken everyday throughout our state. And yes, Prop 98 would stop this from happening.”
You sort of overstate the case. Give me one example of a redevelopment plan that does what you said it can do and came into existence within 5 years (typical election cycle).
May 16th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Anonymous - The best possible system is to curb govt as much as possible. And taking away the right to seize peoples’ homes is a fine place to start. And since that power has been abolished, what difference does the lack of procedure make?
And comparing reactionary two-bit local govts and their eminent domain rights to the US Constitution is just about as absolutely ridiculous a comparison as I’ve seen in a long while.
Side comment: You sure do use a lot of words to say nothing.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
How is being accurate misleading? There were no omissions.
You assert that under Prop 98 “if a property owner can prove that changing an area from commercial to R-1 damages his property, the Agency would have to reimburse every property owner affected.” Respectfully, that is simply not true.
Prop 98 has no effect on the situation you outlined, nor would it effect the “wetlands” example you provide.
True public projects would be allowed to continue as before, it simply stops the government from unfairly taking or damaging a property for the purpose of giving it another private party, or business.
As for the issue with Ms. Havisham, agencies regularly “expand” and “amend” their redevelopment plans to include new areas. I think Glendora recently tried such a tactic, however it resulted in the County successfully having the redevelopment plan overturned because the subject area was in fact not “blighted”.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Since this is turning into an anti-rent control blog… could we get some disclosure on who owns income generating property and who’s a renter? I’m curious about the overlap in opinions for/against prop 98.
May 17th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Disclosure: I don’t own income generating property and I am no longer a renter, although I do pay a substantial monthly amount in property tax combined with a small mortgage. In essence, I have 75% equity
on a house I bought at a peak price point. So, naturally, if someone makes me an offer it has to be substantial enough to cover the money I originally invested, and the payoff of the mortgage. I’m not thinking even of profit.
This is why I tend to want to favor the part of 98 that offers protection against government devaluing my property, in whatever instrument, only to offer as a benefit to another private party (who owns income generating property) at a reduced price. That would be a ‘thanks for nothing’ from me to the G.
What bars me from my approval of Prop 98 is the part about the rent control. I think its a good thing.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I live in a mobile home park. I know that local regulations have prevented the park owner from serious abuses. So there is a place for government protection. I certainly feel Prop 98 is dangerous to us that live in the mobile home park.
Besides, The park owner bought the park while it was zoned for a rent control mobile home park - so he certainly paid less for the property, than if it was not zoned for rent control - he benefited from a lower purchase price -but if you change the rules now - he will get a windfall of extra profit - and we will lose much of the value of the homes we own - because the next
buyer will have to pay higher space rent.
Why are his ‘rights’ more important than our ‘rights’ to not lose the value of our homes?
After all isn’t this Prop 98 being touted as a protection for homeowners? Certainly it would take away our protection -and we own homes!
I urge everyone to vote no on Prop 98
May 17th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Question:
If my property were to be devalued by the government by whatever instrument, would I qualify for a reduction in property tax?
May 17th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I have no idea what you are talking about, Miss Havisham? This issue for us, in mobile home parks, is not part of some enjoyable debate! We stand to lose a lot if this Prop 98 passes. We all have our life savings invested in our homes.
Sounds to me that you could care less -Really, what do you hope to gain in your support of Prop 98? Would it make one iota of difference in your life? like it would in ours?
May 17th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Oh Howard, I will certainly vote no. The concerns you’ve raised re. mobile home owners trumps all.
You have convinced me. I stand with you. No on 98.
May 17th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Thank you Miss Havisam. A lot of people are just ranting in favor of Prop 98 without really considering that very real people will really be hurt if it passes. When I have presented the real world consequences - they ignore it. … and continue to rant.
It is gratifying that you have an open mind.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Howard if I understand you correctly, you are saying that your mobile home is worth more because the property owner is being forced to charge a below market rent for your space. If rents were being charged based on the current market rate, your mobile home would be worth less.
So the land owner is basically subsidizing you. I think that should be the government’s job, not a private party. The government is certainly free to put forth a tax upon everyone which would subsidize those in need of housing assistance, but to simply stick a few with the cost is plain unfair.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
‘Evil Female” No you do not seem to understand, or acknowledge, my point at all. You twisted it around -and then upside downed my point!
The land owner bought the land at a cheap price because of the rent control ordinance - what is so hard to understand about that? You might as well said the government has subsidized him. In our case we all offered to buy the park from him for 5 times what he paid 12 years ago - and he wanted so much more we could not hope to pay and get a mortgage. So, he is not hurting in all of this. He chose of his own free will to buy a rent controlled park, and he received the discount. We also chose to buy in a rent controlled park - and therefore paid a premium - because if our park was not rent controlled we would have paid much less for our homes: instead we would then have had to pay higher space rents. both parties knew the rules, both parties knew the law - both of us land owner and homeowner.
So, I hope that you can understand - since we and he were both operating under the same laws when we bought into the park. If you change the rules now - after the fact -you are penalizing one party (us) in a huge way.
Why would you want to do that?
May 19th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Female Investor,
While I’m glad that you are so confident that 98 does not impact any of the other scenarios, I’m not quite sure the text of the initiative is as air tight as you say. I’ve read it several times and I can see several areas of sharp litigation because the statutory construction can go in a variety of ways. Besides, the change in “just compensation” as well as the removal of deference to the agency would likely create signficant incentive for property owners to litigate “damage” and make arguments based on the areas of 98 that are murky (e.g. (b)(3)(iii)), that may not be slam dunks, but would tie up agencies in litigation so as to necessitate settlement early, often, and in high dollar amounts so as to avoid the provisions of Section (b)(5)(iii)–much as what happens today in ADA, wage and hour, and other claims. The specter of having to pay attorney’s fees is a huge hammer and pushes settlements that normally wouldn’t be made even if liability is extremely questionable.
So while you may think from a “common sense” perspective that 98 will not do the things described above, it is not so far from reality that unscrupulous land owners and lawyers wouldn’t try to make a quick buck based upon 98 and that it wouldn’t have the unintended consequence of tying an agency’s hands from the zoning and environmental changes I discussed previously.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
p.s. It’s misleading because you didn’t discuss the definition of “damage” (which doesn’t exist) and “just compensation.” When you add that together, your statement that it wouldn’t affect the situations I described is not entirely accurate. There isn’t a definition of “damage” (even for a public purpose) in the statute, so arguably, any kind of regulation could be litigated as “damaging.”
May 19th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
“And comparing reactionary two-bit local govts and their eminent domain rights to the US Constitution is just about as absolutely ridiculous a comparison as I’ve seen in a long while.”
Again, you appear to be mixing apple and oranges: “reactionary two bit local govts” is, AGAIN, the specific, while “eminent domain rights” is the system.
Calculus and addition are not exactly the same thing. However, it is still accurate to call them both mathematics.
I say more, than obviously you can comprehend. So many of the words seem superfulous to you. That, however, is your failing, not mine.
Anarchy and democracy don’t have to be the same thing.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Anonymess(#30): Just picking up on a previous post of yours. Is that OK? Since your technique seems to be an on-going process of improvizing from a vast store of jargon and ignorance, you do present something of a moving target, you know.
I can only assume that your most recent comment was an attempt to talk your way past the profound embarrassment you felt at having made so idiotic a statement as the one you made in post #13.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
“the specter of having to pay attorney’s fees is a huge hammer and pushes settlements that normally wouldn’t be made even if liability is extremely questionable.”
I would agree. However, as it currently exists that burden is on the property owner whose property is being taken, not the govt. The result has been abuse, extensive litigation and the private property owners being “hammered”.
As for your concern regarding the definition of “damage”, Prop 98 does not seek to change what already exists. The California Constitution already addresses the issue of damage to a private property owner and there is a LONG history of legal precedent to illustrate what is, and what is not, damage. Prop 98 is seeking to reinvent what damage means.
However, as you mention, “just compensation” will be clearly defined and the legal deference given to the govt will be eliminated, as it should be. Why should the burden be on the private property owner?
As far as an increase in litigation, I suspect we will see the exact opposite outcome, a reduction.
May 19th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
oops, meant to say Prop 98 does not seek to reinvent what damage means.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:24 am
[…] The Great Debate: What does Prop 98 Actually Do? […]
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:04 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 government […]