« The Great Debate on 98 (and 99): Won’t Get Fooled Again | Home | Absolut Steampunk »
The Great Debate on 98 (and 99): 98 Stops Government Takings
By Gilman | May 21, 2008
This is the last installment in a series on Propositions 98 and 99. For Gilman’s previous posts in this series, and an overview, see:
- The Great Debate: What does Prop 98 Actually Do?
- The Great Debate: Prop 98 Is the Real Deal
- The Great Debate on 98 (and 99)
Prop 98 doesn’t use the term “rent control”. Is it a diabolical scheme to fool you, or as Wes suggested, could it be that the sponsor of Prop 98 just “lacks the balls” to be up front? I think neither is the case.
Addressing the term “rent control” is of little importance, it is the practice that must be corrected.
If the sponsors had inserted language stating that “rent control” would not be allowed, then no doubt the government types would have simply renamed the practice. I easily envision them using a new catchy phrase: California financial and housing redistribution program!
The practice which Prop 98 seeks to stop is where the government takes from one party and simply gives to another - which exists under current rent control practices. Prop 98 does nothing to stop the government from invoking new rent control measures, they just won’t be able to make a few property owners subsidize others. If the government wants to accomplish low cost rents through the use of new taxes, or other funding sources, they are free to do that. So it was not, and is not, about rent control. It is about stopping the unfair practice of taking the property of a few and simply giving it to another.
And by the way, I am still waiting for somebody, anybody, to tell me how rent control, as it currently exists, is either fair or just.
Now, opponents of Prop 98 are attempting to hammer home the claim that 80% of Prop 98’s financial support is coming from “wealthy apartment and mobile home park owners”. Is it possible they are attempting the infamous “class warfare” strategy here? You know, lets create a “them against us” mind set. The intent is clear, we are supposed to believe the Donald Trumps of the world are behind a dastardly scheme to somehow hurt the poor, but the facts simply show otherwise. The reality is the preponderance of rental property is not owned by “Trump” types, instead it is owned by people just like me and you. Folks that are simply investing in their future, hoping they will have enough when retirement comes. They are plumbers, sandwich shop owners, insurance agents, artists….well you get the idea. No one is going to give them a retirement, so they choose to provide for themselves, and kudos to them. After all, not everyone can rely on the sweet retirement packages which the bureaucrats and politicos have given themselves.
So you have a bunch of average folks giving campaign contributions to stop an unfair government practice…man it sure seems like the American way to me. Unfortunately, the opposition would like to make it about something it is not.
On the other hand, who are these guys that have bankrolled millions to defeat Prop 98, as well as sponsoring Prop 99?
Is it a group of concerned homeowners fighting for meaningful eminent domain reform?………Nope. How about a group of activists fighting for tenant rights and affordable housing for the elderly and poor…..Nope. Could it be a powerful association of the very bureaucrats and politicians who have abused eminent domain for years……….that would be a yes.
The architects and main financial backers of Prop 99, as well as the No on 98 campaign, are the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the California Redevelopment Association. The very same folks have a long history of opposing any real eminent domain reforms here in the state - as recently as 2006 they put up millions to defeat Prop 90, another proposal that would have dealt with eminent domain abuses. Now they would have us believe that they are somehow the true voice of reform with their Prop 99 proposal - I think not.
All three organizations operate on a similar basis, so lets look at the League of California Cities to see how these official sounding organizations operate, and maybe more importantly how they are funded. The League is an association made up of local bureaucrats and politicians, most every city official in our area participates in the organization. At last count, close to 500 cities belong to the League.
The League is basically funded through four sources;
* membership fees and dues
* fees for participating in League sponsored seminars/conferences held throughout the US
* fees charged for advertising in their magazine
* fees charged for their various investment/financial services provided to cities.
And who pays those fees….well, that would be you and I. You see, local cities use your tax dollars to pay for their various levels of participation in these League activities. I liken it to a club, maybe more accurately a country club, where your tax dollars are used to fund city officials participating in League activities such as attending conferences in Lake Tahoe, San Francisco or Washington D.C..
As well, since the association is not technically a government agency (it is just funded with your tax dollars) it can, in essence, disguise who their major contributors are. Unlike the typical political action committee, or PAC, the League is considered a major donor and is not required to disclose who contributes to them. Remember those big developers who benefit from the current eminent domain practices? Well, it appears they may well be giving millions to the League to oppose Prop 98. In response, Orange County Congressman John Campbell recently filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission which claims the League is using public funds for partisan campaigns and is concealing the identity of donors to their political action committee.
So what do they hope to accomplish with Prop 99? After all, according to the state’s independent Legislative Analyst Office, Prop 99 “is not likely to significantly alter current government land acquisition practices.” So why introduce a proposal that makes no real change to the current system? In my mind, it is to confuse, mislead and complicate the issue with voters. Most importantly, it offers a last line of defense against the implementation of Prop 98 reform….it includes a “poison pill” provision which could prove to negate the mandates of Prop 98, depending on the overall vote tabulation.
And how did the league go about getting Prop 99 on the ballot? They hired Progressive Campaigns, Inc., a professional signature gathering firm at a cost of $3.5 million. This is the same company that recently conducted a petition drive in Washington D.C. The D.C. elections board, however, disqualified the measure they sought to get on the ballot after finding “fraud, forgery and other ‘systematic’ violations of local election laws.”
For me, this one just seems too simple. On the one hand, you have a proposal put forth by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, a public advocacy group with a long history of protecting citizens in our state, and on the other hand you have a proposal put forth by the very bureaucrats and developers who have been content to abuse the current system to further their own interests. Vote Yes on Prop 98 and No on Prop 99.
Lastly, I would like to extend my gratitude to Wes for his participation in this discussion. While there can be little doubt we disagree on this issue, I nonetheless appreciate his input and passion about the subject. His arguments are articulate, well crafted and provide invaluable insight. I think it represents the best that this blog has to offer…Thank you Wes.
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, (Re)Development |
May 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am
My hat’s off to you as well, Gilman! While we certainly don’t agree (and I didn’t expect to change your mind), it was great fun engaging in this debate with you for the benefit of the FC denizens. Glad we wrapped it up before the Laker game.
Rock on.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Thanks,Centinel….
I think we have presented the two sides far better than the arguments on the ballot do.
Of course, I still agree with you and Gilman.
Yes on 98…..No on 99.
That said, how do you guys think the state wide vote will go?
May 21st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Fix the last line in the second to last paragraph… you can’t vote “yes and no.”
May 21st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
On the same prop, that is.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
And, by they way, this series has made such compelling negative arguments on both sides, that as of now, I intend to vote NO on both 98 and 99.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Thanks, Eric.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Eric E…isn’t that what I said 3 weeks ago? No on both.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Voting Yes on 98, No on 99.
How anybody can be sucked in by the maze of BS posted here and vote against their own real interests is beyond me. Welcome to life in the corporate state, where defending your own property is considered politically incorrect.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
This was fun. Although I’m voting Yes on 98 and No on 99, it was fun to read both people’s views.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:50 am
Bob, I think you’re wrong. As with 99.999% of so-called voter initiatives, both these propositions have been written by groups with their own axes to grind and solely for their own real interest (be it financial or political). They’re not really voter initiatives, their special interest initiatives hawked and spun to the voters by these groups. That’s why it’s NO on both for me. Just like it was NO on that whole package of Arnold’s propositions… but somehow I doubt the proponents of 98 and 99 will come out afterwards and say “OK voters, you were right, I get the message.”
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:04 am
When it comes to property owners under rent control, they have a legitimate “axe to grind.” The left leaning courts in California refuse to protect property rights, so individual property rights are decided by popular vote. Rent control has been applied in an outrageous, confiscatory manner. It is a disgrace. If you disagree, you either: (1) directly benefit from it (2) know nothing about it or (3) are a socialist.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
Dittos Mark Alpert.
YES on 98 / NO on 99.
California is moving more and more towards Socialism. The electorate seems to want it, the illegals want it, the schools teach it, I don’t want to pay for it.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
When defending your own property is taken by the weenies as being ‘politically incorrect,’ it is time to make a change. Voting Yes on 98 is a great place to start.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
i think that all what they are doing is not usefull why because they are destroing a lot of thing and is not good tyo the communuity and to the economic