« Red Light Cameras Just Money Farming? | Home | The Great Debate on 98 (and 99): 98 Stops Government Takings »
The Great Debate on 98 (and 99): Won’t Get Fooled Again
By Wes | May 21, 2008
This is the last installment in a series on Propositions 98 and 99. For the previous posts in this series see:
- The Great Debate on 98 and (99): Rent Control’s Invisible Demise
- The Great Debate: Prop 98, A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
- The Great Debate on 98 (and 99)
It’s been previously stated that if one only reads the text of Proposition 98, all fears will be dispelled and one will understand that it only prohibits eminent domain for private reuse of land, and rent control.
And I would agree, please read the text of Proposition 98. But also please take the time to understand the Fifth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution (Proposition 98 proponents are hoping you don’t take that time). Please take the time to become familiar with the plethora of national and state court cases that have been heard and decided upon regarding eminent domain, regulatory takings and just compensation (Proposition 98 proponents are hoping you don’t have the time for that, either). And, take the time to refresh your memory of the language used in the 2006 Proposition 90 (one more thing the proponents of Proposition 98 hope you don’t do).And when you’re done, you’ll realize: you won’t get fooled again.
Section 19(c)(3) provides a new definition of “private use,” which includes: “’Private use’ means ‘regulation’ of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned property in order to transfer an ‘economic benefit’ to one ‘or more private persons at the expense of the private owner” (extra quotes are mine for emphasis). Why is this language used? Because they can’t call it “rent control” and still have a chance of winning. The endless lawsuits to follow to interpret this language would paralyze local land-use planning.
Don’t be fooled: put simply, many court cases have stated that ALL regulation provides an economic benefit to SOME private person, often at the expense of others. This includes virtually all zoning and environmental regulations. This is very similar to the failed Proposition 90, which was at least much more overt in its intentions, but the result is the same.
Section 19(a) adds the phrase the following sentence to the State Constitution: “Private property may not be taken ‘or damaged’ for private use.” And, according to the end of Section 19(c), “….an owner whose property is taken ‘or damaged’ for private use may bring an action for an injunction, a writ of mandate, or declaration invalidating the action of the public agency” (again, extra quotes mine for emphasis).
Don’t be fooled: while eminent domain and regulatory takings already require taxpayers to compensate the property owner at fair market value, Proposition 98 does contains neither a definition of “damage,” nor a standard for valuing “damage” to property. Instead, Proposition 98 merely states that “just compensation” for the “damage” to property will be the value fixed by a jury or the court.
No doubt, Proposition 98 will be an enormous benefit to its primary supporters, the apartment and mobile home park owners. But it comes at a cost that is simply unacceptable given its potential impact on zoning and environmental regulations, tenants and taxpayers. If there is a need for an open, statewide discussion on rent control, affordable housing, or the use of redevelopment, let’s have it. But don’t be fooled, supporters of Proposition 98 would rather avoid that discussion and get things their way through the back door.
So, take the suggestion of the Proposition 98 proponents and read the text. Read it carefully, word for word. Read what it says, and read what if doesn’t say. Read how it defines “damage,” and read what regulations require compensation for “damages.” The proponents will have you believe that Proposition 98 deals only with eminent domain and rent control (this might be one “regulation” that “damages” property, but is it the only one?).
When your done, I think you’ll agree with me (apologies to Pete Townsend and his incomparable group): We WON”T tip our hat to the new constitution, we won’t get fooled again. Vote NO on Proposition 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 |
May 21st, 2008 at 6:48 pm
What a great pile of writing. Good everybuddy.
I am NO on 98 ( mobile home people!) And I am undervoting on 99, at this point.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Wes….many thanks the interesting discussion!
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:04 am
[…] Wes argued Prop 99 merits in his introduction calling 98 a sheep in wolfs clothing. Then he counterpointed Wes’s with the rebuttal “rent controls invisible demise“. His final stab at the issue was his “won’t get fooled again post“. […]
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:13 am
Can’t wait to vote “Yes!” on 98. The invasion of the home snatchers is about to come to an end.