Propositions that are on the June 3, 2008 Statewide Direct Primary Election Ballot
1248. Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Constitutional Amendment. Proponents: Doug Mosebar, Jon Coupal and Jim Nielsen (916) 444-9950
Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property for private uses. Prohibits rent control and similar measures. Prohibits deference to government in property rights cases. Defines “just compensation.” Requires an award of attorneys fees and costs if a property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by the government. Requires government to offer to original owner of condemned property the right to repurchase property at condemned price when property is put to substantially different use than was publicly stated. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased costs to many governments due to the measure’s restrictions. The fiscal effect on most governments probably would not be significant. (Initiative 07-0015.)(Full Text)
1251. Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Constitutional Amendment.
Proponents: Christopher K. McKenzie, Susan Smartt and Kenneth Willis c/o Steve Lucas (415) 389-6800
Bars state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence, as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity. Creates exceptions for public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would likely not have a significant fiscal impact on state or local governments. (Initiative 07-0018.) (Full Text)
Okay, so while West Hollywood gay politicos are practicing their signature for their marriage licenses, the rest of us are focusing on Propositions 98 and 99, two propositions on the June 3rd primary ballot.
This is no joking matter people, literally, our livelihoods are on the ballot.
There’s all this hoopla and hysteria around eminent domain, the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen’s private property, expropriate property, or rights in property, without the owner’s consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to “public use or civic” or in some cases, economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are public utilities, highways, and railroads. Some states require that the government body offer to purchase the property before resorting to the use of eminent domain.
Enter Propositions 98 and 99.
Endorsed Vote: No
Proposition 98 is claims to be about eminent domain, but when you examine the language further it’s being used to end rent control and pave the way for landlords to charge whatever they want for apartments. So your 800 dollar single apartment could easily jump to $1,500 or more. Do I have your attention now? Thought so.
What Prop. 98 Would Do If Passed…
- Eliminate rent control and other renter protection laws. Proposition 98 would phase out rent control in California. It would prohibit future rent control laws and abolish rent control on units once existing tenants move. As a result, Prop. 98 would jeopardize affordable housing for thousands of seniors and widows on fixed incomes, single mothers and working families.
- Gut laws that protect renters. Proposition 98 would also jeopardize dozens of laws that protect renters. It would:
· – Jeopardize laws requiring the fair return of rental deposits
· –Jeopardize laws requiring 60-day notice before forcing renters out of their housing
· -Outlaw local affordable housing and “inclusionary zoning” requirements
· –Jeopardize laws that protect seniors and the disabled from drastic rent increases and that require landlords to give them ample notice before forcing them out of rental housing
And please spare me the “you should own your home and you wouldn’t have to worry about it” rhetoric. This is California, houses aren’t cheap even in the crapiest of neighborhoods. And if the government wants your home, not even you owning it can stop them from taking it, hence the whole eminent domain issue in the first place. Lastly, renters have rights to and this proposition is taking it too far, plus it’s sneaky the way they added all of this into the wording but then tried to create more hysteria at the polls by using eminent domain.
NO on PROPOSITION 98
Endorsed Vote: Yes
Proposition 99 is being billed as The Homeowners Protection Act – will prohibit t he government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer. Reading is fundamental. This Proposition stops the government from giving your home to a private developer, not from taking your home public works like schools, roads, bridges and other projects. It makes no changes to rent control or tenant protections like.
YES on PROPOSITION 99
- Compare Propositions 98 and 99
- Read Official Language of Proposition 98
- Read Official Language of Proposition 99