No on Prop. 98 – The Hidden Agendas Scheme

Wealthy apartment and mobile home park owners are spending millions on a deceptive campaign to pass Prop. 98 for their own financial gain.  These landlords want voters to believe that Prop. 98 – dubbed the Hidden Agendas Scheme – is about eminent domain. But their hidden agenda is to eliminate rent control so they can make hundreds of millions of dollars by raising rents on seniors and working families. To make matters worse, the measure also contains poorly drafted provisions that could stop future water projects, destroy local land-use planning and erode environmental protections. A broad coalition of groups including AARP, California Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters of California, California Police Chiefs Association, Association of California   Water Agencies, National Wildlife Federation, and hundreds of other organizations who don’t normally agree on the issues – all OPPOSE Prop. 98.  If passed, Prop. 98 would:

 

Prop. 98 attacks renters by eliminating renter protections and rent control.

Prop. 98 guts important environmental protections like laws we need to combat global warming, and protect our land, air, water and coasts.

Prop. 98 jeopardizes the quality of our drinking water and our ability to secure new water sources to protect our environment and fuel our economy.

Prop. 98 will result in frivolous lawsuits, higher taxpayer costs, and hurt our economy.

That’s why a broad coalition including seniors, renters, businesses, conservationists, labor, homeowners, and agriculture opposes Prop. 98.

———————————————

Yes on Prop. 99 – The Homeowners Protection Act

Proposition 99 is the straightforward solution we need to protect against eminent domain abuse. Prop. 99 prohibits government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private    developer. Unlike the landlords’ Prop. 98, Prop. 99 is eminent domain reform with NO HIDDEN AGENDAS.

Prop. 98 is an Attack on Renters and Eliminates Renter Protections and Rent Control

Wealthy apartment and mobile home park owners are spending millions on a deceptive campaign to pass Prop. 98 for their own financial gain.  These landlords want voters to believe that Prop. 98 – dubbed the Hidden Agendas Scheme – is about eminent domain. But their hidden agenda is to eliminate rent control so they can make hundreds of millions of dollars by raising rents on seniors and working families. That’s why groups          concerned with affordable housing like AARP, California Alliance for Retired Americans, Tenants Together, Coalition for Economic Survival, Housing California, League of Women Voters of California, and hundreds of other senior, and renters’ rights advocates are waging an aggressive         campaign to defeat Prop. 98.

Continued on Page 3

Continued from Front Page:

Prop. 98 Guts Protections for Our Land, Air, Wildlife and Coastlines

All Leading California Environmental Organizations Agree: No on 98

There is a dangerous measure on the June 2008  Ballot that could wipe out important laws and   regulations that protect our environment.  Every leading environmental organization, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club California, California League of Conservation Voters and many others are opposed to Proposition 98 – dubbed the “Hidden Agendas Schemes”. The proponents want voters to believe it’s about eminent domain. But a legal analysis by the respected environmental law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger has found that hidden provisions in this measure would wipe out regulations intended to protect our environment.  Specifically, the measure prohibits laws and regulations that “transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner.”  The courts have ruled that virtually all environmental regulations and land-use decisions are likely to impose costs on the affected party, while      transferring economic benefits to another private party.  Thus, the measure will gut all manner of laws and regulations that protect our environment and regulate growth and development.

Prop. 98 Threatens Our State’s Water Quality and Supply

Association of California Water Agencies Says Prop. 98 is “Cause for Alarm”

Virtually all experts agree that California is facing a very serious water crisis. In order to provide safe, clean drinking water to an increasing number of residents, to supply businesses and farms with an adequate water supply, and to preserve water      resources and ecosystems, it is abundantly clear that the State of California and local water agencies will need new and varying water projects. However, Prop. 98 – dubbed the “Hidden Agendas Scheme” – threatens virtually all future public and private    water projects up and down the state intended to preserve clean drinking water, protect existing    water resources, and secure additional water supply. Here’s how:

Prop. 98 is an Attack on Mobile Home Owners and Steals Equity from Mobile Homeowners

Wealthy mobile home park and apartment owners are spending millions on a deceptive campaign to pass Prop. 98 in June 2008 for their own financial gain.  These landlords want voters to believe that Proposition 98 is about eminent domain.  But their hidden agenda is to eliminate rent control and other renter protections so they can make hundreds of millions of dollars by raising rents on seniors and working families.  In fact, landlords make up for 85% of this measure’s funding. Senior and mobile home owner advocate groups like AARP, Golden State Manufactured Home Owners League,       Coalition of Mobile Home Owners-California, the California Alliance for Retired Americans and many other mobile home owner associations, renters’ rights groups and seniors are waging an aggressive campaign to defeat this deceptive measure.

Prop. 98 is Bad for Businesses and Local   Economies

Proposition 98 could stop water infrastructure    projects, result in frivolous lawsuits and harm     economic development.

Instead of simply trying to reform eminent domain, the proponents of Proposition 98 – dubbed the “Hidden Agendas Scheme” – have once again over-reached in a way that could harm California      businesses and local economies.  This measure on the June 2008 ballot contains poorly-drafted       provisions unrelated to eminent domain that could stop much needed water projects, destroy local land-use planning, hurt new housing and commercial development, and lead to frivolous lawsuits and project delays. That’s why leading business groups like the California Chamber of Commerce, the  California Black Chamber of Commerce and other local business associations oppose Prop. 98.

 

Why we Support Proposition 99

Yes on Proposition 99 – The Homeowners Protection Act

 

 

Real Eminent Domain Reform, Without Hidden Agendas or Adverse Consequences

 

 

house.jpgAlso on the June 2008 ballot is a real eminent domain reform measure that will constitutionally protect homeowners, without the hidden agendas and adverse consequences of Prop. 98:

 

* Proposition 99 – The Homeowners Protection Act – will prohibit the government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer.

 

 

Prop. 99 is supported by a broad coalition of homeowners, business, labor, cities, counties and environmentalists who want straightforward eminent domain reform that gets right to the heart of the infamous Kelo decision.

 

NO on Proposition 98 – The Hidden Agendas Scheme Threatens Public Safety

There is a dangerous measure on the June 2008 ballot that would threaten the ability of local police and sheriffs’ departments to address public safety issues in local communities.  Dubbed the “Hidden Agendas Scheme”, this measure would prohibit government from taking over crime-infested properties (such as drug labs).

Read more…

 

PROPOSITION 98: A Planning and Zoning Nightmare

 

Buried in the definitions of Proposition 98 is a provision that will wreak havoc with local government planning and zoning decisions. Section 19(c)(3)(iii) of the measure prohibits laws and regulations that “transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner.”  This broad language contains no exceptions for decisions to protect health and safety.  Nor does it protect currently existing programs from attack.

Read more…

 

How Prop. 98 Will Hurt School Construction Needed to Reduce Overcrowding

Respected education organizations like the California Teachers Association and the California School Boards Association oppose Prop. 98 on the June 3, 2008 ballot because it would make it much more difficult to build new schools or expand existing ones to relieve overcrowded classrooms. That is because the measure makes major changes to laws governing use of property, including use of eminent domain and regulation of land use. These changes could have a significant impact on the construction of needed new schools.

Prop. 98 Threatens ALL Public Works Projects Including Schools, Roads, Highways, and Water Projects

traffic.pngProp. 98 is a Disaster for Infrastructure Projects.  Prop. 98 would make major changes to laws governing acquisition of property, including the use of eminent domain and regulation of land use. These changes will add years of delay and increase the cost of acquiring property for countless public works projects – including schools, roads, water systems and airports.  Here’s how:

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

Why we Support Proposition 99

Yes on Proposition 99 – The Homeowners Protection Act—Real Eminent Domain Reform, Without Hidden Agendas or Adverse Consequences Also on the June 2008 ballot is a real eminent domain reform measure that will constitutionally protect homeowners, without the hidden agendas and   adverse consequences of Prop. 98:

Proposition 99 – The Homeowners Protection Act – will prohibit the government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a  private developer.

Prop. 99 is supported by a broad coalition of homeowners, business, labor, cities, counties and environmentalists who want straightforward    eminent domain reform that gets right to the heart of the infamous Kelo decision.

NO on Proposition 98 – The Hidden Agendas Scheme Threatens Public Safety

There is a dangerous measure on the June 2008 ballot that would threaten the ability of local     police and sheriffs’ departments to address public safety issues in local communities.  Dubbed the “Hidden Agendas Scheme”, this measure would prohibit government from taking over crime-infested properties (such as drug labs).

PROPOSITION 98: A Planning and Zoning Nightmare

Buried in the definitions of Proposition 98 is a provision that will wreak havoc with local government planning and zoning decisions. Section 19(c)(3)(iii)

 

of the measure prohibits laws and regulations that “transfer an economic benefit to one or more    private persons at the expense of the private owner.”  This broad language contains no exceptions for decisions to protect health and safety.  Nor does it protect currently existing programs from attack.

 

How Prop. 98 Will Hurt School Construction Needed to Reduce Overcrowding

Respected education organizations like the California Teachers Association and the California School Boards Association oppose Prop. 98 on the June 3, 2008 ballot because it would make it much more difficult to build new schools or expand   existing ones to relieve overcrowded classrooms. That is because the measure makes major changes to laws governing use of property, including use of eminent domain and regulation of land use. These changes could have a significant impact on the construction of needed new schools.

Prop. 98 Threatens ALL Public Works Projects Including Schools, Roads, Highways, and Water Projects

Prop. 98 is a Disaster for Infrastructure Projects.  Prop. 98 would make major changes to laws governing acquisition of property, including the use of eminent domain and regulation of land use. These changes will add years of delay and increase the cost of acquiring property for countless public works projects – including schools, roads, water systems and airports.

——————————————————————————————————————

Taking advantage:  Why Proposition 98 could toss out local affordable-housing rules

By Cosmo Garvin cosmog@newsreview.com

When you go to the polls this June, you’ll find Proposition 98, a ballot measure that would eliminate rent control in the state of California. Living in Sacramento, you might then scratch your head and think, “Rent control? What’s that?”               .

Because aside from a couple of small pockets of mobile-home parks, rent control is an alien      concept to Sacramentans, much more important to our neighbors in the Bay Area and parts of Southern California than here.             .

But there are other ways in which Proposition 98 could spell trouble for local affordable-housing laws. Sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and an array of landlord groups, the initiative makes it illegal for the government to take someone’s property and give it to another  entity for private use.               .

Proposition 98 defines “taking,” in part, to include regulations “limiting the price a private owner may charge to another person to purchase, occupy or use his real property.” In this way, it’s specifically written to phase out rent-control laws around the state.                .

But affordable-housing advocates think the measure would also eliminate Sacramento County policies that require developers to build affordable housing along with their higher-priced units—called “inclusionary housing” laws.

———————————————————————————————————————————————

The NO on 98/YES on 99 campaign basically says forget the eminent domain cover, this initiative is really about rent control, which will be phased out in Calif. if YES on 98 is approved. Lots of money coming into the YES on 98      campaign from apartment owners and mobile home park owners…

…NO on 98 has been pumping out a daily stream of negative horror stories about renters and mobile home residents who could be at risk…

…The PPIC poll (Mar.11-18, 1070 likely voters) shows YES on 98 with 37% vs. NO on 98 with 41% – and a huge 22% don’t know. The Prop. 99 eminent domain initiative leads in the poll by a margin of 53% YES vs. 27% NO, with 20% don’t know…

…FYI: the CA Demo Party has endorsed YES on 99 and NO on 98…

————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

City to discuss rent control  Initiatives on June 3 ballot

By Teresa Rochester (Contact)
Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Mobile home activist Brenda Mohr Feldman is sending out e-mails and passing out fliers to defeat a June 3 state ballot initiative that would phase out rent control.

Feldman, who lives in Vallecito Mobile Estates in Thousand Oaks, fears Proposition 98 “would drastically impact the people with limited incomes,” she said.

“It has the potential to harm some very dear people.”

The measure’s supporters argue it would reel in government’s role in shaping how private property owners set prices for their lease and rental properties.

“The reality is, everyone agrees there is a need to provide affordable housing,” said Proposition 98 spokesman Marko Mlikotin.

“That responsibility should fall to the government, not private property owners. Rent control in California doesn’t work.”

Amid the campaigning, the Thousand Oaks City Council is scheduled tonight to consider taking positions against Proposition 98 and in support of a competing initiative, Proposition 99, also on the June ballot.

“Proposition 98 goes against everything the city has stood for in terms of being protective and    supportive of mobile home park tenants,” City Manager Scott Mitnick said.

Proposition 99 would prohibit using eminent     domain to take a single-family home or condominium to transfer it to another private party, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Editor’s Note:  Way to go Brenda!  (Brenda is a long time CoMO-CAL member).  Thanks from all mobilehome owners!  Keep up the good work.  I know you and others in Vallecito are very active!

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

Why Democrats Should Be Eminently Opposed to Proposition 98

By Carlyn Obringer From Carlyn’s Column

Among the measures that have qualified for the June 2008 California Primary Election ballot is Proposition 98, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA). This eminently important ballot measure has received little attention, despite its potential to end all land-use planning within the state and eliminate rent control and important renter protections in California . Supporters present CPOFPA as a way to protect property owners from eminent domain abuses, such as the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo V. New London , which condemned seven homes in favor of a Pfizer Pharmaceutical manufacturing complex in New London , Connecticut . In reality, Prop 98, or the so-called “Hidden Agendas Scheme,” has two much larger goals—eliminating all land-use regulations that protect the environment and limit development, and abolishing affordable housing laws.

One need only look at the havoc wreaked in Oregon since the passage of Measure 37, in November 2004, to realize that the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act is not the solution to California ’s eminent domain issue. During the 2004 campaign season, the libertarians and property-rights advocates now crusading for passage of the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act played on the fears of Oregonian property owners, featuring victims of land-use regulations and eminent domain abuses in a statewide media campaign. The success of Measure 37 led to the implementation of a radical view of “regulatory       takings,” the idea that the government should     compensate a property owner for the impacts of standard regulations on real estate, even though the measure failed to explain from what monetary source the government would provide compensation. As of December 5, 2007, Oregon landowners had filed      approximately 7,500 Measure 37 claims–to develop new homes, resort hotels and mines–on 750,000 acres previously zoned as forest or farmland. Only passage of Measure 49, in November 2007, was able to stem the tide of claims and save the neighbors to such properties from    unwanted developments.

In addition to destroying land-use planning, Proposition 98 would harm renters and mobile homeowners by eliminating rent control and laws protecting renters against unfair evictions. By dissolving renter protections, CPOFPA would enable landlords to evict vulnerable tenants, including seniors, single mothers and veterans, for no good reason, and without providing the standard 60-day notice. Once the units were vacated, rents could be raised, thereby depriving working families of affordable housing. Furthermore, in mobile home parks, where tenants own their home but not the land beneath it, Prop 98 could cause prices for mobile homes to plummet in cases where landlords raised land rents, thereby scaring off potential buyers.

At a time when many cities in the West previously known for urban sprawl and escalating housing prices, including Denver, Salt Lake City and even Phoenix, have begun to follow California’s example of protecting open space, building an infrastructure for public transportation and focusing on smart growth and urban infill that includes affordable housing, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act would completely undermine these efforts within the Golden State itself. With a population projected to reach 50 million by 2030, a strained infrastructure, an underperforming education system and rapidly rising healthcare costs, California cannot afford to tie up its limited financial resources in expensive lawsuits. Therefore, responsible Democrats should unite with the environmentalists, firefighters, home owners, law enforcement officers and others already opposing Proposition 98, or risk the future prosperity of California and the irrevocable reversal of the landmark land-use and conservation laws that have made the Golden State great.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-