WHAT OTHER’S ARE SAYING ABOUT PROPOSITION 90
Proposition 90 masquerades as a savior to protect your property from seizure by the government through eminent domain. But behind that mask, the proposition is a serious threat to taxpayers, to consumers, to the environment and to anyone who believes communities should have a say in what development is allowed next to homes and schools. (Mercury News Editorial Oct. 2, 06)
San Bernardino County’s conservative Board of Supervisors is bucking the state Republican Party’s line in opposing a far-reaching property rights ballot initiative. Instead, the board favors a far more narrow prohibition on the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another. Proposition 90, which supporters call the “Protect Our Homes Initiative,” would ban such private-to-private transfers. (INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN October 2, 2006)
Commentary: Deception Underlies Proposition 90 As a vocal critic of redevelopment agencies, I was pleased to learn that a petition was circulating that would curtail the use of eminent domain. Unfortunately, when I read the measure (which is now Proposition 90 on the November ballot) I learned that the initiative’s backers sought to capitalize on rising anti-eminent domain sentiment by inserting a sentence jeopardizing the future enactment of most land use laws, including amendments to local rent control ordinances.
This sentence—which allows property owners to sue government entities over any new law that reduces their property values—is so destructive that it overwhelms the good part of the initiative. Prop. 90’s specific language limiting eminent domain made this broad sentence unnecessary, raising questions about the motives behind November’s “Protect our Homes” initiative. Nobody needs to convince me of the evils of eminent domain. But Prop. 90 is not the answer. By preventing local governments from passing laws to help working people and the poor, Prop. 90 hurts the very populations it claims to help. (Randy Shaw—Berkeley Daily Planet Oct. 3, 06)
Eminent Domain or Imminent Disaster? Don’t be fooled by Prop. 90, an anti-environment stealth measure passed off as a ‘protect your home’ initiative. Proposition 90 is a sleeper, bankrolled mainly by libertarian Howie Rich and Americans for Limited Government as part of a nationwide attempt to turn back the clock on the role of government in our society. A new and similar Oregon law has already resulted in $5.2 billion in claims, including one from a property owner claiming rights to construct a mine inside the Newberry Volcanic National Monument. This measure is opposed across the board — by environmentalists, labor and the state Chamber of Commerce, by taxpayer associations and consumer groups, by scientists and public health agencies and the California Farm Bureau. (By AL MEYERHOFF, an environmental attorney in Los Angeles, L.A. Times Sept. 23, 06)
The Terror of Prop. 90 San Francisco could see an end to rent control — and minimum-wage requirements and a lot of zoning regulation and environmental protection laws and much more — if Proposition 90 passes this November. We could see an end to limits on condo conversions and an end to requirements that developers build affordable housing units and even an end to limits on the height and density of new developments. That’s because Prop. 90 is a clever trap that purports to restrict the use of eminent domain but in reality eliminates all government regulation of land use. Prop. 90 really says little about eminent domain; it just uses the notion of restricting the ability of government to seize private land as the bait. Most of the initiative is aimed at ending all government regulation of property. Its concept is simple: if any government regulation reduces the actual or potential value of property — even by a dollar — then the government would have to reimburse the property owner the difference. Prop. 90 is by far the worst measure on this year’s ballot; in fact, it’s the worst measure to come along in quite some time. It’s a plot by right-wingers to gut the ability of government at any level to force businesses and property owners to accept even basic standards of behavior in the name of the public good. The measure hasn’t gotten a whole lot of media attention, but defeating it should be a top priority for every decent Californian. (September 19, 2006 By Ted Gullicksen OPINION)
Prop. 90 hammer can’t fine-tune law LIKE many initiatives before it, Proposition 90 – an effort to fix problems with eminent domain after the Supreme Court’s controversial Kelo vs. New London ruling – applies the sledgehammer treatment when just a tightening of the screws would do fine. It’s unfortunate when a legitimate problem in search of a straightforward solution is hijacked by an overzealous, misguided and costly agenda. But that’s exactly what’s happened with Proposition 90. The potential for abuse is so widespread, it’s almost impossible to quantify the bottom line for taxpayers. We hope we never have to find out just how costly it really is. Californians deserve protection from eminent-domain abuses, but Proposition 90 would create far more problems than it purports to solve. It deserves to be soundly rejected by voters on Nov. 7. BY BOB SCOTT, Guest Columnist Los Angeles Daily News 10/04/2006
Web of advocacy groups funnels millions to pass property rights initiative Today, a front page investigative report by San Francisco Chronicle reporter Patrick Hoge exposes the complicated and shady web of out-of-state organizations bankrolling the campaign in support of Proposition 90. Hardly a grassroots movement, the Chronicle reveals Yes on 90 is bankrolled by a network of tax-exempt advocacy groups that “operate with varying levels of openness” and all with ties to New York real estate mogul Howie Rich, who “is funneling millions of dollars to the (Prop. 90) campaign… in a way that cloaks the identity and number of financial supporters.” A number of political-finance and watchdog organizations are quoted in the Chronicle article using terms such as: “deceptive“, “secretive“, “smells bad“, “money-laundering scheme” and “dirty”.Patrick Hoge, Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, October 5, 2006
Prop. 90 is by far the worst measure on this year’s ballot; in fact, it’s the worst measure to come along in quite some time. It’s a plot by right-wingers to gut the ability of government at any level to force businesses and property owners to accept even basic standards of behavior in the name of the public good. The measure hasn’t gotten a whole lot of media attention, but defeating it should be a top priority for every decent Californian. SFBG
Prop. 90 really says little about eminent domain..
Housing for seniors and low-income individuals would be jeopardized because all rent control ornances, condominium conversion limits, mobile home park protections, and affordable housing requirements will be too costly to implement. Noprop90.com
Don’t be fooled by Prop. 90, an anti-environment stealth measure passed off as a ‘protect your home’ initiative.
Prop.90, backed by right wing nut jobs, is supposed to undo the terrible Kelo decision made by the Supreme Court which allows cities to use eminent domain for private purposes. But the cure of Proposition 90 is worse than the disease the Court inflicted upon us.
Prop. 90 doesn’t just undo Kelo, it creates a whole new set of consequences that would abolish the ability to protect our coastline, open space, farmland, air and water quality and will cost taxpayers billions of dollars in lawsuits and fund payouts to wealthy land owners and developers.
In fact, the prospect of another four years of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger isn’t the scariest thing (on the November ballot). That designation is reserved for Proposition 90.
CoMO-CAL’s Last Word on Prop 90
We Can’t Afford to Ignore the Fine Print – Vote No on 90
As advocates for mobile home owners across the State of California, we realize the disastrous consequences if Proposition 90 passes. Future rent stabilization ordinances would be unconstitutional, and rent control, presently protecting mobile home owners in about one hundred cities and nine counties, would be at risk as well as other protections we enjoy today. The passage of Proposition 90 could result in many seniors and low income families losing their homes. Ultimately one million mobile home owners could lose billions in equity overnight and others could face millions more in higher rents.
And the hidden agenda has other far reaching affects. Take a look at Oregon’s Measure 37 passed last year and the over 2200 claims seeking over $5 billion dollars in compensation. We simply can not ignore the fine print. Let’s curb eminent domain, but let’s have some patience and wait for an initiative WE CAN ALL SUPPORT. Vote NO on 90.
They insist homeowners already are protected from such government intervention, noting that local redevelopment agencies are prohibited from using eminent domain to take private homes. (by Frank Wodley, CoMO-CAL. Comment published in Sacramento Bee against article: Another View: Yes on 90: Eminent domain must be curbed By Doug LaMalfa – Special to the Bee Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, September 30, 2006
PLEASE VOTE THIS NOVEMBER 7TH & VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 90