Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Monday, October 23, 2006

Mayor Sam Prop. 90 Forum...Public Input Needed Here

ZD is putting his "yes" on Prop. 90 position on hold, pending further public vetting here on Mayor Sam's blog.

With politicians denying public input, these days, on important issues like AB 1381 (LAUSD/Mayoral Bill) and Prop. R (City Council Term Extentions), blogs are becoming the forum for such issue oriented debate.

After posting my "Yes" on Prop. 90 position, I read a blogger comment under the story, that caused me to do some further investigation. Bottom line, so far: Neither side has presented the slam dunk I am looking for in response to opposing points.

The "no" people, even those who admit we need Eminant Domain reform, now, bring to my attention that Prop. 90 goes too far. In the example where (due to a recent Supreme Court decision) under Prop. 90, if the City refuses to allow a property owner to build a new condo (or anything else), the property owner could sue the City for denying them the right to do buisness. (I'm paraphrasing, but LA Times did the story on this that the "no" on Prop. 90 people refer to.)

The "yes" people would like to remind you that The State of California and The Mayor of Los Angeles are the biggest abusers of Eminant Domain in the United States of America. It's one thing to make the claim because we need a new school, library, highway, post office or whatever. But it's another thing when you take the land (and business) away from a three generation family to build a "special interest" development project, that has nothing to do with spirit in with ED was created.

So here is the official "'No' on Prop. 90" link and post comments on either side of the issue. http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop90/argue_rebutt90.html

Labels:

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

My mantra is Follow The Money..

If it shows that the proposition is being funded by out of state developers, I would tend to vote NO.

And I'll be damned, look at Prop 90 - funded by a wealthy real estate developer from New York.

October 23, 2006 2:26 PM  

Anonymous Captain Jack Sparrow said:

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen (removes hat and bows with flourish):

Zuma lad, did you read a post on an earlier thread about Measure R and Prop 90? I did. I have to give credit to Mrs. Newman on that one. Page 94 indeed. Good form Mrs. Newman, you have your wits about you. Sots, we have your page number, savvy?

Now that the Mayor is ensconced once again in the ivory tower, I would be curious as to whether or not his minions read this particular blog. Can the sots see past the end of their noses or are someone's teeth in the way?

I agree with 2:26pm, follow the money. The players are the same, perhaps you have heard of them? Padilla. DeLeon. Romero. Cedillo. Nunez. Villabarbosa. Romero, although the wench surprised me with her campaign expenditure limits. I suppose that the IEC took care of things in the meanwhile.

Two weeks to go, and PADILLA, NUNEZ, ROMERO, DELEON, CEDILLO AND ONE SOT WILL WALK THE PLANK. The rest walk in March.

October 23, 2006 10:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Thank You Zuma Dog. This definitely needs researching.

The money leads back to Grover Norquist.

The intention is to knock down all of the land use and environmental laws countrywide so wealthy developers can build where and what they want without oversight.

It is similar to the Neo-Cons manipulating the BLM lands taking them from the citizens and placing them on the market for their logging, mining, grazing, and drilling friends.

October 23, 2006 10:09 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The sheepeople will never suspect that they are being led to slaughter, so the originators of this Proposition 90 believe.

Thanks for warning us before we find ourselves a rack of lamb on Grover Norquist's silver dinner platter.

October 23, 2006 10:20 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

PROP 90 WILL MAKE IT VERY EXPENSIVE FOR DEVELOPERS AND THIER LAP DOG COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM TAKING HOMES FROM LITTLE OLD LADIES ON FIXED INCOME. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR REVENUE ENHANCEMENT SCHEMES!!!!!!!!!JOE FROM EAST L.A. SAID SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

October 23, 2006 11:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

October 23, 2006 2:26 PM

Prop 90 is the Private Property Owner "BOSTON TEA PARTY" over out of control goverment, activist judges, attempt to dismantle Private Property Rights. Imagen some old Grandma with property in a area of town who was being force to sell her property back to the goverment for some development that had been giving money to the local political hole. The Surpreme Court crossed the line in the Conn. case where they rule thet ENIMENT DOMAIN could be use by goverment to transfare property from one private property owner to another who could create more tax base. Give that power to "HIS POLLONESS" in Los Angeles?? WATCH OUT!!! "YES ON PROP 90"!!!

October 24, 2006 8:41 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

October 23, 2006 2:26 PM

Prop 90 is the Private Property Owner "BOSTON TEA PARTY" over out of control goverment, activist judges, attempt to dismantle Private Property Rights. Imagen some old Grandma with property in a area of town who was being force to sell her property back to the goverment for some development that had been giving money to the local political hole. The Surpreme Court crossed the line in the Conn. case where they rule thet ENIMENT DOMAIN could be use by goverment to transfare property from one private property owner to another who could create more tax base. Give that power to "HIS POLLONESS" in Los Angeles?? WATCH OUT!!! "YES ON PROP 90"!!!

October 24, 2006 8:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If you think that Prop 90 is going to be helpful in stopping the use of eminent domain to take private property for private purpose, you'd better think again.

The sheep's clothing is the eminent domain, but the wolf hiding inside is the developers wet dream.

For the whole scoop on this ripoff, go to one or all of the following: environmentaldefensefund.org, actforchange.org, couragecampaign.org, or call No on 90/Californians Against the Taxpayer Trap at (415) 634-6871.

October 25, 2006 12:04 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Under the guise of reversing the Supreme Court's decision to allow the use of Eminent Domain to obtain private property for private purpose, Proposition 90 which has been placed on California ballots for November 7, 2006, is actually an attempt at the highest national level to give developers a means of decimating both land use and environmental laws.

Proposition 90 would devastate the protections for our natural resources including water quality and wildlife habitat by allowing anyone to sue our government agencies under the claim that new land use, environmental, or public health laws would diminish the value of their property or business. It would be taxpayers who inevitably would have to pay these claims.

City, county and state governments would be forever restrained from enacting or enforcing the most basic protections for our air and water quality. They would be completely hampered in restricting land use and protecting wildlife habitat. Proposition 90 is a radical right-wing "takings" proposal that would allow any number of people to sue if they believe that government actions have compromised any of their possible future profits.

Proposition 90 would take the risk out of land speculation and lead to the ravishing of our environment. There would no longer be any avenue to protect our watershed, stop off-shore drilling, or save old growth forests. For more information go to one or all of the following: environmentaldefensefund.org, actforchange.org, couragecampaign.org
or call NO ON 90/CALIFORNIANS AGAINST THE TAXPAYER TRAP at (415) 634-6871.

Elaine Brown
Sunland, CA

October 25, 2006 12:38 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FYI

Walter Moore and City Planning Director, Gail Goldberg, both recommend No votes on Proposition 90.

October 26, 2006 12:14 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If you just want to look at the money: Just look at both campaigns: The Yes side is being outspent almost 5 to 1. You can tell that by the fact that all ads and fliers are giving just the No side. The core opponents to Prop 90 are developers and bond firms who are pushing for upzoning. Go ahead and vote No if you are unsure, but make sure that you have your facts straight.

I encourage that you to vote on Tuesday even if you decide against Proposition 90.

A Yes vote on Proposition 90 will reform the use of Eminent Domain by restoring the original meaning of property ownership, fundamental due process, and re-establishing equality without raising costs to tax payers or hindering development.

Proposition 90 will also protect non-property owners such as tenants, small businesses with leases, and their employees who are also forced out when Eminent Domain is used by local government in the context of Private Development.

Property ownership is a core fundamental right both in the US and California Constitutions. But like any core Constitutional right or legal protection, the real beneficiaries are those least able to afford legal representation and those without political influence.

The basic enforcement of these rights helps to somewhat level the playing field between the privileged and politically connected and those with less. It also establishes confidence and predictability that makes our economy work.

Without this enforcement, we wind up with a reverse Robin Hood where the government intervenes to confiscate property without permission of the owner and transfer it over to another private owner with more money. It is counterintuitive to any sense of Justice and Equality and is ripe for corruption.

KELO v. NEW LONDON, CT
Assoc Justice Sandra Day O’Connor pointed out this very fact in her dissenting opinion on the Case of Kelo v. New London:

“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.”

Proposition 90 is very simple. It is a little over one page long. I encourage you to read for yourself both the actual language of the Proposition and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissenting opinion in the Kelo case.

FOLLOWING THE MONEY
The core opponents of Proposition 90, the CA League of Cities , the California Redevelopment Association, and their Platinum partners the development community (Developers, Bond Firms, Consultants, and Builders) have followed the play book from the “Wizard of Oz” and have put out some very honorable groups as their face of the opposition and have provided them with talking points.

The Yes on 90 side is being out spent 5 to 1 as is by only side being heard in TV, radio ads, and money. The main seed money for the Yes side came from Howard Rich who has no real estae assets in California.

I would like to address some issues raised during the debate on Proposition 90.


OPPONENTS CLAIM THAT REFORM IS NEEDED BUT ARE ON RECORD TO OPPOSING ANY REFORM MEASURES
The opponents to Prop 90 claim that the use of Eminent Domain for Private transfers needs reform, but that Prop 90 goes too far. This is quite hypocritical and disingenuous because the CA League of Cities is on record opposing each and every Eminent Domain reform measure proposed at the State level including by Democrats Kehoe and Torlakson. Kehoe proposed tightening up the definition of blight and that was weakened by the CA League of Cites. The CA League of Cities and the California Redevelopment also sided with the City of New London against homeowner Susette Kelo when the City sought to transfer her property so that housing and commercial property could be built to support Pfizer Pharmaceutical.

MEAURE 37 (OREGON 2004) FALSE CLAIMS OF PAYOUTS:
The opponents refer to a law passed in Oregon in 2004 called Measure 37. They say that it cost Oregon taxpayers millions and extrapolate the costs based on population to California saying that Prop 90 will very costly to California tax payers. However the opponents left out several important facts:

1. Even though hundreds of claims were filed, it never resulted in payouts according to Bob Stern from the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Governmental Studies and was featured on KCET’s Life and Times coverage of Prop 90.(2) Mr. Stern also said that based on his analysis, Proposition 90 would not cost tax payers money.

2. Proposition 90 is different from Measure 37 in that Prop 90 is prospective, not retroactive. No claim has been filed to any zone changes made after the passage of Measure 37 in Oregon.

GOVERNMENT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR PUBLIC USE
RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY
Under current California Redevelopment law, there is presumptive conclusion that the government is right even when a Redevelopment zone is twenty years old and the area is booming. This defies the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution which provides basic Due Process protections.

Why shouldn’t innocent property and small business owners be afforded that same legal protection that is granted to those accused of violent crimes? A trial by a jury of your peers and the burden of proof being on the government, not the accused is a basic right in all other parts of the law. After all, the only crime that a small business or homeowner committed was being in the way of a wealthy developer.

IF THE PROPERTY CEASES TO BE USED FOR THE STATED PUBLIC USE, THE FORMER OWNER SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REACQUIRE THE PROPERTY FROM THE GOVERNMENT FOR FAIR MARKET VALUE
This addresses a real world situation that recently occurred in South Los Angeles. Vaughan Benz is a furniture manufacturer that was forced by the city to sell its property to make way for an animal shelter, only to see the city propose instead to sell the site to a competing furniture maker.(1)

NARROWS THE MEANING OF PUBLIC USE. PROHIBITS TAKINGS EXPECTED TO RESULT IN TRANFERS TO NON-GOVERNMENTAL OWNERS ON A ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR TAX REVENUE ENHANCEMENT GROUNDS…
This is the direct Eminent Domain Reform that corrects existing California Redevelopment Law and addresses issues raised in the Kelo decision as described in Assoc Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion.

GRANDFATHERING, FAIRNESS, AND THE REAL WORLD
The idea of grandfathering is a well established and makes the process fair and stable for the small property and business owner. Ironically, the core opponents of Proposition 90, the California League of Cities and the Development Community are pushing for “up-zoning” throughout the State to absorb predications of increased population.

PROPOSITION 90 HAS PROTECTIONS FOR THE TAXPAYER AND THE GOVERNMENT
Proposition 90 specifically allows for the Public Use of eminent domain. It also allows for health and safety exemptions. Proposition 90 will be interpreted by the California State Legislature, which will prevent any of the "chicken little" scenarios that are described by the opponents.

IMPORTANT SUPPORTERS OF PROPOSITION 90
The Black Chamber of Commerce.
League of United Latin American Citizens, Region 7 (Long Beach)
National Federation of Independent Business (Small business group with 600,000 members)

November 05, 2006 6:24 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement