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: proposition r