California Politrix
a walk on the *mumblfrle* side
This November Californians will vote on whether or not we get to keep our property rights. It’s a simple as that.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The California Constitution states that “Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation… has first been paid to… the owner.” [Article 1; Section 19]
However a recent decision by the United States Supreme court [Kelo vs New London] changed this. In her dissent to that decision, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote:
Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. ...
[This decision] holds that the [government] may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use, so long as the new use is predicted to generate some secondary benefit for the public—such as increased tax revenue, more jobs, maybe even aesthetic pleasure.
... who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. ...
What can the citizens do in the face of increasing judicial legislation? We can use the initiative process here in California to change the law to protect the citizens and follow the Constitution. This is the goal of Prop 90.
√Prop 90 prohibits the government from taking your property to give to another private person or business.
√Prop 90 prohibits the government from taking your property without giving just compensation or fair market value.
√Prop 90 prohibits the government from taking your property by damaging its value, for example by a change in zoning laws or restriction of its use due to “environmental” reasons, without giving just compensation based on fair market value. ["regulatory actions"]
√Prop 90 stops the government from taking your home simply because they want higher tax revenues.
The American Dream has always been based on the right to own property. To own your own home and make it your castle is the Dream that built this nation and has kept it strong. Private property creates for the individual an atmosphere in which he is free of the state and sets limits to the operation of the authoritarian will.
Opponents are using every one of the stock scare tactics to ‘oppose’ Prop 90: it will raise taxes [if citizens let their government take property randomly, yes], it will hurt the economy [by allowing people to feel secure in their private property?], it is poorly written [what law is perfectly written?], it will cause lawyers to file expensive suits [what doesn’t?].
Why are businesses—those we would expect to be most in favor of protecting their private property—pouring money into the campaign against Prop 90? Lenin once said that businessmen would sell the hangman the rope he used to hang them. It may have something to do with that. Look closely at those businesses and organizations who have donated money to defeat Prop 90; banks, realtors, and large property managers all stand to benefit from “takings” of private property which transfer ownership through or to their businesses.
The California Chamber of Commerce complains that Prop 90 will cost the taxpayers money. You can bet it will—if the taxpayers allow their government to take private property with uncontrolled and irrational abandon. The goal of Prop 90 is to ensure that property is taken only for direct public use; ie, schools, roads, utilities and the like—not for secondary public benefit such as increased tax revenue, jobs, unsubstantiated environmental regulation or aesthetic pleasure.
Vote YES on Prop 90.
Sounds like Prop 90 just says, “You know that amendment to the California Constitution - well, we really mean it.”
I don’t suppose there’s any point asking why we should have to say that.
Speaking of propositions: why in blazes are Bill Clinton and Al Gore doing commercials for Prop 87? Have they just moved here or something?
Sounds like Prop 87 says, “Let’s get those nasty old oil companies out of California”.
That way, we can all drive to Arizona for a fill-up.
Posted by ZZMike on 10/17/06 at 11:17 AM
Next entry: New Levels
Previous entry: Damfine Question!
