CA Props 98 and 99 - A Theraputic Rant

[Danoff]

The Backstory

Recently, the US supreme court, in one of the worst decisions in recent history, granted local governments the ability to seize property under eminent domain for the purposes of giving that property to another private entity. They were authorized to do this under the notion that it was in the general welfare of the community. This opened up eminent domain to all kinds of abuses. If someone wasn't doing the maximum good for the community with their property, suddenly the local government could seize that property and give it to someone who promised to do more good for the community with it - unamerican in the extreme.

Props 98 and 99

Many state governments have gone about fixing this little loophole in the law opened up by the supremes. This last round of voting saw many state laws that fixed this abuse of eminent domain. California had two such propositions.

Prop 98 - Restricted eminent domain on businesses and personal property, including abolishing rent control (though, not without grandfathering existing rent control beneficiaries) - which is related to eminent domain.

Prop 99 - Restricted eminent domain on single-family dwellings.

Prop 98 was backed by business. Prop 99 was backed by lawmakers. Both propositions accused the other of being a sham and a bad idea. My question is this - How can someone in good conscience vote for a legal exemption for such a narrow portion of the population. Single-family dwellings?? So it's ok if small businesses are gobbled up and given to other small businesses that have better local government ties or promise to pay higher local taxes?

Guess which proposition passed.

Prop 99 passed, and it's incredibly short-sighted. People vote so narrowly, for their own self-interest. As long as they're covered, they just don't seem to care a bit how right the law is or whether justice is being done to their neighbors. I guess that's what I should expect, and we need to devise some sort of system that takes that into account - but it still impresses me from time to time. I'm relatively certain that it was the rent control provision that killed 98, but rent control is one of the worse legal abuses of private property that exists, and it works in almost nobody's favor.

Lots of people to be upset with on this one. The supremes, lawmakers locally, short-sighted voters.... anyway, I felt the need to rant. What did you think? Did you notice any of this going on in your state? If you don't live in America, I doubt you even heard the outrage about the initial supreme court ruling. If so, what are the rules on government property seizure in your country?

 

[Pupik]

My brain popped a few fuses and toasted a few wires the first time I heard this (It was also 3am when I typed it.):
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1727434#post1727434

The way you summed up Proposition 98 and 99, they both seem really vague. Florida modified the eminent domain laws for private residences very quickly after a lot of complaints, although quite honestly, I'm not 100% sure how the change affected me other than a case of state's rights trumping federal laws.

 

[Danoff]

Prop 98 - http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/98_06_2008.aspx

This measure amends the State Constitution to (1) constrain state and local governments’ authority to take private property and (2) phase out rent control. The measure also might constrain government’s authority to implement certain other programs and laws, such as mandatory inclusionary housing programs and tenant relocation benefits. The measure’s provisions apply to all governmental agencies.

Taking Property
The measure prohibits government from taking ownership of property to transfer it to a private party—such as a person, business, or nonprofit organization. In addition, government could not take property to use it for (1) a purpose substantially similar to how the private owner used it (such as public operation of a water or electricity delivery system formerly owned by a private company) or (2) the purpose of consuming its natural resources (such as its oil or minerals). These restrictions on government’s authority to take property also would apply to cases when government transfers the right to use or occupy property (but does not take ownership of it). None of these restrictions would apply, however, if government was addressing a public nuisance or criminal activity or as part of a state of emergency declared by the Governor.
Under the measure, government could continue to take property for facilities that it would own and use, such as new schools, roads, parks, and public facilities. Government could not take property for one purpose, however, and then use it for a different purpose unless it offered to sell the property back to its previous owner.

Property Owner Challenges
If a property owner challenged government’s authority to use eminent domain, the measure directs the court to exercise its independent judgment and not defer to the findings of the government agency. In addition, property owners could challenge government’s right to take the property even if they accepted funds that government deposited as part of an accelerated eminent domain action.

Property Owner Compensation
The measure contains provisions that would increase the amount of compensation provided to property owners. For example, property owners would be entitled to reimbursement for all business relocation costs, which could exceed the maximum amounts specified under current law. In addition, property owners would be entitled to compensation for their attorney costs if the property owner was successful in an eminent domain challenge.

Prop 99 - http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/99_06_2008.aspx

Summary
This constitutional amendment limits state and local government’s use of eminent domain in certain circumstances. Specifically, the measure prohibits government from using eminent domain to take a single-family home (including a condominium) for the purpose of transferring it to another private party (such as a person, business, or association).
This prohibition, however, would not apply if government was taking the home to:

• Protect public health and safety.
• Prevent serious, repeated criminal activity.
• Respond to an emergency.
• Remedy environmental contamination that posed a threat to public health and safety.
• Use the property for a public work, such as a toll road or airport operated by a private party.

In addition, the prohibition would not apply if the property owner did not live in the home or had lived there for less than a year.

 

[Omnis]

Danoff, why couldn't both pass?

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, why couldn't both pass?

I think they could have, though it was unlikely because the summaries for each prop instructed you not to vote for the other. As a result, most people probably voted for one and not the other.

 

[Duke]

And, on a tangential note:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday [12 June] that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are protected by the Constitution and can appeal their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In a 5 to 4 ruling, the court also said that the Bush administration's system for classifying detainees as enemy combatants does not meet basic legal standards.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." He was joined by the court's four more liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Note the names, here. This is the exact same gang that brought us the Eminent Domain fiasco just a few short years ago. So now, suddenly, the Constitution is a holy, inviolable thing that needs to be held in sacred honor? What a complete crock of crap.

In other words, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, people who actually OWN something (and therefore have something to loot) have no rights, but the people who would loot (or destroy) DO have rights?

Utterly pathetic. I'm thinking of half a dozen new uses for Giles's time Machine as we speak. And they wouldn't be pretty.

 

[Pupik]

If anything, Prop 99 looks like more of a loophole, rather than a law, compared to Prop 98.

So if I didn't own my home for more than a year, it can still be transferred to another private entity...What kind of arbitrary BS is that?

I'll echo Omnis...why couldn't both pass?