Proposition 90, the Protect Our Homes initiative, has earned the endorsement of the Redding Record-Searchlight, one of the largest newspapers north of the Sac Bee. The opening thought in their endorsement editorial said,
"Should a city be able to seize property through eminent domain simply because a rich developer has a nifty idea for the land? Most freedom loving Americans would answer no….
Despite all the deceptive ‘sky is falling’ rhetoric about taxpayer traps and not being able to build any infrastructure in California, Prop 90 still soldiers on strongly in polling and in the hearts and minds of regular folks. Of course, the goal of Prop 90 is to limit eminent domain takings as a last resort to appropriate uses, such as infrastructure projects that the public truly benefits from, not eliminate it entirely.
Of course that isn’t what you hear from the land grabbers or the folks in local governments that are coerced into spouting the line for them, nor the business groups whose dollars are flowing into the opposition campaign at the coercion of local entities that grant them pemits for building the projects they need to get done…plus all the usual environmental extremist groups these people now find themselves in bed with.
"We won’t be able to build a school or a fire station." Oh please, no wonder people don’t like election season or believe campaign ads.
"It’ll make it difficult to get projects done." So, it should be easy to take a home, farm or small business from someone by the vote of 3 current city council members or county supervisors for the visions they have for what you own?
"It’ll cost taxpayers money that could be used for ______." [fill in blank for whatever taxpayer priority scare government usually holds hostage, police, roads, in order to extract new sales, property, utility taxes or bond borrowing from citizens still scratching their heads thinking they were already paying for those priorities] As it is now, government can use its power to devalue property via zoning or declaring it open space, a park, or shop for species they can declare endangered, then pick it up cheap when you can no longer make a living farming it…or whatever the purpose was that caused you to purchase it at a value higher before than what it is now worth after the whim of government waves its magic wand over it and declares it as something else.
The Record-Searchlight goes on to say about the opponents assertions:
"We don’t buy the doomsaying. Proposition 90 doesn’t apply to existing laws, and it explicitly exempts laws related to health and safety, as well as actions taken during an emergency."
So, some may say, "Oh, so what, thats just some right wing paper from way up there where everybody has a gun rack and a NASCAR sticker on their truck." [Two very good things really]
Actually, the R-S endorses a spectrum of people and issues, some I agree with, or as in the endorsement of Mr. Garamendi, some I don’t.
The issue here is Prop 90 puts the protection back on the side of the people, shifting it away from the whim of government. This pendulum has been due for swinging back for along time, just ask the farmer who was nearly jailed for plowing his land as always when a Kangaroo Rat had moved in. The bar needs to be raised for the burden of proof that government must use to seize or change the status of private property, not on the backs of some individual using their life savings and limited resources against the mighty power and open checkbook of their government masters.
If the project in question is so great, then it will be easy for the electeds to justify the cost and taking to the taxpaying citizens, no?
"…when a new law such as an abrupt zoning change saps all the value from a piece of property, it is only fair for the public to compensate the owner. …the costs are the same either way, the question is whether the public or unlucky landowners bear them."
Exactly.