If you like the TV ads with the hucksters prodding you to "But wait there’s more, act now and we’ll send you double of our very valuable product", then you’ll love Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 8 of the 2007-2008 session, known in more normal English as ACA 8.
This is yet another Capitol Trojan Horse, this one to try to fool voters into voting for "protection" from eminent domain takings for, in the bill, an ever-narrowing group of property owners in California. Senator Battin eloquently opined on this earlier, see his post too.
Some background:
June 2005, the US Supreme Court hands down it’s Kelo vs. New London CT decision, allowing that eminent domain has morphed from what the Founders had intended for the narrow and reluctant use of EmDo only for true public works projects that must go through private land, a road, a dam, etc. to upholding the use of EmDo to take any land for the development of a higher property tax or use tax base than what had been generated on that land currently, conferring that land to another private party.
So, a local government entity can at their whim implement their ‘new vision’ for your land. "We don’t like your auto repair shop here, we want more desirable boutiques and coffee houses. We don’t care that you’ve been here 3 generations and 50 years, that you pay your taxes and keep your place spiffed up, we have a new vision to redevelop this 20 square block area and you ain’t in it…you are blight and you are out of here. But hey, we’ll give you up to 125% of what we think market value for your new blight is worth now, maybe even help relocate you to a more ‘appropriate’ area And you can spend your life and, just like us in Government, your unlimited resources trying to fight us in court to get what you think it’s worth…that’s OK, we’ll wait!"
Yeah, sounds like the land of the free I grew up in and the definition of EmDo I learned in school.
Fortunately, if anything good happened in the SCOTUS decision, [besides nationally highlighting these ripoffs for the mainstream public to notice instead of just victims and their neighbors] it allowed states to set their own level of eminent domain protection or, like here in CA so far, do nothing. Many other states have done so.
July 2005, Senator McClintock introduces SCA 15 and I introduce it’s companion on the Assembly side, ACA 22. We both seek and obtain most Republican legislators and several Democrats, in what should be a non-partisan view of protecting all property rights from abusive EmDo. One of these bills, whichever passed through both houses by a 2/3, would place before voters as required the question of whether to enshrine these protections in our state Constitution, a simple Kelo fix, disallowing the private to private transfer via EmDo, restricting to true public works projects.
August 2005, the legislature returns from a 30 day summer recess, ready to resume it’s legislative work until September adjourment for the year. A funny thing happened to this bi-partisan reform minded attitude during the 30 days away. Dems started peeling off the bills, requesting removal from co-authorship. Evidently, officials in local government and redevelopment agencies persuaded/reminded members, many who had come from local government to get their mind right
about this needed tool. Sometimes we need this tool to "best start gettin your blighted dirt off Boss Gubment’s yard." This attitude adjustment succeeded in stopping even a hearing on SCA 15/ACA22 until several months later where they were both whacked in committee on party line votes.
November 2006, Proposition 90, championed by Assemblywoman Mimi Walters, who also carried a legislative attempt to reel in EmDo abuse, attempts to reform land takings including compensating owners when government changes your usage of your land to a lesser zoning and lower value because of it. 90 as well, attempted to stop abusive EmDo takings. Local government entities thru the League of Cities and the California Redevelopment Assn. viciously oppose 90 and some of the ‘good guys’, those that need permits and rights of way from them, are "persuaded" to help defeat 90…even enlisting known champions of liberty and property rights like Robert Redford to join the cacophony to defeat 90. After a 10-1 ratio spent against 90, it is defeated by a narrow 52-48%
2007, ACA 2, a "straight Kelo fix" asked for by the anti-90 folks is introduced by Mimi Walters, still to be heard in committee in the Assembly.
ACA 8, the alternative that only applies in some cases to single family homes and may or may not at this point apply to businesses under 25 employees is pushed forward. It has already been heard and passed through the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Left out of protected properties in ACA 8 above: Everything else.
Farm land-we’re told it’s protected already…ask the Conaway Ranch how protected they were, amongst others
Churchs and church property- "Uh, it’s too hard to define what a church is." How about erring on the side of freedom to own land instead of defining which religion is recognized by the &$#@! state as acceptable for protection?
Houses- It was clever to try and appeal to the vast majority of voting landowners, homeowners, by espousing homes for protection but then disallowing heirs to those homes from protection or other incidental needs for that land.
Businesses-Don’t you dare grow beyond 25 employees or there could be a D-10 bulldozer in your front window’s future.
The suspects backing/behind this measure? Why again, The League of Cities and the California Redevelopment Assn. and their local arms are for it or have their fingerprints on this measure.
Our mission is to make sure that some sympathetic Assembly Republicans, even ones that have seen the wondrous things redevelopment has done while serving in local government, do not get weak-kneed and give this sham a 2/3 vote and an easy ride onto next years ballot. Make ’em hire Rosie O’Donnell or somebody to make their case for them instead!