All FlashReport readers should take a few minutes to read this correspondence below from State Senator Tom McClintock (see the .pdf version here). This letter recognizes an important reality — that that a coalition of groups led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and others has raised the necessary funds and is currently qualifying a ballot measure for next year to provide California property owners with the necessary rights to so that they can fight-off unfair "takings" via eminent domain. This is significant because the redevelopment industry is trying to twist GOP arms to get a fake fix (ACA 8) on the ballot via legislative vote (which takes a 2/3 vote of each chamber) to try and STOP the real eminent domain reform bill currently being qualified for the ballot… The good news — GOP legislators aren’t buckling under their pressure.
Dear California Republican,
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Kelo v. New London case more than two years ago, over 40 states have passed some form of eminent domain reform.
Since California has not passed meaningful reforms, it comes as no surprise that the Institute for Justice, the non-profit organization that litigated the Kelo case, reports that the seizing of private property from unwilling sellers is on the rise in California.
According to the Center for Responsible Government, the League of California Cities and other redevelopment interests have spent more money to defeat eminent domain reforms in California than in the other 49 states combined! They spent over $13 million to defeat Prop. 90 last year and this does not account for the millions also spent on an army of capitol lobbyists.
Our private property rights have never been at greater risk and the Democratically controlled State Legislature fails to act!
I know first hand. Both Assemblywoman Mimi Walters and I have introduced legislation that prohibits government from profiting by seizing homes and small businesses for retail and commercial developments that benefit wealthy and political donors. Needless to say, our efforts to reform eminent domain abuse are opposed by the Democratic majority and redevelopment interests that favor a system that fosters abuse.
The only bill that has been given any consideration is ACA 8 (Assemblyman De La Torre), a Democratic proposal drafted by the League of California Cities that affords different levels of so-called constitutional protections to different types of properties and includes so many exemptions that private property rights experts such as the Institute for Justice call the bill “flawed” and the Pacific Legal Foundation calls it “meaningless.”
While efforts to provide real reform through the legislature appear bleak, we are fortunate that an eminent domain reform ballot measure, sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights will appear on the June 2008 ballot.
I am pleased to support the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act and let me tell you why;
- Private property may not be taken by eminent domain for private use under any circumstances (i.e. to build a shopping center, auto mall or industrial park).
- Property may be taken by eminent domain only for public use (i.e. freeway construction, parks, schools).
- Property may not be taken by government and used for the same purposes (i.e. residential housing cannot be used for government housing).
- Family farms and open space are protected from seizures by government for the purpose of selling the natural resources.
- If a public agency takes property under false pretenses, or abandons its plans, the property must be offered for sale to the original owner at the price at the time of the taking and the property tax would be assessed at the value of the property when it was originally condemned.
- If farmers or business owners are evicted by eminent domain, they would be entitled to compensation for temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business reestablishment costs and other reasonable expenses.
- Government may not set the price at which property owners sell or lease their property. However, tenants who live in rent-regulated communities will continue to receive the benefit of those regulations as long as they live in their apartments or mobile homes.
- And lastly, this ballot measure was carefully and narrowly crafted to ensure fair and equal private property protections without including regulatory takings provisions that opponents of Prop. 90 claimed threatened legitimate public projects, land use decisions and the environment.
I am writing you because I have submitted a resolution at September’s California Republican Convention that calls on our Party to endorse the “California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act.” I also urge you to support two other resolutions submitted by Assemblywoman Mimi Walters and former Senator Jim Nielsen opposing ACA 8, as well as a related ballot measure currently being circulated by the League. Both measures are intended to undermine the Jarvis ballot measure — by denying all property fair and equal protections.
While it is clear that Democrats have abandoned groups that they profess to represent, such as the poor and defenseless, for the League of California Cities and other powerful development interests, Republicans have not and will not.
The Republican Party has always championed private property rights, as intended by our Nation’s Founding Fathers. With your support at the upcoming California Republican Convention, we will reaffirm our commitment to the American Dream – homeownership and the security of private property rights.
Sincerely,
Tom McClintock
California State Senator
PS: Please join me in supporting the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act resolution by returning the enclosed form and requesting a petition too. For more information on the eminent domain reform ballot measure, visit www.yesonpropertyrights.com.
Again, you can download a .pdf of Senator McClintock’s letter here.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.