Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association shares some OUTSTANDING NEWS with FlashReport readers this Sunday morning…
Prop. 98 – State Superior Court Rules in Favor of California Property Owners
- Court finds No Merit to Opposition Arguments and
- Confirms that Primary Purpose of Proposition 98 is Eminent Domain Reform
On Friday, proponents of private property rights such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and a coalition of business and faith based groups were awarded a great victory in California’s State Superior Court.
For the past few months Proposition 98, a statewide ballot measure that will bring an end to the abusive practice of forcible seizing private property from property owners who don’t want to sell their homes and businesses to wealthy and political connected developers, has come under attack principally by those who benefit from California’s abusive eminent domain practices, the League of California Cities and its coalition of redevelopment interests.
Even though Prop. 98 is far more limited in scope than Prop. 90, an eminent domain ballot measure that was narrowly in 2006, opponents of reform have affectionately nicknamed Prop. 98 the “Son of Prop. 90,” alleging all sorts of unintended consequences associated with protecting your private property rights.
By rejecting the League’s legal challenge to Prop. 98’s title and ballot summary that will appear in California voter guides, the court simply didn’t buy the Doomsday scenario dreamed up by the California League of Cities and its anti private property rights coalition.
“The court rejected the attempt by opponents of Proposition 98 to characterize the initiative as merely a ‘rent control’ measure. Finding their claims to be ‘without merit,’ the court went on to hold that the ‘chief’ purpose of this measure is to constrain government’s authority to take property by eminent domain. It naturally follows that much of the statement of the measure’s purpose should relate to eminent domain,” said Prop. 98 legal counsel Thomas W. Hiltachk.
“The judge also rejected the attempt by opponents to include a false claim that Proposition 98 would have ‘far reaching’ impacts on land use regulations, finding their arguments to be unpersuasive,” said Hiltachk. “Interestingly, opponents of Proposition 98 did not attempt to assert the prior false claims they have made publicly regarding water storage and conveyance projects.”
The court ruling confirmed that Prop. 98 does not include any so-called regulatory takings provisions that require compensation to property owners for any and all financial damages to their property. One of the many false arguments opponents of reform made against Prop. 98 was that the measure would limit land use decisions by making them too costly for public agencies to afford. The court’s conclusion is also supported by the State’s ballot summary that says that Prop. 98’s net fiscal effects “probably would not be significant.”
Property owners throughout California should be pleased that the court supported our view that Prop. 98 provides real and sensible private property protections without infringing on government’s ability to use eminent domain for legitimate public projects that convey water or protect the environment. Our measure’s eminent domain provisions simply limit government’s ability to forcibly seize private property from those who don’t want to sell to wealthy and politically connected redevelopment interests. No more, no less.
Moreover, proponents of Prop. 98 also celebrated the fact that the lawsuit never challenged the State of California for not including any language in the ballot’s title and summary supporting the opposition’s contention that Prop. 98 would somehow limit government’s ability to use eminent domain for water projects. This assertion has been rejected by the State Legislative Analyst’s Office, water and private property experts and California’s farming community.
“Clearly, opponents of private property rights did not want to test their false claim in court. Prop. 98 does not prohibit the use of eminent domain to build public water projects. Their decision not to test this political scare tactic in the court room really puts the water issue to rest,” said California Farm Bureau Federation President Doug Mosebar. “Water supply and conveyance are critical issues for farmers. This ballot measure protects farmland and the water critical to California’s food supply. This is why we are strong proponents of Prop. 98.”
Since the pro eminent domain coalition of public agency associations and developers can no longer claim that Prop. 98 threatens local land use decisions or water projects, be assured that it is only matter of time for their dream up some other reason why voters should forfeit their private property rights.
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.