You may or may not remember Howard Rich, but I have had many opportunities to grow to despise the man. He seemingly funds every bad government deform proposition on our ballot. He funded the term limits measure back in the 90s, and still heads US Term Limits. Oh, and despite the fact that he doesn't even live in California, he provided almost all of the funds to get Prop 90 on the ballot. That measure, you may recall, would have required that the state pay for any little regulation of property in the state.
Well, Howie Rich has a new fun activity: harassing Democratic donors by accusing them of the murky charge of "voter fraud." Matt Stoller acquired a copy of the letter, which you will find over the flip.
The part that is most interesting to me is that this comes from the guy who won't reveal the donors to US Term Limits, despite the fact that the body gave $1.5 million to fight Prop 93, citing privacy or other such nonsense. I suppose it is ok for him to threaten donors, but not the other way around.
Of course, Rich can't actually do anything legally to these donors, but he is probably doing a fair job of scaring a few donors away.
Way back in 2006, I wrote about Proposition 90. Remember how I said that was going to be terrible for the environment? Well, it's as if the Hidden Agendas Scheme folks are trying to one up that. According to a new legal analysis by Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger (a good environmental and land use law firm), the Hidden Agendas Scheme has some real potential to mess with California's environmental regulations. You can get the complete report at the CA League of Conservation Voters Education Fund website here (look in the lower left corner).
Basically, Shute Mihaly issued an opinion that the CPOFPA would negatively impact the implementation of AB 32, CEQA, smart growth regulations and other environmental regulations and possibly be more restrictive than last year's dangerous Prop90. Here's a key quote:
[T]he initiative prohibits regulations affecting the use of real property that are enacted 'in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.' Put simply, nearly all regulation provides an economic benefit to some private person. Accordingly, although the initiative is ambiguous in several significant areas, a court could interpret it to restrict a host of environmental and land use regulations that would be plainly legitimate under existing law. (SMW report (PDF) 12.10.07)
Rack up another bullet point on the Hidden Agenda. The fact is that the Hidden Agendas Scheme is a poorly drafted piece of legislation, and it's impossible to really see how far this can be stretched by overzealous landlords and property owners when they are facing the possibility of common sense regulation. We know about rent control. We know about the myriad of additional headaches this could bring to the water storage debate. Now we know about the possible negative effects to the environment. That's quite a hidden agenda they've got going on.
A tremendous environmental coalition has been assembled to oppose this Hidden Agendas Scheme with members like the Cal League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club CA, the NRDC and many others. To put this bluntly, there can be no possible benefit to the environment from this initiative, but there could be a huge downside for the California's environment just as we are making progress on the legislative front.
And when you add this to the end of rent control that is embodied in this Hidden Agendas Scheme, it is imperative that we make sure this initiative is defeated. This initiative would "amend the California Constitution to add a regulatory takings provision that would allow a property owner to sue to obtain compensation for, and/or to invalidate, regulation that imposes costs on the owner, regardless of whether the regulated activity is a nuisance, a threat to public health or safety, or harmful to the environment." (SMW report (PDF)) We can get REAL eminent domain reform with the Homeowner's Protection Act, without all the baggage of these Hidden Agendas.
Well, it looks like it's going to happen. The Right wingers aren't ones to give up just because they got rebuffed once. They're at it again, and, if you believe them, they've got the signatures to get on the ballot:
Today, Californians for Property Rights Protection announced that the campaign has collected well over 700,000 signatures needed to qualify the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act for the June 2008 ballot. In order to qualify the eminent domain reform ballot measure, supporters must collect 694,354 valid signatures by November 26, 2007. The campaign is on track to submit more than 1 million signatures before this deadline. Link here
More on this proposition over the flip and why this is, yet again, a trojan horse.
Before election time rolls around? Aww, that's unfortunate, because Prop 90 was so much fun for folks of all ages!
Anyway, the SacBee found a few teensy-weensy errors (h/t to the CA Majority Report ) in the draft of the initiative. Well, ok, really big errors. Namely the initiative, sponsored in part by the Farm Bureau, would make it darn tough to start new water storage projects.
In short, the CPOFPA would make it illegal to use eminent domain to acquire land and water to develop public water projects. That's right: the Farm Bureau -- a major proponent of water storage and supply -- is bankrolling an initiative that would effectively make it impossible to develop any new water projects in the state (visit the website of the coalition promoting Assemblyman De La Torre's honest eminent domain reforms for a fact sheet on the issue). It's hard to imagine they would do this intentionally, so one has to assume it is the mother of all drafting errors.
GOP Senator Dave Cogdill told the Bee: "As I read it, there's certainly reason for concern for what it means for the future of water projects in California, especially as it pertains to new water storage." (CA Majority Report )
I tell you what, the "eminent domain" people, who keep trying to slip other provisions into their initiatives, are pretty much the bad news bears of initiative reform. Every possible mistake happens. But, we all make mistakes, right term limit reformers?
Bars state/local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects, uses. Limits government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental, workplace laws/regulations. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual government costs to pay property owners for losses to their property associated with new laws and rules, and for property acquisitions. These costs are unknown, but potentially significant on a statewide basis.
vs.
New real reform description:
Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property for private uses. Prohibits rent control and similar measures. Prohibits deference to government in property rights cases. Defines “just compensation.” Requires an award of attorneys fees and costs if a property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by the government. Requires government to offer to original owner of condemned property the right to repurchase property at condemned price when property is put to substantially different use than was publicly stated. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased costs to many governments due to the measure’s restrictions. The fiscal effect on most governments probably would not be significant.
Yesterday I put up a Quickie about a eminent domain reform proposal brought to the floor by Asm. Hector De La Torre linking to the "Californians for Eminent Domain Reform" website. I was going to do a whole post, but other things came up and it never happened. But, this is a good idea, politically.
For some reason, the wingers have themselves all frenzied up over eminent domain and are prepared to spend heavily on it (see Prop 90). But that's not even the worst part, it's that the wingers think that eminent domain is their way to attack a number of other progressive causes (again, see Prop 90). Follow me over the flippio for some additional background and details of the current proposal...
I told you I'd be back bright and early! Well, all in all, a pretty good night. So, let's get to some results:
Yes, Arnold won. But the only thing he proved is that the Democratic vision for this state is alive and well. By co-opting our platform, Arnold showed that the Republican vision for this state is just not one that we are prepared to deal with.
CA-11: Jerry won! Ding-dong the environmental witch is dead. Congratulations, this was really a victory for the netroots, a victory for ethics, and a victory for the environment.
Arnold's coattails were non-existent, well, unless you can add Poizner's $15million of his own money to those tails. The GOP took only the two statewide races, Gov and InsComm, and they were resoundigly defeated elsewhere.
CA-LtG: McClintock's name ID wasn't sufficient to propel him over the top and John Garamendi will be our next lite gov. I know this position is essentially powerless, but would you really want McClintock to have gubenatorial powers when Arnold leaves the state? Or to give him any further platform? Me neither.
CA-SoS: Woohoo! Debra Bowen won!!! Finally, somebody will address the issues of electoral integrity from the SoS office. Bowen will be a phenomenal SoS. You've done a good job, California.
CA-Controller: All that money that Intuit and the Indian gaming interests dumped into IEs for Strickland were completely unsuccessful. Chiang won this one going away. Again, he'll do a great job.
The less competitive races: As expected Jerry Brown defeated Pooch and Lockyer defeated the repo'd man. Both were far better than their scary competition.
CA-InsComm: Well, Poizner was right, we cruzed, we losed. Next time, we'll get some better candidates. However, in the interim, Poizner is now primed to run for governor, the position he wanted anyway. It's time to start branding him the way we want.
DiFi won. Oh look, we have our "independent" senator back. We missed our shot to push her back to the left by running a primary challenger, but I think we learned a lesson from CA-36, where Marcy Winograd forced Jane Harman to pay attention to her consitituents. Perhaps that's a lesson that some other Congress people should pay attention to
Right now it looks like Lynn Daucher(R) won by 13 votes in SD-34. Yes, thirteen. Currently the tally stands at 38,666 for Correa and 38,679 for Daucher. There will be a recount for sure and a thorough counting of all ballots and a check for provisionals. There was a lot of dirtiness in the OC's elections, so this one is far from over.
Props: Well paint me stupid. I thought that some of the bonds would go down, but it looks like they all came through easily. Hmm, well, I was wrong. It happens sometimes when you go out on a limb, but Arnold and the DemGang went all out in the last two weeks and that seems to have worked. However, Props 85 and 90 were both defeated. Yay! Maybe they will stop trying to put that stupid parental notification on the ballot again and again. But I doubt it. This time it was beaten more soundly receiving only 45.9%,as compared to 47.2 last year.
We barely squeaked by on Prop 90. Whew!! That was way too close for comfort at 47.4% Yes. We'll need to address paid signature gathering soon. I'm really sick of the Howie Rich's of the world coming here and trying to mess with our system.
Props 86-89 all failed. The forces against them, Big Tobacco, Big Oil, the monied special interests and well I don't know about 88, but they just got wiped out by the TV ads. They obfusicate the issue and hope people will just vote no. It worked this time. Next time we're going to work just as hard. Particularly, Clean Money and the Alternative Energy/Oil Tax were good ideas. You haven't heard the last of them.
A few weeks ago I wrote about a poll that showed that Oregonians would really like to be rid of their Prop 90-type measure, Measure 37. Last week, the No on 90 folks released a series of videos of people in Oregon who are now dealing with the ramifications. These videos detail stories of people who are trying to fight developers, and losing due to the effects of Measure 37.
This will be a short one. I know it's a busy weekend. Go out and rustle up some votes!
Teasers: Field Poll on the infratstructure bonds, Arnold using another corporate slush fund, Prop 90 divisiveness, and more!
The Clock is ticking, there's tons of stuff going on, and I'm sick. Yuck. But what can you do? So, teasers: POLLS on the props, Clinton across California, Charlie Brown stands up to Doolittle, Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken lots of special interest money, and The OC GOP is F'd, seriously, f'd up.
Prop 90, which was recently publicly rejected by Arnold Schwarzenegger, uses the name "Protect Our Homes". Well, so a good question would be: How many homes have been taken by eminent domain? Well, here are some answers to that question:
Bay Area governments have very rarely used powers of eminent domain to seize private homes and turn them over to developers over the last decade, according to a Chronicle survey of every local agency that does such projects.
Only two owner-occupied homes have been acquired by governments using eminent domain for redevelopment over the last 10 years, local officials reported. Officials razed one to build an apartment complex in Concord and the other to help make room for a new downtown in Pleasant Hill.
{snip}
The Chronicle's survey findings mirror the results of a recent California Redevelopment Association survey of most of the state's 386 redevelopment agencies. It found that between 2000 and the end of 2004, eminent domain was initiated in the purchase of 28 owner-occupied homes.
Of course, the No on 90 spokesman, Kevin Spillane, says that those numbers are all lies. You know, because the government always lies and stuff. The fact is that "Protect Our Homes" will do nothing of the sort. Rather it will protect developers as they want to pillage our open spaces as they have done in Oregon, where the voters now want to rid themselves of this albatross. In Portland, the city planners are desperately trying to protect the open space around the city.
It seems Arnold Schwarzenegger has gotten one right (from SF Chronicle Blog, h/t EFSully). Today Arnold has sent a letter to the media stating his opposition of Proposition 90. It seems it dawned on him that there is an election a week from today and perhaps he should look at the ballot.
The full text of the letter is on the flip, but suffice it to say that he finally came to the conclusion that Prop 90 would make implimentation of Don Perata's bond package impossible. It would create massive loopholes that would decimate environmental litigation and create massive giveaways for land speculators.
For once, Arnold got it right. But hey, don't think I'm going soft here Arnie. Why don't you take a look at what jessica's law really says, and then get back to me about whether that's a good idea. You know, like your special election "good ideas".
First, my condolences to the family of Assemblywoman Karen Bass (D-LA), who lost her daughter and son-in-law in a car accident on the 405. The family will be in our thoughts. No good segway here, sorry.
Teasers: Arnold Schwarzenegger's staff living large on the lobbyist dime, Prop 90, Jessica's law makes us less safe, Crazy Tom McClintock, the CCPOA, and more!
There are a few propositions that have been so seriously damaging to governance in California, that is exceedingly important to defeat them. We have failed on some of these, with disastrous consequences. For evidence, look no further than Prop 13. Prop 90 is a stealth assault no just against land use regulation, but against all economic regulation in the state. I'll try not to get too lawyer-like, but feel free to ask questions in the comments.
Do I exaggerate? I don't think so. Prop 90 is not strictly limited land use, but is broadly defined to require compensation for any damage to "real property". The full text can be found here. Could this be defined strictly as to include only land? yeah, it could. However, real property could be defined to include stuff, or to include businesses. If interpreted in this manner, we will never again have legislation such as minimum wage increases, etc.
But even given a tighter interpretation, there are serious flaws in Prop 90's general premise. Again, the law is unclear, but it applies to any regulations that "damage" real property. There is a grandfather clause for previous laws, and proponents argue that anything done to further purposes of past laws are exempt. However, doesn't that really beg a question of fact that will require judicial intervention? What furthers the purpose, and what goes too far?
Who are the winners of this? Well, lawyers, but beyond that, developers. Agencies do not have the resources to fight every battle. They will have to settle at some point. What has happened in Oregon with the similar Measure 37 (which they now hate), is that the state agencies end up waiving the application of the law. It is not clear that California can do that, so will we end up in court every time? Or will the vigilance of agencies just rapidly decline. Do we really want either?
But the issue for which there is no question: No further environmental legislation taht affects land could be passed. No more progressive environmental agenda. Gone, not in California. We will lose our position as a world leader in confronting environmental issues.
Two more issues of which you should be aware: First, California's land use planning is pathetically out of date. Unless all of those plans are updated in the next week, we will be stuck with these planning schemes. Forever. A suburb grows in a former agricultural area? Too bad for you if your neighbor decides to build a cow feed lot next door. The municipality will have no power to stop it. Zoning will be dead.
Finally, Prop 90 would defeat the purpose of Don Perata's infrastructure bonds that the Governor is supporting. The valuation scheme under Prop 90 would make building new roads ridiculously expensive. The new pricing scheme would require the state to include the value of the improvements upon the land in the price the government will pay. In other words, our money will go to the pockets of land speculators, not into building roads. Arnold Schwarzenegger, are you listening?
If you support infrastructure improvements, including the Perata bonds, then you must also oppose Prop 90. It will devastate our land-use planning and leave us with third world infrastructure. This is not a plan for economic growth; it is a recipe for disaster. Reject Prop 90, the Trojan Horse for Developers.
The SF Examiner had another No on Prop 90, this time from the typically annoying Ken Garcia.
Few measures display the beauty and the scariness of California’s much-abused initiative process quite like Proposition 90, a slithering regulatory mess disguised as a sunny plan to protect property owners.
{snip}
Rather than addressing the concerns raised in the Connecticut case, the proponents of Prop. 90 instead decided to stand reason on its head and redefine property rights in such a way that it could be a multibillion-dollar headache for state taxpayers.
And that’s just one of the eminently bad aspects of the initiative, which would negatively impact cities and counties throughout the state by limiting redevelopment in blighted areas.
Under the proposed measure, property owners would be allowed to sue for almost any action government takes that does not fall within a narrow band excluding public health and safety.
So that's like, hundreds of editorials against Prop 90, and a couple of editorials from the OC Register in favor. As Garcia said: Prop 90 is a Bad idea.
A new poll (PDF) has been released by the Defenders of Wildlife that indicates that Oregonians regert passing Measure 37, a very similar measure to Prop 90.
If an election were held today and voters had the opportunity to redo the vote on Measure 37, Oregon voters would now reject Measure 37 by a wide margin (48 percent no to only 29 percent yes), and the margin is even wider among voters who have heard a lot about it (66 percent to 26 percent);
• Oregon voters now have an unfavorable view of Measure 37 (45 percent unfavorable to only 27 percent favorable) and believe that it has generally been bad for Oregon
I'm running a bit behind, so it will be a bit short today. Teasers: Willie is for...Willie, John Chiang needs our help, A Dependent Judiciary, Prop 90, and a mock vote.
Exactly 2 weeks left. The CA-LtG debate was yesterday, and you can view it at CBS5.com here. Unlike the controller debate, this is well...dirty. McClintock goes on the attack on his Executive Life Hooey and then scares us all:
McClintock, who has served in the Legislature for 20 years, said the state would benefit from a look back to the 1950s when roads were less crowded, water was so plentiful many cities didn't meter it, and public schools were the best in the country. He called for the lieutenant governor's office to be "an idea factory'' that would help make government more efficient. (SF Chron 10/24)
Yikes, but I'm pretty sure I don't want his kind of ideas (no minimum wage, no choice, no equality, and well...no government). The best part is McClintock thinking that somehow the fifties are going to come back. He complains that people are leaving the state, and then complains that the roads are too crowded and we have too little water. Well, Tom, you can't have it both ways. Growth means crowded freeways or paying for new ones. Which are you planning to support? Well, you aren't supporting the bonds, so I'm thinking that you'll have to stick with crowded freeways. No Tom, we really don't need your backwards ideas.
Let's move. Teasers: GOP freaking out, Prop 87 as a rallying point, Prop 90 is getting too little attention, The Gav, and The Levees
Another week closer to the election. We are now only 15 days away from it now. Teasers: Prop 86, Props in general, Prop 90, Debra Bowen, Money, prop 85 and Latino voters, Gary Miller and Arnold Schwarzenegger is a politician...shocker!!
Robert Redford sent out an email to Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) supporters with a strong anti-Prop 90 message:
Prop 90 is the single most dangerous threat that has ever been leveled at our state's environment. As a native and long-time resident of California, I don't say that lightly.
Prop 90 will make it virtually impossible for our state and local governments to do their job of protecting the wildlife, wild lands and other natural resources that make California the special place that it is.
