The new Datamar poll(PDF) came out today. Now, my traditional Datamar caveat: I think it's full of crap. It continues to show Mountjoy only trailing Feinstein by 11 points at 50-39, Field gives her a 57-29 lead. And Datamar has Arnold with a lead slightly less than twenty points. The day that a Democratic gubenatorial candidate gets about a third of the vote will be a cold, cold day in hell. (Or, well, a bizarre three way race or something like that.)
Datamar has some serious issues on its statewide polling. Here's my hypothesis:Datamar has a terrible likely voter screen that works really, really well for San Diego County, and probably the OC. It works really poorly once you get out of those GOP enclaves. For this poll, their breakdown along party lines was 39% Dem, 41% Rep, 10% DTS, and 9% other. My word, that's some ridiculous breakdowns. More Republicans than Democrats? Sorry, I call BS on that one. Here's a more reasonable breakdown for this state from PPIC's September statewide survey: 43 D, 35 R, 20 DTS, 2 Other. I'm sorry, but you have to question the validity of a poll that has more Reps in California than Dems. Additionally, where are these 9% others that Datamar has? Are they loading up on American Independent Party or something?
But, Datamar polled all of the propositions as well. It has most of them failing, except for a couple of the bonds, Jessica's Law, and well, Prop 90. (That's probably not totally right, you should double check the PDF if you're interested in a particular prop). According to Datamar, Prop 90 is ahead 56-30. That's a huge lead. Now, the No on 90 Campaign has been largely ignored by the media, and can frequently be mistaken for a good idea. An idea that just limits how we do eminent domain. It's not...check out this guest editorial against Prop 90. I'll boil it down, instead of Prop 90 being a way to stop developers from taking your land, it's a way to let developers do whatever they damn well please.
Now, the question that was asked was this:
Proposition 90 is the Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property Initiative . It will prohibit state and local governments from condemning private property for other private uses. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 90?
The ballot description is this:
Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects or uses. Limits government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and 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.
So, how exactly is Datamar's question represnetative of what the voters will be reading when they see this question? The answer is, of course, that it isn't. As far as I'm concerned the Datamar poll is about as reliable as a poll in San Francisco is for the entire state. Now, don't get me wrong, I think Angelides is substantially behind, and I don't completely reject the theory that Prop 90 is ahead out of hand. I think it's very reasonable to take as a working hypothesis that 90 is ahead. It's probably good to motivate all the forces that are opposed to this terrible initiative. One can only hope that the media will be spilling more ink opining against this worm of an initiative. As far as I'm concerned, the defeat of 90 is up there with the election of Debra Bowen as SoS in terms of importance to our democracy.
However, you can't ask this type of question and expect to get any type of reasonable answer.
So, needless to say, this poll will not make it into my Poll HQ now or in the future. Upon the next edit to the poll HQ, I will remove all references to Datamar polls. They are fatally flawed.
This comes from a friend of a friend. He is an attorney who has far more knowledge of this area of law than I have. As of right now, I'm not sure what attribution I can give him, so I present it anonymously.
Decades ago, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., warned that "government hardly could go on" if the public had to pay compensation for every change in the law that "diminished" the value of private property. Unfortunately, government paralysis is what California may get if Proposition 90 passes this fall.
While Proposition 90's proponents sell it as a simple measure to prevent governments from abusing the power of eminent domain (also known as condemnation), in reality it could stymie public plans to reduce pollution, protect neighborhoods, preserve open space and guarantee coastal access. Buried deep in the measure's text (in subdivision (b)(8) of the proposed amendment) is a radical change to the California Constitution.
Proposition 90 would newly provide that governments "damage" private property, and have to pay compensation, whenever their rules and regulations "result in substantial economic loss" to the property owners. Constitutional law already recognizes that a regulation can require compensation if it "goes too far," in Justice Holmes's words. Currently, though, compensation is typically required only if the regulation makes the property economically valueless or defeats the owner's vested development rights. Proposition 90 would go much further, making the public pay even if a regulated property retains most of its value and even if the owner's hopes for more lucrative development were purely speculative.
Two anti-eminent domain leaders, Mayor Charles Antos of Seal Beach and Mayor Don Webb of Newport Beach, have spoke out against Prop 90.
Antos – like many city officials – believes that if the statewide Proposition 90 passes in November, it will spell the end of local control over land-use issues. So he helped rush through the ban in hopes of dodging a lesser-known element of Prop. 90, which is primarily touted for protecting property owners from cities abusing the use of eminent domain to take land.
"It would be a nightmare for the cities," Antos says of passage of the initiative.
{snip}
But Prop. 90's effort to extend property rights beyond the issue of eminent domain has attracted opposition from unexpected quarters – beyond council members like Antos and Webb.
The California Taxpayers' Association, which typically tries to restrict government's reach, opposes Prop. 90. Even the Republican leader of the state Senate, Irvine's Dick Ackerman, opposes it.
"I think you can put my property-rights record up against anyone's, but this goes too far," said Ackerman. "Sometimes down zoning can be abused, but sometimes it's needed."(OC Register 10/9/06)
Republicans are bailing faster than rats from the Titanic. Why? Oh didn't you read the article? It's just bad policy. As Ackerman said, sometimes we need downzoning. To give up control of our land-use policy is just a bad idea.
When Tom McClintock was trying to get his eminent domain initiative qualified for the ballot, he had quite a bit of problems. You see, nobody really cared enough about the issue to give any money to support a signature drive. And certainly nobody cared about this enough to volunteer time to get signatures. From Tom's mouth:
"They were able to raise the money to qualify their initiative. I was not," says McClintock, who has endorsed Proposition 90. "I learned during the car-tax initiative that if you don't have the money lined up before the signature gathering, you shouldn't start." (CapWeekly 7/13/06)
So you see, nobody was really willing to pile in the money for an eminent domain initiative. And McClintock's eminent domain init didn't even carry all the baggage that Prop 90 carries. You see, Howie Rich goes for the gusto. When he plops down his millions, he makes sure that we really put it to the government. A little water-boarding for the Capitol and all.
But that's not all the shady back-room dealings on Prop 90. You see, not all that money that Howard Rich is donating to the cause of Prop 90 is his own money. He funnels money through a vast array of shady tax havens, 527s and other organizations.
The man at the center of this national effort is Howie Rich, a wealthy libertarian who believes in limited government and has long used tax-exempt groups to promote his favored candidates and political beliefs -- property rights, term limits, tax cuts and school vouchers, among others.
The practice of using tax-exempt groups to fund campaigns has been criticized by some political-finance experts as opaque and deceptive. Unlike other political organizations, advocacy groups don't have to disclose their donors.
In interviews and e-mails to The Chronicle, Rich said the groups help protect people who think like him, people who want to cut government powers but fear retribution if their names are published in public campaign-finance disclosure reports.(SF Chronicle 10/05/06)
Retribution? Um, yeah, Howie Rich is really terrified of retribution. What they are terrified about is people discovering just who is paying to manipulate our governance. The fact is that this proposition is funded almost exclusively by people who don't live in the state. The people of California do not want this taxpayer trap, but these "libretarians" insist on foisting this wretched proposition upon us.
No way, not here. We've seen what's happened elsewhere. This is a bad, bad law.
The California Courage Campaign has launched our fall campaign to oppose the Bush agenda on the ballot in California this November in the form of several propositions. Our Stop Bush in CA page is an excellent resource for information regarding the initiatives on which we're taking stands:
No on 85Yes on 86Yes on 87Yes on 89No on 90.
We've also just launched a letter to the editor writing campaign to get the word out in the media that Proposition 90 is unacceptable and needs to be opposed. Please join the effort by going HERE and using our user-friendly webtools, complete with talking points, to send an LTE today.
I'm also going to be keeping tabs on all the proposition news in my weekly (or perhaps more frequent, as needed) "Prop Watch."
Join me for all the latest proposition news over the flip.
Prop 90, the so-called "Protect Our Homes" Act, aims to curtail the use of eminent domain in the state of California. The problem is that Prop 90 goes much further than that. In today's SF Chronicle, Ray King, a Montana columnist rips the initiative to shreds. Let's go issue by issue on the flip:
(A repost to fix some formatting. - promoted by SFBrianCL)
I'll start with the good news. Prop 87, the alternative energy and oil tax initiative, is way ahead right now. It leads 52-31 right now, including 58% support from decline to state voters. If that number remains in that ballpark, 87 has a great shot at passing.
Prop 87 is an interesting initiative. I'll be doing a longer post on it in the near future, but as a former Texan, it boggles my mind that the state keeps so little of its mineral revenues. The entire University system in Texas was built off those revenues, but somehow California didn't jump on that train. Personally, I would prefer that those revenues be given to the general fund rather than a specific purpose. Alternative energy is great (and I just posted on that last week), but the state needs all the revenue it can get. It would be the best to let that money into the general fund and then hash out details in the normal budget process (if it really can ever be called normal).
The cigarette tax initiave, Prop 86, is up 63-32. I'm not sure how I feel about this one. I like the purposes it goes to, but I'm just concerned over whether this law would violate the terms of the tobacco settlement. I would prefer that the state avoid another bout of massive litigation if possible. The no voters on this ballot seem to be smokers, as they are the only demographic rejecting it right now (72-31).
Unsuprisingly, Jessica's law, Prop 83, is passing overwhelmingly, 76-11. I'm not sure that we really need a ballot initiative on this, mainly because most of the issues in the law were already addressed by Jackie Speier's law on sex offenders. But, you can see why Angelides was almost forced by popular will to support this bill.
The Anti-choice initiative, Prop 85, is currently trailing, but just barely. It looks like there will be another battle. These people will never give up, no matter how many times the people of this state say that we don't want these anti-choice laws here. Phil Angelides has denounced the initiative. I haven't seen anything official from Schwarzenegger, but he supported last year's nearly identical Prop 73.
And finally, Prop 90 has a plurality of support as well. It currently leads 46-31, but right now it has a 42-32 lead amongst Democrats. Once the message goes out about how bad Prop 90 is, the No tally will increase quickly.
Incidentally, it's important to note that the no tally generally increases as the election draws near. Voters are usually drawn towards the status quo (typically No), so expect to see some drift there. Last June's Prop 82 was a good example of this, it started off quite strong, but inertia (and a blitz of advertising) overcame its initial approval.
These numbers will soon appear on the flip and in the Poll HQ.
Peter Schrag has a great column in today's Bee about Prop 90. It articulates the real problem with the initiative, which is that it goes too far:
In fact, if you look at the politics of Proposition 90 from a distance, it looks a lot like Proposition 13. Like Proposition 13, it starts with a legitimate worry -- also about homeownership -- and ends with a sledgehammer remedy. It's a Pandora's box of trouble.
***
California law requires that only blighted properties can be condemned, but that hasn't kept some redevelopment agencies from seizing good homes and small businesses in the search for new development that will yield higher tax returns. As Proposition 90 supporters point out, "blight is a broad term." The law, as even League of California Cities Executive Director Chris McKenzie concedes, needs fixing.
***
But Proposition 90 isn't just about eminent domain. Buried in it are "takings" booby traps that throw into question a wide array of future regulations, zoning decisions and other actions that "result in substantial loss to private property." The initiative allows regulation to protect public health and safety, but says nothing about protecting the environment or public welfare. It also says that if private property is taken "for any proprietary government purpose … the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property if such use results in a higher value for the land taken." That appears to mean that slumlords must be compensated not at the value of the condemned housing, but at the value of the property under the convention center or affordable housing units that replace it. Nor could a city turn the housing over to a private agency -- say a church or social organization -- even if such an agency was a more efficient operator of the project. Even backers of Proposition 90 concede that there'll be plenty of litigation to clarify the ambiguities and apparent contradictions in the law.
***
But will the initiatives really put voters "back in charge," ...? Or will it be lawyers, slumlords, speculators and polluters? (SacBee 7/19/06)
Not much else to say. The article is worthy of your time in its entirety as well. Prop 90, however, is not.
The No on Prop 90 campaign is just getting going, and a Coalition List is now available on their nascent web site. The Coalition includes some big names such as the California League of Cities, the Police and Fire Chiefs Associations, the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense.
Prop 90 would restrict city and state governments from efficiently acting to protect the character of their cities, to require green development, or to limit development. Environmental restrictions would become prohibatively expensive for either the state or municipalites. Our days of environmental leadership would be in jeopardy. Or, as the League of Cities puts it:
As a result, Prop. 90 would lead to thousands of expensive lawsuits that would tie up our courts and result in added bureaucracy and red tape. The cost of these lawsuits and payouts would rob local communities of billions of dollars in limited resources that fund fire and police protection, paramedic response, schools, traffic congestion relief and other vital services. That's why the CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, and CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION oppose Prop. 90.
PROP. 90 would trap taxpayers in a LOSE-LOSE situation. If communities act to protect their quality of life, taxpayers could be forced to make huge payouts. Or, if communities couldn't afford the payouts, basic quality-of-life protections simply couldn't be enacted. That's why conservation groups, including the CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS and the PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, warn the measure would drastically limit our ability to protect California's coastline, open spaces, farmland, air and water quality. (League of Citie)
This iniative would be an enormously expensive proposition for the taxpayers of California that would end up primarily benefiting large developers. It is a bad idea for the state of California.
Have you ever heard of Howard Rich? Well, consider yourself on notice. Howard Rich is waging a war on the government, via the "Save Our Homes" initiative. Shane Goldmacher has the story:
Through a web of organizations, Rich is backing eminent-domain initiatives in Arizona, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma and Washington with $4 million--though no state has received as much financial support as California. In each of these efforts, Rich himself is never disclosed as a major donor. Instead, he steers his contributions through nonprofit intermediaries, such as the Fund for Democracy, which he is using to finance California's Proposition 90 campaign.
"I think California often leads the nation," says Rich. "It is the largest, most populous state and it is very important to us that property rights be restored there."
But the influx of out-of-state money pushing measures to amend state constitutions across the country has angered many local activists.
"They are backed by an organization that is chaired by a New York real estate developer and that makes you wonder who is going to benefit," says Aaron Toso, spokesman for the campaign against Washington's eminent-domain measure. "Obviously if people don't live here they wont have to pay the extra taxes and sit in the extra traffic."
Here in California, opponents of the eminent-domain initiative are also accusing Rich of pushing his unwanted, out-of-state agenda on the state's voters.
"The fact that this one guy from New York, an out-of-state multimillionaire, has decided, 'I know what's best for the nation and I am going to tell all the state's how to do things right' … that's offensive," says No on 90 spokeswoman Kathy Fairbanks.(Capitol Weekly 7/13/06)
These out-of-staters come into California because we are such a leader in the initiative process, for better or worse. If California falls victim to Prop 90, you can bet similar initiatives will be all over the nation. And Prop 90 is merely using the Kelo decision for cover. It is far more insidious. The "damage" provision in Prop 90 would prevent zoning and any environmental regulation at the state or local level. Of all the initiatives, it is most important that Prop 90 be defeated. Its effects would be felt immediately and permanently in much the same way we still feel the devestation of Prop 13.
