The Orange County Register is pretty despondent about Californians rejecting Prop 98, a deceptive little scheme using eminent domain as a stalking horse for the installation of a totally new system of property rights. A system where ownership is absolute and sacrosanct, the needs of the community be damned. In the end, Californians rejected this ruse by about 61% of the vote. So, the Register thinks you are an idiot, as they pretty much tell you with this headline:
"Editorial: Voters give away some of their rights"
Now, the Register isn't your garden variety, James Dobsian, Right-wing paper. It's "libertarian" in a Grover Norquist kind of way; they'd pretty much love to see the Orange County staff consist entirely of 3 cops and a security fence to keep the poor people away from the rich ones. They rarely editorialize in favor of propositions, as to the Register, all government action is bad. Every so often they get behind one, typically one that would gimp government some how. Prop 98 was right up their alley.
And boy did you make a bad decision. The Gum-a-ment is going to take all of your stuff! Boogy, Boogy, Boogy.
Expect cities to become particularly aggressive in using these police powers in ways detailed in the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision. Don't say we didn't warn you.
The problem with this analysis? Kelo has been in effect since 2005, and the number of eminent domain proceedings hasn't skyrocketed. We haven't been just steamrolled with gentrification across the landscape and people wailing and gnashing their teeth. The truth is that eminent domain is very rarely invoked. Statistics are a bit murky because typically these issues are resolved through settlements, but the number of eminent domain incidents is so low as to be statistically insignificant.
The Register will whine about now that they know they've won on 99, cities will run amok. But they have no evidence or reason to suggest that, when boiled down, all you find is naked supposition.
Now, stoopit voters, would you please quit voting so we can get back to the business of plundering the state?
Proposition 98 claims to be about eminent domain and protecting the little people. But here at Calitics, we have reason to question the motives of Jon Coupal and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association. And once again, they are trying to hoodwink California voters.
Proposition 98 eliminates rent control and other renter protections, making living in California's cities out of reach for a greater percentage of our population. Prop 98 would also make protecting California's environment even harder than it is presently. The effects on governance, the environment, and tenants are simply disastrous. NO on 98.
Prop 99 is not ideal, but it is tolerable. It simply blocks the use of eminent domain to transfer owner-occupied homes to private developers. Nothing fancy, but it does have a nice provision that overrules Prop 98 if it gets one more vote. It also has the potential to do the state a great favor by removing the issue of eminent domain from the ballot. YES on 99.
Governor Schwarzenegger has once again abandoned his radical friends on the right, and boy are they pissed. But, here's his remarks on Proposition 98, the constitutional amendment to end rent control, land use restrictions, and governmental regulation of the environment. Arnold opposes it mostly because it blocks him from building dams.
Schwarzenegger said he was opposing Proposition 98 in part because it might block the building of water projects crucial to farmers and residential users.
"Eminent domain is an issue worth addressing," Schwarzenegger said in a prepared statement. "However Proposition 98 would undermine California's ability to improve our infrastructure, including our water delivery and storage." (SacBee 4/25/08)
Apparently the potential harm to tenants was a little lower down on his list. But with this Governor, you take what you can get. He's opposed to Prop 98, and that's a good thing.
The LA Daily News takes a look at some of the people that could be harmed by Prop 98's odious landlord power grab. This isn't just some hypothetical, but real people living here in California. People will be forced to leave the cities and head out to the exurbs or out of state. For example:
He's a disabled Vietnam veteran. She's a retired teacher who spends most of her pension on health insurance.
Arnie and Marilyn Bernstein are among an estimated 1million Angelenos with a rent-controlled apartment.
But if voters kill rent control in a June ballot measure, the Bernsteins say, their monthly payment would jump from $876 to $1,300 - a 48 percent increase.
"We couldn't afford another apartment," said Marilyn Bernstein, 62, of Canoga Park, who has lived in the one-bedroom unit for 21 years. "We'd be living under a bridge - like `Tent City, here we come.' The possibility of lifting rent control would be devastating."
Emphasis my own. The fact is that while this is permanent vacancy decontrol, the rent control ends when the tenant moves out, Prop 98 makes it a heck of a lot easier to do evictions. Tenants are generally in a lot worse place if Prop 98 passes. So, Jon Coupal, head of the local Destroy Gummamint Set (HJTA), has to defend this turdblossom. Let's see what he comes up with. Ah, yes, he lies.
"It doesn't make it easier to evict anybody," Coupal said. "All the protections under existing law remain in effect. Only when that unit is vacated can anybody raise rents. We actually take the existing protections against evictions and make them part of the California Constitution."
Naysayers insist, however, that the landlord-backed measure would essentially end rent control in California.
Oh, those naysayers, always coming in with their facts and messing up your spin. You can read the proposition on the Yes 98 site. Look at Section 3, the part that would be grafted onto the California constitution. Do you see tenant protectsions there? Not so much. In fact the only time the word "tenant" is mentioned comes in the Sec. 5, where it eliminates rent control.
In reality, Prop 98 slashes into the heart of tenant protections. It is a dangerous ruse to use the issue of eminent domain to dramatically increase property rights in a way that was never envisioned in the past.
The Yes on Prop 98 folks have launched what I think might go down as one of the most melodramatic ads ever. It starts with a couple of kids, who we are made to believe who are siblings who have been ruthlessly forced to move by the big, bad "gummamint" through their evil eminent domain. They'll never get to see their friends again! Too bad the ad is entirely misleading.
Unfortunately, they didn't get to talk to the kids of renters who will be forced to move when the landlords who funded this measure kick them and their families out of their apartments. To the children who will be pushed out of California's major cities because rent control is ended and eviction protections are obliterated. Apparently, only kids whose parents own a house matter.
Of course, relatively few homes (typically on the order of a few dozen in the state per year) are actually purchased through the use of eminent domain. Furthermore the vast majority of these incidents involve public uses of the land, roads, fire stations, that kind of thing. But the truth was never really an obstacle the right-wingers cared much about.
But the tide is clearly turning against the Landlords power grab. Even Republicans, like former Governor Pete Wilson, and the odious and ineffective George Radonovich (R-Mariposa), are turning against this stinker of a proposition. But these ads are going up across the state, and turnout will be shockingly low. So, we need to turn out voters from LA and SF. Check out the No on Prop 98 Website for what you can do to help.
PPIC unleashed their latest statewide survey late last night, and the numbers are showing improvement for the progressive positions on a number of issues. Prop 98 is going down 37-41, and 99 is up 53-27, and both Democratic nominees are beating McCain. But for this post, I'll focus on revenue:
Nearly all Californians (94%) see the state budget situation as at least somewhat of a problem today. With the reality of state spending cuts hitting home, concern about the effects has grown dramatically. Today, 56 percent of Californians say they are very concerned about the effects of spending reductions in the governor's budget plan, up 20 points since January (36%).
The upshot is that Californians are now apparently more willing to consider tax increases as part of a solution to the budget crisis. When asked how they would most prefer to deal with the state's budget gap, 42 percent of Californians choose a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, up from 36 percent in December. And fewer seem to view spending cuts alone as an option (down from 42% in December to 30% today). Democrats and Republicans remain wide apart on budget solutions-but they have edged closer. Most significantly, Republicans today are less likely than in December to support dealing with the budget gap mostly through spending cuts (down from 61% in December to 50% today) and are more likely to support a mix of spending cuts and tax increases (up from 25% to 35%). One thing all sides can agree on? Majorities of Democrats (66%), independents (67%), and Republicans (69%) believe major changes are needed in California's budget process.
I added the emphasis there. Just 30% percent of Californians think that we should deal with our budget deficit through cuts alone, and even half of Republicans think that we should be looking at revenue increases. Yet the Republicans continue to fight for the privileges of yacht owners, or oil companies, or other large corporate interests over what is best for Californians. These numbers bear out the fact that the GOP delegation in the legislature no longer represents their constituents. They represent the Club for Growth. They represent the corpse of Howard Jarvis, but they do not represent real, hard-working Californians.
The ABC affiliate in SF did a story about one of the mobile home parks in San Rafael tripling rates after San Rafael's rent control ordinance was overturned. You can view the story here. Unsurprisingly, the landowner, Sam Zell's Equity Lifestyle immediately almost tripled the rents at the Contempo mobile home park. The decision itself is probably bad law as other courts have found rent control to be a valid exercise of a city's power, but that doesn't change the consequences for many of Contempo's residents.
If we Prop 98 passes, the advocates say, the old tenants will be grandfathered in. That's true, but only so long as they stay in the house. In addition to permanent vacancy decontrol, Prop 98 eliminates much of the protections against evictions. So, landlords can just evict long-standing tenants and rent the unit at the higher market rents and poof there goes rent control for those renters. We can see how this traumatizes a community, just for the sake of a few landlords.
As I said Monday, June will be a low turnout election. We need to make sure the progressive voters turnout to save rent control and tenant protections.
UPDATE: I neglected to include information about the case. It is MHC Financing Limited Partnership v. City of San Rafael. Apparently MHC likes to challenge rent control in California, as they also challenged the City of Santee's rent control ordinance. The Court of Appeal for the fourth district overturned a trial court decision striking down Santee's rent control ordinance. But, MHC did not give up. Nope, they sued San Rafael too, and won in the trial court. Now let's see if they can get the federal circurit court to agree with them too. If so, it would be a disaster for tenant rights.
The Yes on Prop 98 released their financial data, and not a lot of shockers in there. Guess who is financing the campaign. Really, guess, because I'll bet you will get it right.
If you guessed landlords, you get a gold star! Good job! The Yes on 98 campaign loves to talk about how it's all 'bout eminent domain, and destroying tenants rights is just a happy coincidence. It's funny how the money never lies: Prop 98 is all about ending rent control and tenants rights. Of the approximately $2.7 million raised for Yes on 98, almost $2.2 comes from landlords. 83%! A quick breakdown of where that's coming from, and you can see that the apartment and mobile home park owners really, really want to see the end of rent control:
$1,009,918 from apartment owner interests, including $291,329 from the Apartment Owners Association PAC, $183,450 from individual apartment owners and managers, $124,164 from local apartment association organizations and PACs and $410,974 from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The Jarvis Association has long historical ties to apartment owner interests, including three current board members with direct ties to the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles.
$1,252,852 from mobile home park owner interests, including $1,006,832 from individual mobile home park owners, $204,020 from the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Issues PAC, and $42,000 from the Manufactured Housing Education Trust.
These landlord interests are betting tenants and pro-tenant voters won't bother to show up at the June primary. Heck, Jon Coupal, head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, aka the Prop 13 people, out and out says it at one of their meetings that I found a clip of online. We have to make sure that every progressive voter in SF, LA, and the rest of the tenant-heavy communities shows up and votes on June 3 (or before by using their VBM ballot). Check about 50 seconds into the clip where he talks about the "other good thing". Yup, for conservatives, low turnout is always a good thing. We simply cannot have Prop 98 passing for a litany of reasons, many of which have been spoken here before. But, just in case, here are some links here, here, here, and here.
Finally, if you are a video person, the No on 98 campaign has a video contest with a $1,000 reward. Videos are due on March 28 (this FRIDAY!) so get them in soon.
I don't often get to praise the CA Chamber of Commerce, but today is that lucky day. The California Chamber of Commerce has voted to go NO on the landlord scheme, Prop 98. Prop 98 eliminates rent control, other protections for renters, and could harm our ability to protect our environment.
Given that the main supporters of this initiative has been the nutso Howard Jarvis Association, which actively campaigned for Prop 98 at the CRP convention, this endorsement should eat into the Republican support for Prop 98. While the Chamber stayed neutral on Prop 99, the coalition against Prop 98 and for Prop 99 has grown further.
Check the flip for the full list.
UPDATE: Also, I hear some folks will be picketing an Apartment owners meeting in Oakland this morning. You want to join them? I'm sure it will be a rocking good time. Dean Preston of Tenants Together will be joined by leaders for seniors and other tenants groups. Political blotter link here.
Dozens of seniors, tenants and community rights activists from Oakland/Bay Area will protest and march outside the Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County (RHA) convention on Saturday, March 15 at 11:00AM, 4700 Lincoln Ave, Oakland (in front of Greek Orthodox Church on the sidewalk.)
A while back, I mentioned a lawsuit against AG Jerry Brown regarding the ballot title for prop 98, "EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY." You see, that really doesn't clearly articulate what Prop 98 does. But, let's just think about the amount of people this actually impacts. Eminent domain? A few hundred per year. Rent Control? Several hundred thousand.
So which one should be in the ballot title? Hmmm. Nonetheless, the judge ruled that Brown, while perhaps wrong, didn't actually overstep his authority. Under the law, being wrong isn't enough, but rather you must be super-wrong. So wrong that you didn't have authority to be that wrong. So, when you get that June ballot in the mail, for prop 98 it will say "Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Authority." despite the fact that it will impact far more people through its rent control provisions than through eminent domain.
You know, the thing that I don't get here is why Brown wouldn't include it. After all, it's pretty clear he has designs on reliving the 80's by running for governor again. You'd think he wouldn't try to intentionally mess with the tenants organizations. But, alas, the enigma that is Jerry Brown continues.
So, this could be some serious good time fun. The No on 98 Campaign is planning on running a little video contest, with the winner getting $1,000! The object will be to make light of some of the nasty, nasty stuff that Prop 98 will do to the state of California (like eliminate rent control) or just highlight some of the crazy shenanigans going on in the Yes on 98 campaign. And if you choose the latter, well, let's just say I'd take a look at Capitol Weekly, the Save Rent Control blog or some of the other great news sites around the state.
The goal is for YouTube videos of about a minute in length. They'll be judged by the crack Yes on 98 Video Team (a lofty group I assure you) and some great videos will be highlighted on NoProp98.org. It will be a blast, I'm sure. For full details, check out the No 98 website here.
Today, a lawsuit was filed in Sacramento to change the ballot title for the Bad Prop 98. The ballot title as circulated was "Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Constitutional Amendment." For the ballot, as it stands, it will get "EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY." Yikes, that's a cheery sounding name for a not-so-cheery initiative. That's why today several tenants organizations have filed the suit:
"By far, Proposition 98's greatest impact will be the provisions abolishing rent control and renter protections," said Nan Brasmer, President of the California Alliance for Retired Americans. "Currently, more than 1 million renters are protected by rent control, and this initiative will negatively impact millions of renters in the state. When voters read the title - which is all that many voters read - they should be informed up front that Prop. 98 abolishes rent control. It's a principle point of the initiative. Voters have a right to know."
Now, I know many of us read much, much more than just the title, but that's not the case universally. For many voters it's how they vote. "EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY." doesn't mean a whole lot to most voters. And if it's confusing doesn't "limits on government authority" sound kinda ok, especially in the age of warrentless wiretaps? The trouble is that the Bad Prop 98 does so much more.
The interesting thing is that there's some evidence on intent. According to plaintiff's they have a document that indicates that the real purpose of the initiative is to eliminate protections for millions of California's renters. Not only the over 1 million Californians who reside in rent-controlled units, but also renters who just want their security deposit back in a timely matter. The thing is that this proposition is really hard to quantify in 6 words or less. It's a beast of a proposition that does many, many things, and "EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY." just doesn't really make it clear that the intent of the funders was aimed at renters.
"The overwhelming majority of funding behind Prop. 98 comes from landlords. The only reason they're funding this measure is to abolish rent control and other renter protections," said Dean Preston, Executive Director of Tenants Together. "Even the proponents' own ballot arguments list rent control as a principle provision of the initiative. We're simply asking that the title reflect the primary provisions so voters can make an informed decision."
I'm thinking perhaps something along the lines of "Sticking it to the Renters. Freeing Developers to Pillage California. Constitutional Amendment." I suppose I could settle for something in the middle though.
That's the BAD Prop 98 that will be on the ballot in the June primary, not the good Prop 98 from 1988. Still sounds kind of weird to see the California Teacher Association opposed to Prop 98, though. But the AARP and the CTA are not the only members of what is a growing coalition against the Hidden Agendas embodied in the BAD Prop 98. You can get the full list of groups that oppose these hidden agendas on Friday here or over the flip. But, it's quite an impressive list, running the gamut from all areas, including environmental groups, senior groups, education groups, labor, religious organizations, homeowner's groups, business, and even farming groups.
I think it's also important to note that several good government groups, such as the League of Women Voters, have come together with organizations across the state to reject Prop 98. A lot of propositions get a lot of pushback, but few get this depth and this breadth of pushback. In this video, you see Senator Carole Migden (D-SF) talking about the long, hard fight that we're going to have wage against the Bad Prop 98.
The Bad Prop 98 will eliminate rent control in California, make governance of our state even harder, and generally be a problem for Californians. This Bad Prop 98 is really, really bad for progressives and bad for California.
Now also in orange. Recs and comments appreciated there as well.
Today, in the LA Times, Patrick McGreevy has an article about the funders of what will become, unfortunately Prop. 98. A sidebar real quick about the ballot designation of propositions. I've always felt that the initiatives that are particularly noteworthy should have their ballot designations retired. Take 98 for example. When somebody says Prop 98 to you, what do you think of? Education, probably. Well, now you're going to have to start thinking of the the Hidden Agendas Scheme as well, so for the next 4+ months, you're going to have to remember No on 98/Yes on 99. Put them together, remember them both. It's vitally important that, just for these few months, we hear, we know, and we repeat the phrase: "This is the WRONG Prop 98!"
So, back to the LA Times story. Basically, the fact that this is about rent control, pure and simple, is made plainly clear by the sources of funding: Apartment and mobile home owners. And coincidentally, Sam Zell.
In the spring, voters will decide whose interests prevail. More than 100 owners and operators of apartment buildings and mobile home parks spent nearly $2 million to put an initiative on the June 3 ballot to phase out California's rent control laws. About 1.2 million people statewide are covered by such laws.
***
Big financial backers of the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., which gave $100,000 to the effort and lent the campaign $200,000; the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Issues PAC, which contributed $150,000; and the Apartment Owners Assn. Political Action Committee, which put in $100,000.
Among the donations is $50,000 from Equity Lifestyle Properties Inc., which owns 27 mobile home parks in California, and many more in other states. Equity Lifestyle's chairman is Sam Zell, chairman of Tribune Co., which owns the Los Angeles Times.(LA Times 1.29.08)
Crossposted in orange ,tips and recs certianly appreciated over there. Disclosure.
Way back during the times of the Romans, Odysseus, before he set out upon his journey back home, filled a large wooden horse with a whole mess of heavily armed soldiers. Clever, so clever that the tactic is still seen to this day. At any rate it's alive and well in California's ballot initiative process.
Well, today we get a report(PDF) from the Western Center on Law & Poverty that says Howard Jarvis' latest attempt is just another one of their spiffed-up Trojan Horses. Oh, sure, they've blinged it out again with some eminent domain "reform", but the Hidden Agendas are hiding right inside that Shiny New Horse Sculpture, just waiting to get inside the walls of our Civil Code.
The armed mercenaries inside the 2008 Model T-Horse go beyond the elimination of rent control. Sure, this initiative would eliminate that, but it doesn't stop there. From the WCLP:
The report cites even more far-reaching potential effects. The measure prohibits government regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of private real property. The report concludes that private property deregulation would eliminate nearly all renter and home buyer protections.
For homeowners, laws on foreclosure protection and homebuyer disclosure requirements could be eliminated. For renters, the measure could repeal laws requiring that dwellings are maintained in a decent and safe condition, the fair return of rental deposits, and 60 days notice before a no-fault eviction.
"Unpublicized provisions of this measure would undo countless laws dealing with property and tenants' rights that have evolved over centuries," added Minnehan.
"Whether by oversight or design, the initiative could turn back hundreds of years of property law and consumer protections," said Minnehan. "Home buyers and renters would have to negotiate every detail of a sale or lease. Our clients, the lowest income Californians, don't have the bargaining power to get the protections now in law," she added.
Sure, California, it's got a shiny exterior, but don't let this Hidden Agendas Scheme inside of our walls. We can have real reform in 2008, it's called the Homeowner's Protection Act. It's real reform. No mercenaries inside.
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.
(Added YouTube Video from Tenants Rights Folks. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Disclosure: I do some outreach work on behalf of the Real Eminent Domain Reform Initiative
Next year there will be two eminent domain reform initiatives. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association, has their Hidden Agendas Scheme to end rent control and to make land use planning difficult, if not impossible. They submitted signatures a few days ago. Well, today the Real Eminent Domain Reform Initiative, the Homeowners Protection Act, has submitted their signatures, over a million strong. So, we are looking at a face-off on the June ballot.
While both of these initiatives claim to help property owners. One (the Real One) protects homeowners without ending important programs like rent control. One of them (The Fake One) redefines how government would work, or in actuality, not work. The Hidden Agendas Scheme creates a litany of collateral damage in our government and follows along with the HJTA historical policy of slash and burn politics.
Sure, HJTA will tell you all about how they want to save you from the tax man/ the law man/ the Man in general. But what HJTA really desires is an entirely new definition of property. A definition so broad as to practically halt much of our work to build build strong communities, and protect the environment. And more specifically, our decaying water infrastructure could be in the balance with this Hidden Agendas Scheme. Could eminent domain use some tweaking? Sure. We should be very careful about using eminent domain for anyone's home. And that's what the Real Eminent Domain Reform does:
“It's been well over two years since the Supreme Court ruled in the Kelo case, and it's high time that California enacted strong protections for homeowners against eminent domain for private development,” said Ken Willis, president of the League of California Homeowners. “This measure would provide California homeowners with new, constitutional protections against eminent domain. We're confident that we've collected the necessary signatures to place this measure on the June ballot, and are even more confident that voters will overwhelmingly support our measure when given the chance.”
The Homeowners Protection Act, the Real Eminent Domain Reform Initiative, doesn't have any hidden agendas. How novel and exciting! For more information on Real Eminent Domain Reform, see EminentDomainReform.com. For more info on the landlords' Hidden Agenda Scheme: NoLandlordScheme.com
Well, today the good folks who want to "reform eminent domain" (notice the quotation marks there) have turned in their signatures to the Secretary of State. This little shadily crafted hidden agenda masquerading as a eminent domain reform was attacked from all sides. But one quote stood out to me, from Nan Brasmer, president of the California Alliance for Retired Americans:
Wealthy apartment and mobile home park owners spent close to $2 million to qualify their deceptive rent control rollback proposition for the June 2008 ballot. The landlords are going to try to trick voters into believing their measure is about eminent domain. But they won't be successful. We will wage an aggressive campaign to educate voters that this measure is nothing more than a greedy scheme by landlords to eliminate rent control so they can make millions of dollars off the backs of seniors, veterans, working moms and other Californians.
Something came up on Calitics a few days ago about why language to abolish rent control was included in the Hidden Agendas measure. It seems pretty clear the rent control language is in there to help raise money from apartment owners.
Now, rent control is a fairly popular concept. I'm not saying its universally popular, but, in many of these safe-Democratic seats held by many of the leaders in the Assembly and Senate Caucus, rent control is viewed as a positive. And leaders who take a strong pro-rent control position are generally well-received. You don't really need to look much further than the very well-attended event last Wednesday to see that there's quite a bit of support in San Francisco. A couple of weeks earlier a similar rally was held in Los Angeles and I'm sure that same rally could have been held in several other cities across the state with equally strong attendance.
Unfortunately, the Legislature hasn't been too kind to tenants in the last few years. Sure, it could be worse, but major pieces of pro-tenant legislation have been few and far between. That is the case for a variety of reasons, but there has been no real incentive for legislators to touch rent control for a while.
But, if the Howard Jarvis/Howie Rich eminent domain "reform" package makes it to the ballot, rent control will be a major theme of the race. And once that disastrous package goes down in flames, housing activists can work on using that informal poll on the popularity of rent control as a means to pursue more tenant protections.
So, as a little suggestion, I refer you to the Costa-Hawkins Act. More over the flip...
The decision is important in two ways. First, it established that aesthetics are a legitimate public purpose, for which government may regulate and condemn land. This principle has encouraged increased governmental intervention to achieve aesthetic and environmental goals. Second, Berman made clear that the phrase "public use" in the Takings Clause did not mean that land condemned had to remain in government ownership or be used physically by the public. The Court seemed to hold that eminent domain might be used to advance any goal that government could pursue under any of its powers. Subsequent decisions have confirmed this broad understanding of Berman. Thus, under the Takings Clause, "public use" means only public purpose.
In Midkiff the Court virtually eliminated public use as a limit on when governments can condemn property. A public use is present, the Court held, even when the property is immediately turned over to private hands and is never used by the public. The requirement is satisfied whenever the taking is rationally related to some conceivable public purpose; it is the purpose of the taking, not the use of the property, that is important. This meant, the Court said, that the condemnation power is equal in breadth to the police power. The Court also held that courts should defer to legislative determinations of whether a purpose is a public one unless the determination is without reasonable foundation.
Both of these decisions set the precedent for Kelo. Follow me over the flip...
Today, in the LA Times, 
Crossposted in