|
Hector De La Torre on the Democratic radio address and my blow-by-blow response:
Hello, this is Assemblymember Hector De La Torre.
HI
How would you feel if your city government seized your land for no other reason than to build a strip mall or a Wal-Mart Supercenter?
CHEATED. ABUSED. EXPLOITED. INFURIATED. SOLD OUT BY GOVERNMENT WHO'S SUPPOSED TO PROTECT MY PROPERTY RIGHTS. I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH
If you’re like most Californians, you’d be understandably upset.
NO S**T
In 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision known as Kelo versus New London, Connecticut.
I'M WELL AWARE
Some argued that this case greatly expanded the ability of state governments to purchase private property from one person for the private gain of another person or corporation.
IT DID GREATLY EXPAND IT. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BUT I THINK YOU LEAVING OUT LOCAL WAS UNINTENTIONAL
Many feared the Kelo decision was overly broad and would unduly endanger private property rights. To protect homes and small businesses, I authored Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, the Eminent Domain Reform Act.
IT IS OVERLY BROAD. TELL ME ABOUT ACA 8
The Eminent Domain Reform Act prohibits State or local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied home for transfer to another private party. This is unprecedented.
OKAY, BETTER THAN NOTHING AT ALL. BUT WHAT ABOUT RENTAL PROPERTIES? APARTMENTS? BUSINESSES? FARMS? CHURCHES?
TAKING AWAY THE ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD ISN'T AS BAD AS TAKING AWAY WHAT PAYS FOR THE ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD. WHY? IF THEY TAKE AWAY THE LATTER, YOU'LL LIKELY ALSO LOSE THE ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD
This constitutional amendment also would prohibit government from using eminent domain to acquire property where a small business is located to transfer to another private party
SOUNDS GOOD! EXCEPT THIS DEFINES SMALL BUSINESS AS <25 EMPLOYEES, WHILE CALIFORNIA LAW DEFINES SMALL BUSINESS AS <100 EMPLOYEES
unless there is a comprehensive plan to eliminate blight.
LOOPHOLE ALERT! BLIGHT, OF COURSE, BEING WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT IS. CITIES CAN DECLARE A NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE BLIGHTED (UNDER EXTREMELY VAGUE STANDARDS IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE) AND THEN TAKE ANY PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO CONSTRUCT A SHOPPING MALL, LUXURY HOMES, ETC... THIS LOOPHOLE COMPLETELY NULLS THE PREVIOUS POINT YOU MADE
But before eminent domain is allowed a small business owner must have the opportunity to be a part of the new development.
THE OPPORTUNITY BEING WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT WANTS, AND THE GOVERNMENT MAY WAIVE IT
If a small business does move, it will receive the fair market value of the previous location, moving expenses, expenses to reestablish the business at a new location, and compensation for the increased cost of rent or mortgage payments for up to three years.
BETTER THAN WHAT THEY HAVE NOW. HOWEVER, THIS MISSES THE ENTIRE POINT: IF THEY OWN THE PROPERTY, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE SOMEONE TO MOVE FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S PRIVATE GAIN.
In short, this is legislation grounded in a simple concept: the government should not have the ability to abuse its eminent domain privileges, and during the rare times when eminent domain is appropriate, business owners will be fairly compensated.
NO, THIS IS LEGISLATION GROUNDED IN PROTECTING THE STATUS QUO WHILE MAKING PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT REFORM HAS TAKEN PLACE. THIS IS WORSE THAN NOTHING.
This philosophy has guided legislative Democrats for years.
IF THERE'S ANY ISSUE WHERE I QUESTION MY ALLEGIANCE TO THE DEMOCRATS, IT'S THIS! THE LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRATS HAVE REPEATEDLY TOLD ME, ON THIS ISSUE, THAT THERE'S FROSTING ON MY CUPCAKE WHEN THERE ISN'T. NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO SELL ME PAPER DISGUISED AS FROSTING
Last year, the State Legislature listened to voters and passed several new laws to protect peoples’ homes.
LIKE WHAT?
We made it harder for government to proclaim an area “blighted.”
OH, YOU MEAN SB 1206? BULLS**T. AGAIN, YOU'RE TRYING TO TELL ME THE PAPER IS FROSTING. THOSE STANDARDS IN THE BILL WERE VAGUE, AND MOST WERE ALREADY CURRENT LAW. LOOK AT ALL THE TIMES IT SAYS "MAY" INSTEAD OF "MUST" AND LOOK AT ALL THE UNDEFINED TERMS.
Raising the requirements for an area to be declared blighted helps protect property owners.
AND SB 1206 DIDN'T DO THAT!
An area has to be declared blighted before a redevelopment agency can use eminent domain.
THAT WAS ALREADY THE CASE! THE PROBLEM IS THAT BLIGHT IS SO VAGUELY DEFINED THAT IT IS WHATEVER THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT IS. SB 1206 DID NEXT TO NOTHING
Raising the requirements for an area to be declared blighted helps protect property owners.
AND SB 1206 DIDN'T DO THAT
To keep the process out in the open, we increased state oversight by involving the Attorney General, the Department of Finance and the Department of Housing and Community Development to protect your rights as a property owner.
DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THAT. BUT GIVEN THE TRACK RECORD IN CLAIMING TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS WHEN YOU'RE NOT, I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE THIS THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT
Now that these bills have been signed into law, California has clearly taken steps to protect the rights of homeowners and other property owners.
THE ONLY BILL WITH ANY TEETH THAT CAN BE REFERRED TO HERE WAS SB 1650. SB 53, 1206, 1210, AND 1809 WEREN'T EVEN WORTH THE PAPER THEY WERE PRINTED ON
And with your support, the Eminent Domain Reform Act will take those protections even further, into the California state constitution.
NO, I'LL SUPPORT REAL EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS BILL, JUST LIKE THOSE OTHER ONES, ISN'T EVEN WORTH THE PAPER IT'S PRINTED ON. I'D RATHER HAVE NOTHING THAN THIS PIECE OF CRAP
|
