Thursday, September 14, 2006

Prop 90 (revisited) and Prop 89

I've said here before that I supported Prop 90, that eminent domain reform initiative on the November ballot. Eric Kirk took the opposite position on his blog a while back, with some points well made.

Now, Senate Republican Leader, Dick Ackerman, has come out opposed to Prop 90, citing reasons along the line of Eric's.

I am certainly re- thinking my position on this initiative. Prop 90 was one of four or five eminent domain initiatives that were circulating and was the only one that made it to the ballot. Too bad one or two of the others didn't make it so we could have taken a closer look at them.
L.A. Times columnist, George Skelton, shows some common sense every now and then. Today he comments on Prop 89, that public financing of political campaigns intitiative.


At 11:22 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Let me also clarify, that I would support restrictions on the use of emminent domain. I just think they're trying to sneak a larger agenda in here. Thanx for reconsidering the issue publicly!

At 12:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

VOTE NO on 90!

At 5:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

agreed. and vote yes on 89, a pox on both their parties.

At 8:14 PM, Blogger Barbara Shults Watch said...

At 8:24 PM, Blogger Barbara Shults Watch said...

We will not be intimidated by Barbara Shults!

At 11:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This new blog called "Barbara Shults Watch" is a bit bizarre.

The first post begins: "Barbara has stumbled upon one of our suppliers for animal sacrifices. She is digging too deep and will expose us if we are not careful." And then it talks about a bunch of people being involved in Santeria and animal sacrifices in Humboldt County.

The second post consists of an ER article by Shannon Miranda which criticizes Gallegos and is favorable to Shults.

Despite the blog's misleading title, it is obviously a rather lame attempt to make Shults look good, and make her enemies look like a bunch of freaks who practice animal sacrifice.

At 11:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Either that, or it's an attempt by her enemies to make it look like she's trying to make it look like they're a bunch of freaks who practice animal sacrifice!

The blog is so obviously self-contradictory that its author would have to be retarded not to see it, in which case they wouldn't have the intelligence to even create a blog.

At 8:08 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Yeah, I think it's a spoof blog.

Oh, as an aside, and a little more on- topic, a letter in support of Prop 90 in todays Santa Rosa Press- Democrat:

Property rights

EDITOR: The Monday editorial, "No on 90," calls the "Protect Our Homes Act" deceptively complex, radical and costly, with the implication that its author, by being both wealthy and a libertarian, must have a dubious hidden agenda. Proposition 90 may deal with more than the "Kelo vs. New London" decision, but its intent is to address the assumption at its root that inspires endless, badly thought out laws that wear down property values without just compensation.

Howie Rich's agenda is not hidden. It asks that government be required to abide by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which expressly guarantees due process and just compensation for property devalued for public use. This is not radical, but basic justice. The editor expresses shock that, "Proposition 90 would require that a property owner be compensated any time government takes any action, not related to public health and safety, that changes the value of that individual's private property." Well, yes. More shocking is the government's failure to do so.

Sonoma County is rethinking the arbitrarily large buffers protecting waterways and considering "flexible setbacks" as a more fair, common sense solution to an environmental problem. It is increasingly clear that property rights may not be ignored for the public good but instead be considered part of the public good.



At 11:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At 12:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I too would like to see some restrictions in the use of private domain in the private sector, but this is definitely not the answer. Somewhere between intial concept and final draft, this thing was gutted by trial lawyers. Not only does it open the legal floodgates in terms of any amount of arguable property damage, it will spell the end of all public redevelopment as well.

Public agencies would have to pay the lawyer fees for all parties involved, inviting a feeding frenzy into a situation where 90% of the cases are resolved amicably, without the need for lawyers.


Post a Comment

<< Home