World Events
Topic: Yes on 99, no on 98. Opinions?

#	Author	Message
1	Elderp Sun 5/4/2008 3:35p	This is a CA thing I guess but I hate when propositions are filled with a bunch of garbage. 99 and 98 are both against eminant domain, the problem is 98 also includes laws that would eliminate rent control, not allow for water rights or school rights aquisition. Who knows I might vote no for both of them, but right now I am going for no on 98 and yes on 99.
2	Darkbeer Sun 5/4/2008 11:07p	But Prop 99 really doesn't change much in regards to Eminant Domain, but keeps the current rules in most cases, which is basically false advertising. Some folks didn't like some of the provisions in Prop 98, and came up with Prop 99 to confuse the voters. Yes, Prop 98 phases out Rent Control, but most California cities don't offer it, and do just fine. And is it fair for government to be able to tell someone what they can charge, and have a fixed increase, but on the other hand, raise taxes and fees higher than the fixed increase, especially with the current trend of raising water and sewer fees. http://thetruthaboutprop99.com...f2z4gok7 >>The Institute for Justice (IJ), the organization that litigated the Kelo v. New London case before the U.S. Supreme Court , found that "Prop. 99 will do little to prevent eminent domain abuse in California-and this flaw is fatal." IJ includes in these fatal flaws the lack of protections for small businesses, family farms and other properties as well as loopholes that continue to allow even owner occupied homes to continue to be taken for private development. Specifically, IJ concludes that among other loopholes, public agencies could circumvent the purported home protections by merely rezoning residential neighborhoods to business/retail use so that homes can be replaced with shopping centers. Additionally, IJ found that Prop. 99 was "a clear attack" on Prop. 98, a measure also appearing on the June ballot. << >>Non-partisan, Legislative Analysts' Office Analysis from the state's non-partisan Legislative Analysts' Office clearly and simply states, "this measure would not change significantly current government land acquisition practices." This conclusion is based on their finding that Prop. 99 may protect only some single family homes but excludes new homeowners (those who have not lived in their homes for more that 1 year ) and their are are no protections for small businesses, farmers, places of worship and rental property. The LAO also clearly identifies the poison pill provision which says that if Prop. 99 "were approved by more votes than Proposition 98, this measure provides that the provisions of Proposition 98 would not take effect." << >>Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association/Californians for Property Rights Protection The analysis, from Californians for Property Rights and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association exposes several specific loopholes that were included in Prop. 99's vague language. What's more, this analysis finds that, "it is unlikely that the loopholes exposed in this analysis were unintended" and "it is reasonable to conclude, then, that the proponents' primary goal in spending over $4 million to qualify this otherwise do-nothing ballot measure is to defeat passage of Proposition 98and to deny California property owners real and comprehensive eminent domain reform." << http://thetruthaboutprop99.com...f2z4gok7 >>How can they claim to be protecting property rights when their initiative - Prop. 99 - is designed to protect the anti-property-rights status quo? These groups know voters are angry that cities can take their property - not for public uses such as the construction of highways, but to enrich developers who want the land for cheap. Local residents have seen entire neighborhoods, churches and small businesses targeted by this practice. The supporters of eminent domain abuse don't dare put a pro-eminent domain measure on the ballot. Instead they put on the ballot a measure that pretends to reform eminent domain laws but is so loophole-filled that it offers few protections. Some homeowners would be protected, but churches, farms, apartment owners and business owners would still be subject to these unfair takings. They hope that this phony initiative lures more votes than Prop. 98, which is the real deal - a ban on the use of eminent domain for private projects. These enemies of property rights also are targeting, through a deceptive campaign, provisions in Prop. 98 that would restrict another form of government taking, rent control. Rent control not only steals the value of property from owners, but it reduces incentives for the construction of new rental housing and leads to housing shortages and overall higher rents. But despite their ad campaign, Prop. 98 would not throw people out on the streets. Renters would still enjoy rent-control protections, but rent control would be phased out after they move. If both measures pass, the one with the higher number of votes goes into effect. So we urge support for real eminent-domain reform, Prop. 98, and opposition to phony reform, Prop. 99. << http://www.ballotpedia.org/wik...ition_99_(2008) >>Eminent domain reform groups say that the measure is a Trojan Horse, intended to confuse voters by offering only a weak protection against eminent domain seizures. The measure is sponsored by the League of California Cities, which in 2006 spent over $5,000,000 to defeat Proposition 90, an eminent domain reform measure that appeared on the November 2006 ballot and lost narrowly.<< http://volokh.com/posts/1209668328.shtml >>Indeed, Proposition 99 is likely to actually reduce protection for property rights; that is most likely its main purpose. How? by forestalling Proposition 98, an initiative placed on the ballot by property rights activists that really would forbid Kelo-style "economic development" condemnations and other eminent domain abuses. Absent Proposition 99, Prop 98 is almost certain to pass and enter into law - as have anti-Kelo referendum initiatives in ten other states. Section 9 of Proposition 99 would invalidate any other referendum amendment on eminent domain passed on the same day so long as Proposition 99 receives a greater number of votes than the other initiative does. As I discussed in my earlier post, the interest groups behind Proposition 99 are banking on voter ignorance. Legally unsophisticated voters are unlikely to either notice Section 9 or understand its import if they do. Most will vote for Prop 99 simply because it seems to protect property owners against Kelo-like "economic development" takings - a hugely popular cause supported by some 80% of the public. They may well not understand that a vote for Prop 99 actually prevents property owners from getting any real protection.<<
3	DisneyFreak96 Mon 5/5/2008 8:39a	<< Yes, Prop 98 phases out Rent Control, but most California cities don't offer it, and do just fine. And is it fair for government to be able to tell someone what they can charge, and have a fixed increase, but on the other hand, raise taxes and fees higher than the fixed increase, especially with the current trend of raising water and sewer fees. >> My grandfather was part of the class action lawsuit that ended up in rent control. Since that time, most of the property that is under rent control has been sold. The owners knew they were purchasing property under rent control, so that part of your argument is weak. http://www.pasadenastarnews.co..._9034170 <<"The eminent domain argument is a Trojan horse," said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for the AARP-led coalition. "About 80 percent of the funding for the `Yes on 98 Campaign' comes from landlords, and all they care about is eliminating rent control." Much of the support the proposition has received has indeed come from landlord groups, said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.>> <<"This would have a devastating effect on renters and undo centuries of landlord-tenant law," said Spiegel, adding that Proposition 98 would also do away with other renter-protection measures, such as notices for no-fault evictions and caps on what landlords can charge for credit checks. "This is a doomsday measure backed by wealthy landlords and mobile-home park owners," added Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival, noting that condo-conversion protection and tenant relocation programs would also be affected by the proposition. "It is nothing but lies, lies, lies motivated by greed, greed, greed." >> Also, the AARP, League of Womens Voters have come out against 98 because of the rent control issue. Unless I find something in 99 with teeth, I'll be voting "No" on both.
4	RC Collins Mon 5/5/2008 3:20p	Oooooh... shocking that landlords would support something that would give them some of the same liberties as just about every other business owner. Those evil landlords. How many other businesses have the prices of their good and services set by the government? It may or may not be true that every single one of these landlords knew they were buying a rent-controlled property. Okay, fine... but I think it is very important to point out that Prop 98 grandfathers in the current renters using rent control. I find it awfully absurd that some of the same people who whine about Prop 13, which protected OWNERS from being taxed out of HOMES THE OWN now are trying to tell us that RENTERS should be able to pay below the market value so they don't get priced out of their RENTED space. I guess it is okay for government to increase "prices" to fund government programs, but not okay for property owners to increase rents, which may be their only income. Yes on Prop 98. No on 99.
5	DisneyFreak96 Tue 5/6/2008 8:15a	<<How many other businesses have the prices of their good and services set by the government?>> This is such a weak argument. The government sets prices nearly everyday. They do this through subsidies, taxes, and other regulation. <<I find it awfully absurd that some of the same people who whine about Prop 13, which protected OWNERS from being taxed out of HOMES THE OWN now are trying to tell us that RENTERS should be able to pay below the market value so they don't get priced out of their RENTED space. I guess it is okay for government to increase "prices" to fund government programs, but not okay for property owners to increase rents, which may be their only income.>> Apples and oranges. Prop 13 is about a relationship the property owner has with the government, rent control is about the relationship two private parties have with each other. Prop. 13's plan was not to prevent people to from being taxed from their home, although it was a nice scare tactic. It was about reducing taxes on property to the amount the house was worth when it was bought. I remember all too well. Within a year after it passed, our school district had to lay off a librarian, two folks in audio-visual (films) -- which made the teachers mad because they no longer were getting their films when requested, the art department folded into the printing department, and the HR department lost at least one person. This is just what I knew personally having a family member that worked in the building of the County Schools. I do know that my school lost our librarian because we couldn't afford her anymore, and it was either layoff the librarian or a teacher...I'll give our librarian one thing, she staid on a full year only receiving the amount of pay a "librarian aid" would. Our police were cut, etc. Never saw us loose any police, schooling or any other necessary city or county needs from rent control. Oh, I do see a more diverse population though!
6	Ursula Tue 5/6/2008 10:32a	No on both. I just find it absurd that these are here to be voted on in the first place. And that they start off with eminent domain and just switch to rent control (what are they trying to do anyway?) It is absurd that landlords in the upper-scale areas of Los Angeles think it is just fine to raise rents $100 per month each year. I've never been lucky enough to score a rent control place, but more power to those who do! Long live rent control!
7	Darkbeer Wed 5/14/2008 3:15p	Interesting video regarding a recent National City, Ca Eminant Domain issue hosted by Drew Carey... http://www.reason.tv/video/show/56.html
8	Darkbeer Wed 5/14/2008 7:42p	http://prfamerica.org/speeches...rol.html >>So these are the high words of sterling recommendation for rent control. The test has been followed fairly recently in a case that has also sent some shock waves, called Cashman v. City of Cotati, which occurs in the mobile home rent control area, which is where I work a lot. In that case, in fact, the "substantially advances" test was held to make this rent control ordinance unconstitutional. Let me explain just briefly why. It is kind of a common sense issue. The idea behind rent control in theory is to provide affordable housing. That's what everybody's common sense understanding of what rent control is about. Now, regardless of how you feel about that social policy, the question is, does rent control actually make more affordable housing? The bottom line answer to that question is no. In the context of mobile home rent control, it becomes even crystal clear, because this is what happens. In cities like Capitola which has a mobile home rent control in combination with vacancy control, which means after a resident leaves, the rent stays the same for the next resident. In Capitola, in fact, the client we represent rents spaces within walking distance to the Santa Cruz boardwalk, some of the most valuable property in the country. The space rents are $210 a month. That's $7 a day. It costs $15 a day to rent a pair of skates at the boardwalk, just a walking distance away from there. So you have this really confiscatory level of rents. What happens? Well, whenever you have rent control you have sort of a split ownership situation, where the resident or tenant owns the mobile home. What happens is that these residents, who may have been there for many years and have enjoyed the benefit of these really depressed rents, turn around and sell basically what is a glorified tin can for about $150,000 or $200,000. Why does that happen? Because they just want the right to rent the space at this below-market rent in a really valuable area. What's happening is there is really a transfer they call a premium, a transfer in the underlying value of the property, from the mobile home park owner to the resident. Now, this prevents any goal of being advanced as far as rent control because, yes, you are paying lower rents, but that amount of lower rent is just being transferred dollar for dollar into the higher price for the mobile home. You are not achieving any purpose, or any legitimate state purpose. Using that logic, the Cashman v. Cotati case has overruled a rent control ordinance. Many other rent control ordinances were subject to similar challenges. It is hardly news to almost anyone, particularly in this group, that rent control is just bad policy. It doesn't make sense. Economists can't agree on anything, but ninety percent of the economists in the world agree that rent control is a stupid idea. So why does rent control exist? Why does it prevail? It is politically popular. One of the framers of the Constitution was Madison. One of his concerns, along with the other framers, and why they adopted the Fifth Amendment, was they were concerned about what you would call "the tyranny of the majority," where political majorities could, in essence, vote to take property from minorities. That is exactly what has happened in rent control and why rent controls has become, in effect, popular.<<
9	Darkbeer Wed 5/14/2008 7:42p	http://www.denverpost.com/opin..._8104624 >>In our view, and that of most economists, rent control is a bad idea. In extreme cases, such as New York City, it discourages construction of needed new housing and encourages owners of existing rental properties to let them deteriorate. It also reduces the supply of rental housing by prompting owners of apartment houses to turn them into privately owned condominiums as a way of bailing out of an unprofitable rental market. To our surprise, Weissman didn't challenge the prevailing view that rent control laws do more harm than good. Instead, according to the official committee record, "He said that he feels rent control is a failed economic policy; however, he feels that these issues are not a matter of statewide concern." We beg to differ. Not about the part that declares "rent control is a failed economic policy," of course. On that we are in hearty accord with Rep. Weissman. But we also feel a policy that promotes poor housing conditions and can turn neighborhoods into slums is definitely a matter of state concern. For one thing, falling values on commercial property force the state to pay more in aid to local school districts because of the rules in the Gallagher property tax amendment and the state school finance law. That, in turn, will force higher taxes or less aid to other schools - both "matters of state concern." Rent control also clearly violates the spirit of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits private property from being taken for public use without just compensation. <<
10	Mrs ElderP Thu 5/15/2008 7:02a	I enjoyed Darkbeer's article exerpts. We learned in my high school econ class, that when rent control is introduced property maintenece goes down. Essentially (conciously or unconciously) landlords make sure their property is worth the price paid, and they delay repairs to do that. My absentee ballot came in the mail yesterday and I'm thinking of yes 98 no 99.

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:

1-10

11-11

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Laughing Place Podcast
This week the crew discuss the post-summer happenings at Disneyland, Disney Channel's early days and keeping Disney parks unchanged plus the return of Doobekah's Adventures, another Freak-y email from Brent, reader mail on Celebrity sightings, the Captains Challenge and more.

What's on
The Latest
A Wave of Enhancements In-Store for the Disney Magic Cruise Ship as it Heads Into Dry Dock in September 2008
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Invites Fans of “High School Musical 3: Senior Year” to Exclusive Red-Carpet Premiere Oct 16
Calling All Walt Disney World Vacation ‘Know-It-Alls’: The Mouse Searching for 16 Parents for 2009 Moms Panel
Sara Lee Dances with Disney's 'High School Musical 3: Senior Year' in Extensive Film-Driven Campaign
The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning premiere pictures added to LP Lotion
The Haunted Halloween returns to Hong Kong Disneyland
It’s a “Suite Life” on the Disney Wonder with Disney Channel World-Premiere Event
Miss America 2009 contestants visit the Magic Kingdom
Halloween, Disneyland Resort Paris Style! Oct 4 - Nov 2
Meet Santa this Christmas at Disneyland Resort Paris Nov 6 - Jan 9

Click here for The Latest