There isn't really anything between this story and what they are talking about that caught my eye, Other then they are going to try to put the Proposition 90 back on the ballot's for the next election in 2007 to see if it generates enough of an interest to make it pass then.
Proposition 90 was not a bad Inititive it just had some bad press going in and a whole lot of bad press against it because the governement is afraid of loosing the Imminent domain laws. They want to be able to develop your property whether you own it or not!! They want to see their way into the property for a huge tax based department store that will give them a huge amount of money on their budget in the following years that the store is successful, and rather then having the property owner say no, I cannot sell my property under this amount, then they counter with another amount, but instead they go for the juggler, and vote to take the property by highway robbery, through Imminent domain. Then they pay half or a 1/3 what they first would have paid for the property and it is a take it propestion then, you havent a choice!!
They give you what they want and that is that!! So please there is a need for Proposition 90! There was just to much scare tactics that won the election over, the older voters were scared that they were going to have to loose their property and then the taxes were going to skyrocket out of control simply because the Propesion 90 was passed. When that was not going to be the Case. The people or preponents for the Propesition didn't have much money for all the commercials that the people against it did, so the people against Prop. 90 clearly won by their negegive Press and scare Tactics that worked wonderfully, the true story was that they would have to sell property for what it was appraised for to the property owner had they watned it for expantion to make a new business or the like. Now that the old laws are in effect they can just take your property and give you a Estimated 1/3 the value of that said property and well, that is all.
I hope for all our sake that they take a good look at the Propestion 90 or what ever it is called the second time around!!
BS Ranch
--
| Watchdogs look to revise domain law |
| Measure presented similar to failed Prop 90 |
| By Harrison Sheppard, Sacramento Bureau Inland Valley Daily Bulletin |
| Article Launched:11/25/2006 12:00:00 AM PST |
| SACRAMENTO- Just weeks after voters rejected a controversial measure to reformeminent-domain laws in California, taxpayer advocates have returnedwith a similar measure they say will protect property owners from somegovernment seizures. The measure sponsored by the Howard Jarvis TaxpayersAssociation would still allow governments to seize private property forpublic purposes, but would prohibit seizures for private development. The measure is similar to Proposition 90, which voters rejected this month, but differs in a few key aspects. Forone, Proposition 90 had a provision - not included in the Jarvismeasure - that critics said would allow developers to sue if theirprojects were blocked or properties were devalued by governmentdecisions such as zoning restrictions. California voters rejected Proposition 90 by about 360,000 votes, with 47.6 percent in favor and 52.4 percent opposed. "Clearlythe closeness of the vote on Proposition 90 made it clear this issue isnot going to go away for California," said Jon Coupal, president of theHoward Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The proposed California Property Owners Protection Act isbeing reviewed by the state Attorney General's Office. If it meets thebasic legal requirements, the Attorney General will issue an officialtitle and summary. Supporters can then begin collecting the signatures needed to qualify it for the 2008 ballot. BothProposition 90 and the new Jarvis measure are in response to a U.S.Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that found a Connecticut city had theright to use eminent domain to seize private property and turn it overto a private developer to further the community's economic developmentplan. But Proposition 90 was opposed by a broad coalition ofgroups and elected officials - from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger andTreasurer Phil Angelides to organized labor and the California Chamberof Commerce. Megan Taylor, a spokeswoman for the League of CaliforniaCities, a leading opponent of Proposition 90, said local governmentsrecognize the need to reform eminent domain in California. They opposed Proposition 90 primarily because of thelawsuit provision, but they also believe the solution should be workedout through the legislative process, not at the ballot, as thetaxpayers organization is now attempting. "The legislative process lends itself to the broad-ranging,open discussion we all need to have about what the concern is and howwe can address it, while still making sure we preserve our ability tomeet our responsibilities as local governments to build affordablehousing and address the infrastructure needs of the community," Taylorsaid. "We understand the voters are concerned and reform is a priority for us over the next year." Coupalsaid his organization is also willing to work through the Legislature,but introduced the ballot measure in case that option does not work. Harrison Sheppard can be reached by e-mail at harrison.sheppard@dailynews.com or by phone at (916) 446-6723. |
No comments:
Post a Comment