Prop 90: Eminent Domain Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
There's a whole host of state propositions coming up in the November statewide race which may make the governor's race just one of the horses to watch.We can count on at least one Trojan horse in all this. In November 2005 it was Prop 73, which aimed to limit young womens' access to abortion with a poison pill outlawing choice entirely should Roe v. Wade get overturned.
This time, to start, it's Prop 90, which argues that it's responding to the worries over the extensive use of eminent domain in the wake of a recent controversial US Supreme Court ruling on the issue. The court held that it was constitutionally permissable to seize land for private development as well as traditional "public" use such as schools and roads.
It would actually make it financially impossible for local government to use eminent domain at all. I can't explain it any better than a coalition of business, labor, environment groups who have come together to oppose it.
Read what they've got to say right here.
posted by Terry Preston @ 5:54 PM
2 Comments:
One only needs to look at the agendas of those who oppose Prop 90 to understand why they do so.
They enjoy the status quo.
They say that it will cost taxpayers more - not if they stop their abuse of eminent domain. It is checks and balances, and once again restores hope in the 5th ammendment of the US Constitution.
I see no reason why any property owner would vote against Prop 90, unless of course they themselves were in the business of stealing property in the first place.
The "agenda" of those who oppose Prop 90 are those of people who have actually read the measure.
Prop 90 backers are using concern over the Kelso decision to sneak a lot of additional dirty stuff into law.
The "wolf" I mentioned is that the measure does more than simply restrain how eminent domain can be used. It puts a price on land use planning in general.
Someone who speculates on property on the edge of town can arguably sue if a jurisdiction rezones the area to preserve open space even though the presumed loss of value is purely speculative at that point.
Prop 90 strips government of what should be its inherent power to make laws for the general. It grants a special protected status to landowners good.
It actually subsidizes speculators by granting them another form of investment, buy land where the city or county is considering rezoning or other land use regulation and line up at the taxpayer's teat simply by claim the regulations costing you money.
So who really benefits? Rich speculators. That's your "status quo".
Other states have chosen less restrictive ways to address the Kelso decision. We should follow their example.
Post a Comment
<< Home