Editorials Vote no on Prop. 90 Wednesday, October 11, 2006 ON ITS FACE, Proposition 90, dubbed by its proponents as the "Save Our Homes Act," sounds like a populist initiative to protect the little man. It would amend our state constitution to severely limit the government's use of eminent domain -- the legal authority to take private property for public use. This, we are told by supporters, would stop government and developers from colluding against small businesses and homeowners to steal their land. We're all in favor of strengthening individual property rights, but Prop. 90 is a bad idea. It is a poorly drafted, intellectually dishonest effort to capitalize on the public outcry over the Supreme Court's Kelo decision earlier this year. In that case, the high court ruled that New London, Conn., had the right to seize the homes of Suzette Kelo and other longtime residents to enable a city-chosen developer to build a hotel, condominium complex and other stores on the land. However, the problem with Prop. 90 is that it is not designed to prevent the Suzette Kelos from losing their property in city redevelopment deals of dubious public merit. In fact, the biggest beneficiaries would be real estate developers, which government agencies would suddenly be required to compensate for pretty much anything that might affect their use of the property -- now or in the future. If, for example, a state agency were to pass environmental regulations to force an industry to improve its pollution controls, that business could turn around and sue the government -- even though the regulation is for the good of the public at large. That is why it comes as no surprise that the measure is being almost entirely bankrolled by Howie Rich, a libertarian real estate developer from New York who is promoting similar ballot measures in other states. Prop. 90 would dramatically increase the number of instances in which property owners must be compensated in eminent domain cases. It would force municipalities to pay dearly for the right to limit building heights, set aside certain areas for affordable housing and generally prevent officials from having the latitude necessary to set the future course for the city according to the general plan. According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's office, if Prop. 90 passes, it will have "a major effect on future state and local policy-making costs." The measure is opposed by the League of California Homeowners as well as municipal and environmental groups. Vote no on Prop 90. It is not what it appears.   http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/email/news/15730075.htm

 

© 2006 ContraCostaTimes.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.contracostatimes.com