High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Paid for by No 98/Yes 99 – a committee of city and county associations, taxpayers and environmental groups, League of California Cities and Californians for Neighborhood Protection, coalition of conservationists, labor and business. A sponsored committee of the California League of Conservation Voters.1121 L. Street,Suite 803 – Sacramento, CA 95814 – 916.443.0872www.no98yes99.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: KATHY FAIRBANKSMay 12, 2008 (916) 443.0872
In Case You Missed It…
Los Angeles Times, Fresno Bee, Bakersfield Californian, Pasadena Star News, San Bernardino Sun,
and others say NO on 98Total NO on 98 Editorials: 21 and growing…
Los Angeles Times:
“No on 98, Yes on 99” May 12, 2008
“Statewide abolition of rent control must not sneak its way onto the books as a hidden addendum to an ostensibleeminent domain reform. Including it in Proposition 98 is cynical and devious -- and reason enough to reject themeasure.”
Fresno Bee:
“Vote no on Proposition 98, yes on 99” May 11, 2008
Prop. 98 “deserves to go down in flames…
Proposition 98 is a poster child for all that's wrong with California'sinitiative system… [Prop. 98] is so larded up with special interest goodies and poorly written language that it couldtake years, and millions of taxpayer dollars, for the courts to sort it all out.”
Bakersfield Californian:
“
No on Prop. 98, Yes on 99” May 9, 2008
“Prop. 98 would unquestionably lead to an avalanche of lawsuits involving government, developers and landowners,with taxpayers signing the checks.”
San Bernardino Sun:
“No on Prop. 98, yes on Prop. 99” May 12, 2008
“… Proposition 98 would bring a tsunami of lawsuits against public agencies, and you know who could pick up the tab – you, the taxpayer.”
Pasadena Star News:
“We recommend a ‘no’ vote on Proposition 98 June 3.” May 7, 2008
“If we are to have a statewide debate on rent control, let's have it out in the open without such deceptivenomenclature.”
Vacaville Reporter: “
No on 98” May 7, 2008
Prop. 98 “would impose so many new restrictions that it could severely undermine planning and zoning regulationsthroughout the state and open up endless lawsuits. No wonder the No on 98 campaign has the backing of a broadcoalition that includes the governor, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Building Industry, theCalifornia Labor Federation, the AARP, the League of California Homeowners and the Sierra Club”
San Luis Obispo Tribune:
“Too many flaws in Props. 98” May 8, 2008
“Are apartment owners and mobile-home park owners so desperate to undermine rent control that they have to preyon public fears about eminent domain?”
List of No on 98 editorials so far:
Bakersfield Californian
(5/9/08)
Contra Costa Times
(5/4/08)
Fresno Bee
(5/11/08)
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
(5/12/08)
Lompoc Record
(5/12/08)
Los Angeles Times
(5/12/08)
North County Times
(5/11/08)
Pasadena Star News
(5/7/08)
Riverside Press Enterprise
(5/1/08)
San Bernardino Sun
(5/12/08)
San Diego Union Tribune
(4/23/08)
San Francisco Bay Guardian
(4/30/08)
San Francisco Chronicle
(5/4/08)
San Gabriel Valley Tribune
(5/7/08)
San Luis Obispo
(5/8/08)
Santa Cruz Sentinel
(5/5/08)
Tulare Advance Register
(5/8/08)
Visalia Times Delta
(5/8/08)
Vacaville Reporter
(5/7/08)
Whittier Daily News
(5/7/08)
Woodland Daily Democrat
(5/8/08)
Paid for by No 98/Yes 99 – a committee of city and county associations, taxpayers and environmental groups, League of California Cities and Californians for Neighborhood Protection, coalition of conservationists, labor and business. A sponsored committee of the California League of Conservation Voters.1121 L. Street,Suite 803 – Sacramento, CA 95814 – 916.443.0872www.no98yes99.com
Los Angeles Times 5/12/08
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-props12-2008may12,0,62073.story
No on 98, Yes on 99The Times endorses state ballot measures.
May 12, 2008Eminent domain has become big business -- for the ballot measure industry. Californians rejected an initiative two yearsago that purported to protect property owners from government land grabs, but on closer inspection turned out to be anattempt to sweep away the state's environmental protection and zoning laws. Now we have another initiative thatmasquerades as a simple correction to the notorious Kelo ruling, but really carries the long-standing agenda of intereststhat want to extinguish rent control and block water and air quality laws.With the ill-considered Proposition 98, property rights advocates once again have undermined themselves and poorlyserved homeowners, businesspeople and real estate investors by overreaching. It would have been so easy to giveCalifornians what they need: assurance that no city, county, other local government or the state can condemn property,evict the owner and turn the land over to a developer who donated to elected officials and then convinced them that hecould make the plot prettier and more productive.That kind of assurance is needed in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo vs. New London,upholding a Connecticut city's decision to give the plaintiff's property to the developer of a commercial project. Suchtakings of private homes are rare in California, but owners should not have to fear them.There was, in fact, a real opportunity to craft a good law in the Capitol, exactly where that sort of work is supposed to getdone. Lawmakers were negotiating a constitutional amendment that would have blocked forced private-to-private transferof homes. It didn't go far enough, but it was a start, and talks with property rights advocates were proceeding.But landlords detected a chance to use the fear of eminent domain abuse for their own purposes. They poured severalmillion dollars into getting advocates to drop the legislative approach and go to the ballot with an initiative that quietlytargets the rent control laws in about 100 California cities, including Los Angeles, Santa Monica and West Hollywood.You wouldn't know from reading the ballot title and summary that Proposition 98 is an anti-rent-control measure, but that'sbecome the primary focus of its financial backers, the vast majority of whom are landlords and rental propertymanagement companies. One of them is connected to The Times. Sam Zell is chairman and CEO of Tribune Co., whichowns The Times; he also chairs Equity Lifestyle Properties Inc., which donated $50,000 to Proposition 98. The companyowns 27 mobile home parks in California, many of them subject to rent control.If Proposition 98 becomes law, rent controlled units would become permanently market rate when the current tenantsleave. In Los Angeles, that would affect 626,600 apartments and other rental units.Serious debate is due on rent control. Does it in fact keep housing affordable, or does it drive up the price by restrictingthe supply? Is it the renter's version of Proposition 13, keeping residential neighborhoods stable and housing costspredictable by limiting annual increases? Or does it unfairly transfer to private landowners the public responsibility toprovide affordable housing?But these questions are best answered by voters in each city that currently has rent control laws. Statewide abolition ofrent control must not sneak its way onto the books as a hidden addendum to an ostensible eminent domain reform.Including it in Proposition 98 is cynical and devious -- and reason enough to reject the measure.Even without the rent control component, the initiative reaches beyond public taking of private land for private gain. Bybarring the transfer of any economic benefit "to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner,"Proposition 98 crosses into the territory rejected by voters in 2006. It could open the door to lawsuits whenever agovernment agency zones in such a way that it raises the value of some properties and reduces the potential for others.That could jeopardize efforts to create open space or protect water quality.Once Proposition 98 took its present form, backers of a less-sweeping initiative went to the ballot as well, leaving voterswith two measures to deal with.The problems with Proposition 99 are that it attempts to address a complex topic with the blunt instrument of the initiative
Paid for by No 98/Yes 99 – a committee of city and county associations, taxpayers and environmental groups, League of California Cities and Californians for Neighborhood Protection, coalition of conservationists, labor and business. A sponsored committee of the California League of Conservation Voters.1121 L. Street,Suite 803 – Sacramento, CA 95814 – 916.443.0872www.no98yes99.com
process, and that it achieves too little. Homeowners who live in the property they own would be protected, and that's astep forward. Despite assertions to the contrary by opponents, cities couldn't wipe away a home's coverage simply byrezoning the area. But small-business owners are even more vulnerable to a city council's confiscatory redevelopmentschemes than are homeowners. They too deserve protection, and Proposition 99 doesn't provide it.Voters should take the opportunity to protect homeowners, but that only starts the job. Lawmakers have to do the rest,with legislation that allows eminent domain to move forward only for legitimate public purposes. This time, perhapsproperty rights advocates will proceed in good faith and avoid yet another bait-and-switch initiative.In the meantime, The Times urges a no vote on Proposition 98 and a yes vote on Proposition 99.
Fresno Bee 5/11/08http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/story/590820.html
Vote no on Proposition 98, yes on 99Dueling eminent domain measures have very different approaches.
05/10/08 22:32:51Eminent domain is one of the hottest of buttons in California and across the nation. So it's no wonder that voters face twoballot propositions that purport to address the issue. And it's no surprise that both have flaws.In one case -- Proposition 98 -- those flaws are fatal. It deserves to go down in flames.Proposition 99 covers ground that should have been handled by the Legislature but wasn't. It also has a number ofloopholes; it applies only to homeowners who have occupied their homes for a year or more, but leaves out apartments,churches and businesses. Despite those misgivings -- and because we've come to expect nothing of substance from theLegislature on substantive issues -- we recommend passage of Proposition 99. It addresses at least part of the realproblem.Proposition 98 is a poster child for all that's wrong with California's initiative system. It ostensibly addresses a questionthat's important to voters -- eminent domain -- but is so larded up with special interest goodies and poorly written languagethat it could take years, and millions of taxpayer dollars, for the courts to sort it all out.Both propositions arise out of public outrage over a Supreme Court ruling (Kelo v. City of New London) that said there isno constitutional obstacle to prevent a government from taking private property and giving it to another private interest fordevelopment, so long as that serves the public interest.In the Kelo case, the "public interest" was expected to be new revenues from a commercial development.That shouldn't happen. Proposition 99 would give the state a clear rule protecting those who've been in their homes atleast a year against such seizures.But there is a very great deal more about Proposition 98 that's troubling. It would prohibit the use of eminent domain forpurposes of something called "consumption of natural resources." There are very real concerns that such a prohibitioncould interfere with desperately needed statewide water projects.The California Farm Bureau Federation supports Proposition 98, but other farm groups -- including the Nisei FarmersLeague and Western Growers Association -- fear it could spike water projects.That kind of uncertainty is one reason Proposition 98 is a full-employment act for lawyers -- its ambiguity will mean roundafter round of court battles.There is also a very real concern that Proposition 98 would severely curtail the ability of cities and counties to use zoningand land use regulations to achieve desirable goals, such as keeping certain types of business out of neighborhoodswhere they are inappropriate.There is also the question of whether requirements for low-income housing in new developments would be allowed, whichwould exacerbate an already difficult situation for hundreds of thousands of Californians with limited means.
Add a Comment
geirelandleft a comment