Political Commentary

Link: http://www.wilcoxent.com/mzima/politics.php

I have spent a lot of time listening to commentary and discussions about these propositions. Of course, if you pay attention to the ads, both sides say the other is a scam. After much studying of the issue, I think I have figured it out. BOTH SIDES ARE RIGHT!

Proposition 98 is a scam because it purports to be about eminent domain, while it includes measures that could affect virtually every property issue that a government in California could get involved with. If it was just about eminent domain, and stopping government from stealing our homes unjustly, this would be a great proposal, but it goes to far, and leaves too much open to interpretation. The language does eliminate rent control and any other law that restricts the rights of property owners. This could have serious impacts on people’s lives, leading to reinstatement of many of the abuses that these laws were meant to protect people from. Of course, rent control would stay in effect for anyone currently living in a rent controlled home, but this proposal takes away any restrictions that government has put in place to keep a landlord from unjustly evicting low income renters for the purpose of raising rents. This could spur a mass of evictions, just so rents would go up. Of course, the government would benefit from this, because income from those units would also go up. I think the environmentalist wackos are probably right about the proposition making it impossible for them to impose their will on the rest of us. I am not sure that would be a bad idea, but it does illustrate the broad sweep of this proposition.

99 is a scam because it doesn’t really do anything except invalidate prop 98 if it passes and gets more votes than 98. It reads as if it prevents governments from taking private property for private use, but paragraph 5 defines just about everything conceivable as public use, and also allows private use required in the furtherance of public use, making just about anything possible. While the proposition states that the measures should be interpreted liberally in support of the private property owner, that statement is so vague and the courts so irresponsible in many of these things, that I would not trust them at all. In effect, 99 puts restrictions in place and then eliminates them. While this law as pretty straightforward compared to 98, it does not address rental properties, farms, churches and other community owned properties. Imagine the government taking over the pool of a condominium complex, because, while it is owned by the homeowners, there is no home on that part of the property. Farms might be covered as long as it is contiguous with the land that the farmer’s home is built on, but what if there is a public road or a river dividing the property? What if the farmer depends for his income on leased farmland in addition to his own? The government could take away the leased land. This proposition does not protect churches, other communally owned properties, or community service properties like YMCAs or Campgrounds. Overall, it doesn’t change anything.

My recommendations:

NO on 98
NO on 99

Lets start over and do this right.