And, Rich makes a clean sweep of the West Coast tonight, appearing in media reports in Washington, Oregon AND California, and special-guest appearances in Arizona and Montana as, again, writers and editors underscore the role he's playing in "oxygenating" these, heh heh, grassroots initiatives in their states. It's no wonder he couldn't take a call from the Post; Howie Rich is a busy, busy man.
Reporters Blaine Harden and Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post wanted to talk about eminent domain. And a reasonable person would assume that when big-time reporters call to talk about the issue sweetest to your heart, the issue you've spent millions to promote across the wide U. S. of A., you'll be trippin' the light fandango to answer their every question, right? Invite them over for a cool drink? Roll out some charts and graphs? Inscribe a copy of your favorite book to them as a parting gift? Hmm?
In this case, a reasonable person would be sadly mistaken, for Harden and Eilperin called Howie Rich for comment, and Howie Rich made himself scarce. Like the lords of manors past, he dispatched a surrogate to answer the door instead. And it wasn't his usual locutor, Heather Wilhelm, this time; it was Rich associate John Tillman, president of Rich's Americans for Limited Government, who served as butler to guests Harden and Eilperin. Even Tillman didn't speak to the pair directly; he corresponded via email. Nice.
It causes one to wonder, what has Wilhelm done to be relegated to third banana? Could it have been the meltdown memo she shot to the newspaper editor in Nebraska this summer?
Perhaps Rich smelled a less-than-rosy result afoot. Coverage in most other media these recent months hasn't painted him favorably. And there was that embarrassing moment on PBS NOW a couple of Fridays ago. ("He's not aVAILable!") Nonetheless, Harden and Eilperin spill the beans all over the floor here http://www.washingtonpost.com/....
"The property-rights movement, as it is known, has a major new benefactor -- Howard Rich, a wealthy libertarian real estate investor from Manhattan. He has spent millions -- estimates run as high as $11 million -- to support initiatives that will appear on ballots throughout much of the West.
The initiatives... have alarmed many city and state officials, along with environmental organizations, budget watchdog groups and smart-growth advocates. They complain about `bait-and-switch' tactics."
It gets worse, as Harden and Eilperin unspool fact after fact, many of which you've read here already. Sadly, "Rich was not available to comment on his spending or the goals of his property-rights groups."
"John Tillman, president of one of those groups, Americans for Limited Government, declined in an e-mail to comment on the amount of Rich's spending, saying that campaign finance reports `speak for themselves.' He did not dispute the $11 million figure."
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer makes a cameo in their report, as does Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski and Montana District Court Judge Dirk Sandefur. Just about the only one who's a no-show is Rich himself.
Maybe Harden and Eilperin were looking in the wrong place. Reporter James Shannon of Metro Beat in Greenville, South Carolina, finds Rich's tracks in the strangest of places: the campaign finance reports of Karen Floyd, a woman running for state superintendent of public schools, perhaps even running for governor in 2010, when either Governor Mark Sanford finishes his second term or Governor Tommy Moore finishes his first one.
I know what you're thinking: Howie Rich is the Sugar Daddy (Credit: Patty Wentz of Our Oregon, http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=66980&category=22101, and reported here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/27/225737/646) of TABOR and regulatory takings, not public education policy. What is Rich doing doodling in South Carolina's school system? Shannon says it's about vouchers. He writes here http://www.metrobeat.net/... "...mounting evidence suggests the voucher movement has been embraced by a nationwide network of ultraconservatives whose goal is to shrink all government - including public education - to fulfill the ideological mandate of anti-tax movement guru Grover Norquist. For people who understand that public education is an essential ingredient for a better life, particularly to those not born with great wealth, the idea of dismantling this important institution to serve some vision of minimalist government is horrific. To ideologues like Mark Sanford, it is painful medicine to be swallowed by others."
"Pro-voucher Norquistians from around the country have invested heavily in both the Sanford and Floyd campaigns, confident of their loyalties despite mixed messages that Floyd is signaling to the local electorate," Shannon says.
Here's where it gets good. Huddle up: "[Floyd's] campaign has been funded in large part by out of state contributors pressing the voucher issue. They see South Carolina as a small enough state that they can influence our elections with less money than it would take in a larger state with more expensive media markets."
That sounds familiar.
"Brad Warthen of The State newspaper reports, `Superintendent of Education candidate Karen Floyd raised an alarming 47 percent of her money from out of state. Of her $114,074.04 in contributions, $53,500 came from outside South Carolina. Even more disturbing is the fact that nearly a quarter of Floyd's contributions came from the same address. Floyd received $21,000 from various companies that share the address 73 Spring St., Rm. 507, New York, NY, 10012. All of the companies are associated with Howard Rich, a wealthy New York developer who funnels money into private school voucher schemes across the country'."
Wow, that's a lot of campaign money from a guy who doesn't give a lot of money to political candidates. And just how many companies can share the same address as his home, for God's sake? Do they all live in a file cabinet in his closet? A reasonable person might speculate that there's a strange connection to be found.
Shannon goes on, "Even if you assume that Howard Rich really has the best interests of South Carolina school children at heart - an assumption I am unwilling to make - you have to wonder what commitments Floyd has made on the subject of vouchers. Just this week, she told Robert Dalton of the Spartanburg Herald Journal that she opposes giving public money to private schools. The catch is that Floyd - like Sanford - insists that the tuition tax credit doesn't involve the transfer of public money because the taxes are never collected. That seems like a distinction without a difference likely to confuse voters. As a result, it is possible to believe that whatever you think about vouchers, Karen Floyd has a nuance that covers it. The fact that Howard Rich thinks he knows what she will do is not reassuring."
Hmm. I wonder if The State editor Cindi Ross Scoppe has done any more investigating since her editorial here http://www.thestate.com/.... Inquiring minds would love to know.
Need to know more about Rich's favorite candidate for South Carolina superintendent? Check this out. Ouch: http://www.metrobeat.net/....
Westward, dear readers, to Nebraska, where that Carol Hedges has a helluva press operation. The fiscal analyst from Nebraska's next-door neighbor, Colorado, spent part of last week with Cornhuskers and I'm still getting Google notes from her coverage. Either she covered an awful lot of ground or she had a traveling press pool with her. Kevin O'Hanlon has the story here http://www.rockymountainnews.com/... and says Hedges spoke to the Nebraska League of Municipalities on Thursday and delivered a quote that could cut glass: "This is a machete where you need a scalpel."
What of TABOR's impacts on Colorado, Ms. Hedges? "It was bad for Colorado. It was a proven failure."
No room for misinterpretation there. She's done this before, I think.
But I thought TABOR was responsible for Colorado's surging economy during the 1990s? That's what its proponents are saying, anyway. Do you mean to say that the economy was good in spite of TABOR rather than because of it, and that its vaunted budget cuts were bad, rather than good? "We squeezed so tight during the boom years of the '90s that by the time we got to the recession, we didn't have any room. We had already cut to the muscle."
O'Hanlon fleshes out the facts for us: "After a recession hit in 2001, Colorado lawmakers carved $1.1 billion from the budget over three years, much of it from higher education and health care," he writes. "Before last year's vote, Gov. Bill Owens threatened the closure of 11 state parks, $12 million in cuts for health care for low-income and uninsured residents, a $7.7 million slash in financial aid to students and the elimination of more than 600 government jobs."
Mm. That would be the opposite of what TABORites are telling Mainers, I have to observe. In Nebraska, Howie Rich's co-sponsor Mike Groene is haranguing voters with tales of out-of-control spending. Is it out of control, Ms. Hedges?
"To talk about . . . spending only without talking about services that result from that spending - you're only looking at half of the picture," she tells O'Hanlon. "What is the state budget providing that the people don't want provided?"
Excellent question. Your answer, Mr. Groene?
...
In the AP clip published all the way across the border in Sioux City, Iowa, Hedges goes one step further, offering a comparison using gas prices here http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/.... "You say `OK, I'm going to spend $100 a month on gasoline,' " she said. "Well, the price of gas goes from $2 to $3 a gallon. You are spending the same amount on gasoline, but you're getting a lot less gas."
When you factor in the three percent cost of living increase, she adds, "that would allow you to spend $103 on gasoline. You are still getting less gas."
Any comment yet, Mr. Groene?
"She's right. That's what we want. We want more efficiency," he says. "We want fewer state vehicles running up and down the highway. We've got a technology boom -- why aren't we using the Internet and teleconferencing? Why are we burning so much $3 gas? That's the point we are trying to make."
Thank you, Mr. Groene. Glad you could join us.
On to Maine, where this weekend's endorsement of TABOR by the Portland Chamber of Commerce definitely marks a new low point in enthusiasm by an organization saying it will support the proposal. A wholehearted recommendation? Hardly. Reporter Trevor Maxwell reports here http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/... that chamber leaders are already openly discussing legislative amendments to the measure, if it should pass. Chamber President Godfrey Wood and chairman Peter Ventre wrote in a letter, "A substantial majority of Chamber members feel we have no choice but to support TABOR..." Hmm. Could their arms have been twisted? Who can say?
What Maxwell says for sure is that "a board-level committee -- which included leaders from both sides of the TABOR campaign -- studied the issue but was unable to agree on a recommendation." Hmm. So 100 local business leaders, out of 133, voted to give - get this - "QUALIFIED support" for the measure and it passed. But the Wood-Ventre letter telegraphs the future: "The letter goes on to say that voters will need to challenge the Legislature and the governor to `cure any flaws of unintended consequences.' Those may include cuts in funding for education, override processes that are too cumbersome, and an expensive legal battle about the constitutionality of the law. If the law passes and flaws become apparent, the Chamber will support corrective steps in the Legislature," Maxwell writes.
Heh heh: That's called having one's cake and eating it, too.
Phil Baker of Vines Technology in Portland told Maxwell he was disappointed by the announcement, saying, "We're not with the Chamber on this one. We don't feel like it's going to benefit businesses in Maine. If there is anything that Maine needs, it is a well-educated and informed work force."
Editors of the Portland Press Herald delivered their own verdict, and there wasn't much ambiguity in it. "Opponents have been focusing for weeks on the fact that, in some cases, the formulas could produce negative numbers, possibly forcing school districts, municipalities or even the state to make painful real-dollar cuts in their budgets. A good development this week came when one of the measure's chief backers said he would favor legislation that would make clear that the law is not supposed to force spending cuts, only restrain spending increases."
They write here http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/... "That's a positive development because it gives voters a chance to focus less on competing claims about the law, and more on what it is intended to do. To go beyond its formula-based spending increases, TABOR requires governing bodies to endorse such an increase by a two-thirds majority. The override would then have to go to voters in a local or statewide referendum."
"This is what makes TABOR a bad idea. It takes away the flexibility for town councils, school boards and the Legislature to respond to genuine needs, putting our economy at risk for lack of adequate investment."
The SAD 22 school board agrees, saying "TABOR, as it is called, could jeopardize the Hampden Academy construction project, extend the district's budget approval method, and give control over school budgets to a minority of voters, among other things." The board adopted an anti-TABOR resolution - unanimously - on Thursday, according to reporter Ruth-Ellen Cohen here http://www.bangornews.com/....
"Even in SAD 22, where school enrollment is stable, TABOR would have meant cutting $2.54 million from the current budget. `No sports, no building maintenance, no textbooks and two schools being closed -- that's what that equates to,' said Assistant Superintendent Emil Genest."
"We are on the threshold of a life-changing event with the new high school," said Superintendent Rick Lyons. "And to see that potentially washed away is pretty scary."
Mainer Jan Kubiac of Bethel writes here http://www.sunjournal.com/... "Just knowing that Colorado in November 2005 decided to suspend their Taxpayer Bill of Rights for five years is enough to make me reject TABOR for Maine. We need to send the message of tax reform, not revenue limitation. We should not follow a failed plan to send a message, but rather work together to lower taxes through making them fair for Mainers."
And Mainer Beth George, an attorney, writes here http://www.bangornews.com/... "I see two major problems with TABOR. One is that it tricks the public into thinking that state spending rather than federal waste is the problem. The second is that the law essentially eliminates the state or local government's ability to address the complex needs of communities, especially in times of crisis."
"Here are two real examples why TABOR is a horrible idea. In the past year, the federal government passed the Medicare D law, which was touted as a drug plan for the elderly population, but in fact was a gift to the large pharmaceuticals. Not only is the plan extremely confusing, but the federal government failed in its administration of the program and thousands of Maine seniors went without needed medications. Gov. John Baldacci stepped in with an emergency plan that infused close to $6 million to literally save these seniors' lives. If TABOR had been in effect, this swift action would have been impossible."
"Another similar story concerns Low Income Home Energy Assistance from which the federal government cut more than $2 million in funds earmarked for Maine in 2006. Again, the state had to step in and infuse money into that program to keep Mainers warm. This would not have been possible under TABOR."
Waterville Mayor Paul LePage has his own complaint; he says the Maine Municipal Association is "one-sided and self-indulgent" for considering TABOR's potential negative impacts to Maine's economy, listening to really attentive people who warn against its implementation in Maine, taking a position against the measure and even working to educate voters of its real content. Reading reporter Colin Hickey's item in the Morning Sentinel, one might think that LePage actually wants Maine to suffer the same indignities that led Colorado voters to reverse its course in 2005. But no, he tells Hickey here http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/... that's not his intent. Instead, Hickey writes, "his anger toward the association is really about what he considers the organization's unbalanced advocacy in opposition to TABOR."
Huh?
LePage's logic, so far as I can follow it, goes thusly: "Maine Municipal Association is funded by and provides services to cities and towns across the state." Okay so far.
"The fact is MMA is using dues from our communities, which is nothing more than property tax dollars, and only touting one side of the equation (on TABOR), and I think that is unethical and despicable, because I think they are forgetting who the stake holder is and that is property tax payers across the state," LePage tells Hickey.
In essence, the MMA is doing its job, providing its best advice to the people who sponsor it. Right? So what would LePage recommend it do otherwise? "I would expect a bit more moderation," he says. Oh, because TABOR will devastate Maine's economy only moderately. Crystal clear now.
MMA lobbyist Jeffrey Austin says the association is "not sure what he is talking about." I'm with you, Jeffrey. "Maine Municipal Association is advocating on behalf of a policy committee, which adopted the positions," Austin told Hickey.
There appears to be a diversity of opinion in Waterville on the topic, thankfully. Carl Daiker of Waterville writes here http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/... "TABOR will create far more problems than it will ever solve. People need to understand this ballot proposal in order to vote intelligently on it. Read the fine print. Do your homework as a responsible voter. If you don't like the way your local representative is voting as it affects your taxes, then work to elect someone who will better represent your financial interests."
Daiker has a pertinent suggestion: "I urge every voter in Maine to get their hands on a copy of the TABOR proposal -- not just a summary -- but the entire proposal. Read it and then make your own decision on whether it is good or bad for Maine. It's easy to find on-line. Just go to the Secretary of State's Web site at www.maine.gov/sos and type TABOR in the search box. It's all there folks in black and white."
Mr. Daiker, meet the MMA. MMA, Mr. Daiker.
Guest columnist Steve Demetriou of Windham unmasks TABOR here http://www.keepmecurrent.com/... saying it "sports a deceptive name purporting to establish rights for taxpayers. In fact, TABOR would actually harm taxpayers by hindering local control over budget issues, empowering a minority to thwart majority decisions, creating a cumbersome and expensive override process, while benefiting virtually no one."
Well, I think Howie would disagree about that last little bit, Steve.
Demetriou continues his indictment: "TABOR promises diminished services, and the inevitable cost shifting will hurt everyone. AARP Maine, the Maine Municipal Association, the Attorney General's office, the Maine Education Association, with many others, have all released statements opposing this draconian, quick fix idea. Pay attention to who is on board with TABOR when thinking about voting this November. It says a lot about whether the candidate will offer constituents real ideas, or the `quick fix' rhetoric of TABOR that will fail to fix anything."
And from Maine, we cross the flyover to catch Howie's one-day West-Coast media sweep. For fun, we'll begin with Arizona and hop north to Washington from there.
Erica Meltzer of the Arizona Daily Star caught our friend Lori Klein, chairperson of Rich's Arizona cell, reciting talking points on the eminent domain bugabear; you know the line: "Eminent domain and excessive regulation are a way government takes your property." But Meltzer turns to a real, live county administrator - someone responsible for carrying out the will of local taxpayers - to strip away the spin.
"It looks like a lovable teddy bear, and it will turn around and bite everyone, including the taxpayers," says Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry here http://www.azstarnet.com/.... Meltzer explains that according to people who have read the measure, "the proposition is deceptively packaged, luring voters with the promise of eminent-domain reform while actually hobbling government's ability to deal with growth and costing taxpayers millions in claims and lawsuits."
How so? I'll let you read Meltzer's detail of the underbelly of the Rich/Klein "eminent domain" initiative: "the second part of the initiative, which deal with what are called `regulatory takings'." But in the article's money shot, she catches Rich behind the curtain: "Americans for Limited Government, a Libertarian group headed by New York developer Howard Rich, has provided almost a million dollars for the campaign." In contrast, she reports, "Environmental groups have given $11,000 toward the group opposing the measure."
That doesn't seem quite fair. But for the ultimate in unfairness, catch Amy Rolph's report in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, where she find Rich's hand on the scales here http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/... "Two groups at the forefront of the campaign for I-933 are the Chicago-based Americans for Limited Government and Washington farm bureaus," she writes. "Americans for Limited Government has contributed $260,000 to the coalition supporting I-933, and that organization isn't just dabbling in Washington state property rights -- it's also supporting initiatives similar to I-933 in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and North Dakota. At the head of the organization is chairman of the board Howard Rich, a controversial New York-based real estate entrepreneur. Rich has been sharply criticized as an out-of-state meddler for pushing land-reform legislation in Montana."
"A spokeswoman for Americans for Limited Government did not return phone calls Thursday." (That would be Heather Wilhelm, locutor for Howie Rich, and I would speculate that she was tied up answering the Washington Post's inquiry, except that we already know it was John Tillman who did Rich's bidding on that count, not Wilhelm. Maybe Wilhelm was sitting there in the office with him during the call, do you think?) "But a statement on the organization's Web site says its mission is to use the initiative process to `put the voters and taxpayers, not special interests or bureaucrats, back in charge of state politics'."
I would've left the note there and moved on, but my eye caught one great big fact from our intrepid Amy Rolph's report: "The No on 933 coalition has gathered a group of wealthy benefactors: the list includes Bill Gates, Harriet Bullitt, James Roush and Douglas Walker, all of whom have given at least $50,000 to the campaign."
Wow. Bill Gates versus Howie Rich? Has anyone told Rich? The mind boggles. THIS is the ACME of unfairness. If this were a movie, it would be filmed in black and white, set in post-nuclear Japan, dubbed into English, and there would be a trio of Geisha princesses singing, "Moth-ra... Moth-ra..." And then...
The Beavers of Oregon State University may want to pay attention to this next note. It seems that the Oregon Legislature has approved OSU's facilities master plan "conditionally, pending the outcome of Measure 48." Hmm, what is Measure 48 again? O, right, it's Oregon's TABOR! Sooo... maybe OSU will complete the second phase of improvements to Reser Stadium AND begin the long-awaited Gill Coliseum Annex, and maybe it won't...
Kellen Hade of OSU writes here http://www.osubeavers.com/... "Several construction projects around campus have been postponed pending the outcome of this November's general election as a ballot initiative threatens to cut funding to higher education and cap state spending."
O, Kellen. That's a bit much, don't you think? I mean, Oregon hasn't even passed TABOR yet and you're already predicting the outcomes that Colorado suffered for more than a decade under its own TABOR. I think Mary Adams of Maine and Mike Groene of Nebraska, or even Don McIntire of your own state, would give you a more glass-half-full outlook. But I see your point: If the glass is only half-full, then it IS half-empty, and increases in student fees and tuition would be required to fill it up, as happened at the University of Colorado. Hmm.
Kellen gets this part dead on the nose, though: "The campaign for TABOR's adoption is spearheaded by Howard Rich, a New York developer and president of the Americans for Limited Government political action committee. Neither Rich or his office were available for comment."
He was unavailable to the Washington Post, too, Kellen. You shouldn't feel bad.
"In Corvallis, a conflict arises because a significant portion of funding for capital improvement projects comes from bonds issued by the state - bonds that are scheduled to be repaid by OSU over time, usually between 25-30 years," Hade writes. "Normally the payments on this debt are figured into the annual operating costs of the university. However, if the spending cap passes there will not be enough room in the budget to make payments and remain under the limit, forcing OSU administrators to make difficult choices."
In the absence of explanation from Rich, Kellen sought advice from Jock Mills, OSU Director of Government Relations.
"Under [TABOR], when you choose to spend money on one thing that means you are also choosing not to spend money on something else, even if you have the money available," Mills told Hade. "So if we choose to invest state funds to pay off the debt on a building, the spending limit forces us to choose to educate fewer students."
Fewer students educated in Oregon, thanks to TABOR. What a slogan. Athletics isn't the only casualty: "Of particular to concern to Oregon State is renovating the Department of Veterinary Medicine's large animal hospital in Magruder Hall on campus. The $12 million project was already approved in 2005 by the State Legislative Assembly and construction was planned to be underway before school began for fall term. It is something that has been deemed extremely important for the department," Hade explains.
See, "OSU is one of only five veterinary colleges in the western United States, with others in California, Colorado, and one at Washington State University."
But what good is a veterinary college and hospital, really? Can't we do without this one?
Hade says, "In addition to the value of an updated and modern teaching hospital on campus, the facility also houses one of only a few labs on the West Coast that are looking for strains of Avian Flu. It also has the capabilities to identify West Nile virus and infections of Mad Cow disease."
Oh, well, maybe we ought to fund this one, then.
The editors of the Register-Guard need no more deliberation on the topic of Howie Rich's imported term-limit ballot measure. They write here http://www.registerguard.com/... "Oregonians would not be voting on this measure if the campaign weren't oxygenated by New York real estate mogul Howard Rich. Rich's groups, U.S. Term Limits and Americans for Limited Government, have provided nearly all the money to gather signatures for Measure 45 and to campaign for its approval. Measure 45 is not a homegrown initiative."
"It's anti-democratic for a simpler reason as well: Term limits deprive voters of a choice. After a few terms, no legislator, no matter how popular or effective, can be re-elected. Voters should not put restrictions on their right to choose their legislators. Vote no on Measure 45."
Guess they didn't get the ALG talking points.
And on Measure 48, they're no less clear here http://www.registerguard.com/... "Grover Norquist, godfather of the nationwide movement for state spending limits, famously proclaimed that his goal `is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.' In Oregon, Measure 48 is the bathtub. Voters should reject a plan that would drown their state services, ranging from schools to prisons."
"Norquist and the out-of-state interests bankrolling Measure 48 may not know this, but Oregon already has a spending limit. Adopted in 1979 and strengthened in 2001, it limits state spending to 8 percent of Oregonians' personal income. Linking spending to income makes more sense than the inflation-plus-population formula. The latter is a recipe for steadily shrinking government, because over time incomes and expenses outpace inflation and population growth."
"Shrinking government, of course, is the real goal of Measure 48. Oregonians would be forced to spend less and less of their resources on all state services, from education and public safety to highways and parks. In about 25 years, state government would be small enough to drown in a bathtub. That's a cramped and self-defeating vision of Oregon's future. Voters should join most responsible voices in public affairs - including business groups, police officers, consumer advocates and both gubernatorial candidates - in rejecting it. Vote no on Measure 48."
Montana's represented tonight by Annick Smith, co-editor of the Montana literary anthology "The Last Best Place," and guest writer at the New West. Smith thinks "of what could happen if I-154 is voted in this November, and I shudder," she writes here http://www.newwest.net/....
"What if an out-of-state investor who lives in, say, Cincinnati buys that hay field and decides to turn it into an industrial hog farm with no laws restricting him except those most basic for human health and safety? Think of the smell. Imagine swine manure flowing through irrigation ditches built by homesteaders in the 1880s and into Bear Creek, where bull trout and other native trout migrate. Such an operation would drive out old-timers like me and destroy property values for newcomers who moved here so they can raise kids or retire in a clean and healthy environment. And we would have no recourse except to bite the bullet."
Mm. I guess I-154 is Howie Rich's "regulatory takings" measure.
"I-154 promises to protect property holders like me from government abuse of eminent domain. But we are already protected! The millionaire New York developer Howard Rich and other out-of-state meddlers who have financed I-154 with hundreds of thousands of dollars must believe we Montanans are too stupid to realize that our State Constitution and Supreme Court have protected us from abuses of eminent domain," she writes.
"It's the old bait and switch. They are trying to bamboozle us into voting for a hidden agenda that will make local rules that protect our lands meaningless. If you don't believe me, read the measure. Under I-154, if local or state regulations prevent an investor from pursuing whatever business he wants on the land he owns, he can sue government for compensation of the dollars he thinks he would have made if his business had been allowed to operate with no regulations. Or we must repeal our safeguards. This means not only hog farms, but porno shops across from schools, gravel pits, gold mines--any activity that does not put public health directly at great risk. It means our stream access and hunting access regulations can be replaced by a property owner with no-trespassing signs and blocked roads. It means strip malls and sprawl in your back yard. Think of Texas, where there is virtually no free public access to hunting or fishing."
"And who will pay if Howard Rich and his investors win? YOU WILL PAY! All Montana taxpayers will pay. Not only for the so-called `takings,' of projected profits, but for lawyers' fees and court costs. Oregon voted for such an initiative and Oregon is being smothered by lawsuits against the state totaling 4 billion dollars."
She has a point. A lot of them, in fact.
And to complete Howie Rich's clean sweep of Pacific Coast states, here's a note from editor Randy Shaw, contributing to the Berkeley Daily in sunny California.
"This is crazy. Instead of simply putting forth an initiative to help rid California of eminent domain, backers of Prop. 90 are using anger over the government's seizure of property to prevent inclusionary zoning, the protection of old growth forests, or land-use restrictions on Wal-Mart and other `big-box' stores," Shaw writes here http://www.berkeleydaily.org/....
"The fact that Prop. 90 goes far beyond restricting eminent domain does not appear to be a drafting error. Rather, it is consistent with the anti-regulatory zealotry of Howard Ahmanson, who, along with wealthy New York real estate developer Howard Rich, are the leading funders of the initiative. Nobody needs to convince me of the evils of eminent domain. But Prop. 90 is not the answer. By preventing local governments from passing laws to help working people and the poor, Prop. 90 hurts the very populations it claims to help."
Whew.
After I catch my breath, reader, I've a new feature to share. To continue giving credit where it's due, voila:
ARIZONA
http://www.azstarnet.com/...
Reporter Erica Meltzer, "Land rights at root of Prop. 207"
CALIFORNIA
http://www.berkeleydaily.org/...
Editor Randy Shaw, "Commentary: Deception Underlies Propostion 90"
MAINE
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/...
Mainer Carl Daiker, "TABOR would make more trouble than it solves"
http://www.keepmecurrent.com/...
Columnist Steve Demetriou, "Vote for Lu Bauer"
http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/...
Reporter Colin Hickey: "LePage: Group biased"
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/...
Reporter Trevor Maxwell, "Portland chamber supports TABOR"
http://www.sunjournal.com/...
Mainer Jan Kubiac, "Tax reform, not limits"
http://www.bangornews.com/...
Reporter Ruth-Ellen Cohen, "SAD 22 board resolution opposes TABOR"
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/...
Editors, "TABOR backers focus debate on the merits"
http://www.bangornews.com/...
Mainer Beth George, "Lawyer's take on TABOR: Not in our state"
MONTANA
http://www.newwest.net/...
Montanan Annick Smith, "The End of the Last Best Place?"
NEBRASKA
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/...
Reporter Kevin O'Hanlon, "TABOR a bad idea, analyst tells voters"
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/...
Associated Press, "Colorado analyst urges Nebraskans to reject spending lid"
OREGON
http://www.osubeavers.com/...
Reporter Kellen Hade, "The effects of proposed Measure 48 are felt across campus"
http://www.registerguard.com/...
Editors, "Reject term limits"
http://www.registerguard.com/...
Editors, "Norquist's bathtub"
SOUTH CAROLINA
http://www.metrobeat.net/...
Reporter James Shannon, "Blonde Ambition: The REAL Karen Kanes Rogers Armor Floyd"
http://www.metrobeat.net/...
South Carolinian Jimmy Moore, "Utterly Annoyed By Karen Floyd: Another view from a former GOP county official"
http://www.thestate.com/...
Editor Cindi Ross Scoppe, "At least on taxes, Chamber has new partners, with very different values"
WASHINGTON
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...
Reporter Amy Rolph, "$2.3 million pours into I-933: Two rival coalitions try to sway voters on land-use initiative"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Reporters Blaine Harden and Juliet Eilperin, "Court Ruling Fuels Dispute in West Over Eminent Domain; Initiatives Challenge Land-Use Regulations
Permalink | 7 comments