The supporters of California's proposition 90 would like everyone to believe that proposition 90 is only about protecting your home from eminent domain. What they don't want you to know is how far proposition 90 goes beyond that. They also fail to mention that the California Legislature and governor have already passed 5 bills this year
(Senate Bills 1650, 1210, 1206, 53, 1809) limiting the use of eminent domain. The hidden agenda of proposition 90, which you won't see in their ads, is to strip local governments' powers to make land use decisions and give them to private developers. I know government often makes mistakes but at least we can throw the bums out if we don't like their decisions. On the other hand we have no control over private developers and if they make decisions that hurt us or destroy our communities there is very little we can do. Supporters of proposition 90 believe that property owners can do whatever they want whenever they want on their property without any restriction - as if the affects of what they do magically stop at the property line.
Here's the things Proposition 90 supporters don't want you to know.
Proposition 90, Section 2.c.
Whenever government takes or DAMAGES private property for a public use, the owner of any affected property shall receive just compensation for the property taken or DAMAGED. Just compensation shall be set at fair market value for property taken and diminution of fair market value for property damaged.
This seems reasonable to the average person. But lawyers don't see the same thing as you and me. Damages can mean a whole lot of things you probably have never thought of.
Damages Example 1
A developer buys a large parcel of land right next to your neighborhood. Since there are ranches nearby he decides that he can make a bundle of money by building a slaughterhouse. You and your neighbors are appalled at the thought of the stink and noise 50,000 cattle will bring. It will make your community unlivable and drive down property values. You petition your local government to stop the developer. But the developer sues the city. If he can't build his slaughterhouse, under proposition 90, the city must compensate him for the millions he could have made (the damages). It's a small town with very little money so the city can't pay him. The developer goes ahead with his plans.
Slaughterhouse a bad idea
Ukiah Daily Journal (CA)
October 9, 2006
Damages Example 2
On the edge of your neighborhood a developer builds a mega shopping center. Now the once peaceful nights are broken by the rumble of diesel delivery trucks coming and going day and night. To top it off many of the diesel trucks idle while waiting to load and unload. The fumes from these trucks invade the homes and schools throughout your neighborhood. What was once a nice quiet neighborhood has become barely livable. Incidents of asthma have risen. No one has done a study but the citizens have a good idea of who the culprit is. The city steps in to limit the hours trucks operate and how long they can idle but he developer sues saying that the restrictions will cost him millions and under proposition 90 the city must compensate him for these damages. The city must either raise taxes to pay off the developer are just allow him to continuing operating.
Neighbors aren't standing idle on diesel pollution
Oakland Tribune (CA)
October 18, 2005
Damages Example 3
Most of California is naturally a dry. In the past there have been droughts that have forced cities to enact water rationing, stopping people from watering their lawns or washing their cars to ensure there was enough water for drinking. To make the state less vulnerable to droughts the legislature and governor pass a bill to help conserve water use. But some of the measures in the new bill will add to the cost of new developments. The developers sue the government under proposition 90 because the new guidelines will eat into their profits. The state government does not have the resources to fight the sudden onslaught of lawsuits. Short of a declared state of emergency the state can take no proactive action to head off a future water crisis.
Governor Signs Key Landscape Water Conservation Measure
September 28, 2006
Damages Example 4
A property owner wants to opens up a massage spa in your neighborhood. Unfortunately many spas that have opened in your city are suspected of using immigrant women to work against their will. City leaders also recognized the problem and enact rules to curb the illegal sex trade your city, part of the growing $8 billion international sex trafficking industry. They enact an ordinance giving residents more say in allowing permits for massage parlors in their neighborhoods. Under proposition 90 the property owner can sue the city if residents reject a permit. Unless the city can come up with the compensation for the damages from lost revenues the residents have no voice to protect their children or the women who are forced to work in these parlors.
Tougher rules proposed for massage spas
San Francisco Chronicle
October 23, 2006
Proposition 90, Section 3.b.1.
If a public use is determined, the taken or damaged property shall be valued at its highest and best use without considering any future dedication requirements imposed by the government. If private property is taken for any proprietary governmental purpose, then the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property, if such use results in a higher value for the land taken.
The backers of propostion 90 would rather you not think to hard about this because you would see how unreasonable this provision is.
Proprietary Governmental Example
Your local community decides to build a school. There is an abandoned house that has sat neglected in your neighborhood for years. This seems like an ideal place to build the school. Normally the city would be required to pay the fair market value to the owner. But under proposition 90 the city must now value the land as if there is a brand new school already built on it. This considerably raises the cost to build even the most basic necessities and reduces money available for other services such as teachers, police and street cleaning. Meanwhile the owner walks away with a big nice windfall courtesy of the taxpayers and proposition 90.
Don't think it can happen here? Just look at Oregon. A few years ago a similar proposition was passed there and since then almost 3,000 lawsuits have been filed and $6 billion in damages claimed. Oregon's population is 3 million, California's is 30 million. Now do the math.
Proposition 90 is opposed by every major newspaper, civic group, environmental group, public employee group, business group, taxpayer group,homeowner group and farm group in California.
Sierra Club
Sacramento Bee
San Jose Mercury News
LA Times
California League of Conservation Voters
League of Women Voters
California Taxpayers Association
And hundreds more...
So who supports proposition 90? The supporters of proposition 90 are almost solely funded by one man: Howie Rich
PBS did a great show on Howie Rich last month. You can view the video here.