Home > Blogs > Es r > PSR

Why Not Prop 98?

By Es r

Home Builder with CSR

June 06, 2008 04:50 AM

I really don't get it. The guts of Prop 98 say that the government can't take our property and give it to another private interest. That is it. Why on earth would that be defeated? I know that someone got greedy and inserted rent control abolition, but rent control is a bad idea anyhow. How many people does rent control really affect anyway?

I am baffled and scared. How could such a pro-property rights (the basis of Capitalism) proposition lose. Who voted? I really am confused and I need help understanding.

SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY?

How could we be so stupid as to believe that this was a bad idea. The bad idea is allowing the government to be able to take our property and do whatever they want with it. It doesn't matter weather you agree with the government or not.

We are slowly turning ourselves into a 3rd world country. A big reason that foreigners won't invest in 3rd world countries is because they have corrupt governments. With that, they have fewer private property rights. Private ownership is the foundation that Capitalism rests upon. Why would we voluntarily give that away. I assumed that even the most ignorant among us could get that.

I really don't mean to be demeaning to anyone who voted against it, but I really do want to know why you did. What benefit is it to anyone (including the gov. in the long term) to give away our rights. I know that there were other componets to the proposition and I am sure that they were controversial, but I can't imagine that they were more important. Proposition 99 (the opposition) is a sham and was put on the ballot by the very beauracrats that want to be able to take your property. What is it that you should have more protection for your home, than an investor has for his business? Where are we headed? When is it a good idea to lose control? When is it a good idea to put your stuff into someone else's hands. When did we become so helpless that we trust the government to manage our affiars more than we trust ourselves. I am scared where we are all headed. This vote really shook my confidence in the American spirit. When did we sell it? HELP!

Comments(9)

Comment

Show All Comments

Sort:

Anonymous

John A. Mozzer

The problem with the pro-property spirit of Prop 98 was it jeopardizing the ability of cities to do good urban planning.

I think many people are misunderstanding the real issues. I don't believe abuse of eminent domain is a serious problem in this state. California municipal governments add or subtract value to properties all the time through general plans and zoning code, which are required to properly design and plan for a city's growth, and have nothing to do with eminent domain.

Here's an over simplified example to make my point about why I think Prop 98 was a bad proposition. Let's say you live in a single family home. The owner of the property next door has an offer from a developer who intends to build a 52 story tower on the site. You and your neighbors object, and you lobby the city to introduce a height limit before the developer has any entitlements. The height limit ordinance is passed, and the developer withdraws the offer to purchase the property. Next thing you know, your neighbor is legally challenging the city for taking away value of his property.

Is that what you want, no control over how your neighborhood is designed and planned?

Jun 06, 2008 06:53 AM

Es r

CSR - Huntington, TX

John,

The scenario that you present is a troubling one and yes, can be fixed by giving the city the power to take private property and redistributing it. You could also give the government the power to summarily execute someone before they commit a crime and therefore possibly prevent some crimes. We could also allow the government to monitor our individual computer hard drives so as to ferret out child pornography. I hate to be too sarcastic but I hope that you can see the problem with this line of thinking.

Although some good may come of expanding government power, it is a slippery slope and one that many generations of Americans have fought to avoid. I would rather keep my right to control my property than to give the city power to avoid a potential urban planning problem.

Also, you assume too much when you assume that the government will not abuse it's power and just take one man's property to give it to another who will increase it's value and therefore property tax revenues. An even worse and very likely scenario is that some elected official abuses his eminent domain powers to repay a supportive constituent.

In your scenario, my answer is yes, I gladly accept my neighbors' ability to challenge the government, because his ability is my ability and if we cannot challenge the government we cannot claim we are free. Stop trading your (and my) freedom for convenience and stability and stop trustung your government to do what's right. They are poeple too and can be counted on to make mistakes and have self interest. This government was founded on those principles, and we the people have let them stray way too far.

I look forward to your response.

Jun 06, 2008 07:30 AM

Anonymous

John A. Mozzer

You wrote, "The scenario that you present is a troubling one and yes, can be fixed by giving the city the power to take private property and redistributing it." My scenario does not need that fix, and I was not suggesting that. I was referring to cities being required by state law to have general plans with land use designations, and zoning code that is consistent with the general plan, throughout the city. And I was referring to the spirit of Prop 98 weakening the city's ability to properly do that job, because of possible lawsuits that may arise. So I do not understand your point at all.

You wrote, "...you assume that the government will not abuse it's power." Well, okay, I'll tell you one particular government agency that I think is abusing its power of eminent domain. That is the Los Angeles Unified School District. For example, many people lost their homes in Echo Park, in the City of Los Angeles, because of a planned school. Of course, schools are needed. LAUSD claims it is very difficult to find sites for news schools. But I am not confident they pick sites very well. Yet Prop 98 would have done nothing to take away LAUSD's power of eminent domain.

Jun 06, 2008 08:10 AM

Es r

CSR - Huntington, TX

John,

I apologize if I wasn't clear. I do not think that avoiding possible lawsuits is sufficient reason to give up a freedom. I am not familiar with the Echo Park case and, no, it wouldn't be affected by Prop 98 as a school is public in nature however it does emphasize, as you have pointed out, some governments' inept mechanisms for planning and use. Why trust those entities to make the right decision and be able to take your property in doing so. The free market can and should be used when needed. Every property can be bought (at the right price). If the city has, at one time, permitted a home to be built somewhere, and now wants to change the plan for that area and utilize private developers to do it (who will make private profits) then the city, along with the private developer, can buy the property for what the owner wants. It should not be allowed to force the property owner to sell. That is not right.

Jun 06, 2008 12:22 PM

Anonymous

John A. Mozzer

Your points always go back to the eminent domain issue. ( Government "should not be allowed to force the property owner to sell.") But I have been mostly trying to describe a consequence of Prop 98 that has nothing to do with eminent domain.

Cities cannot use eminent domain in the manner you describe in most areas. An area has to be declared "blighted" per California redevelopment law. For example, in the vast majority of the City of Los Angeles (some 465 plus square miles), the city cannot "force the property owner to sell" for the purpose you describe. Only a relatively small percentage of the City of Los Angeles has been declared "redevelopment zones".

On the other hand, cities have a general plan with land use regulations, and a zoning code, covering the entire city. That is required by state law, and has nothing to do with using eminent domain.

So, do you have qualms only with redevelopment law, the ability of a city to declare an area "blighted"? Fine, then support an honest proposition that deals only with that, not a proposition that deceptively extends its reach beyond that. Or, do you think cities should not engage in land use regulations and zoning at all? (In other words, a smoke stacked factory next to your home is okay.)

Jun 06, 2008 09:32 PM

Anonymous

John,

My issue is that if an area has been zoned one way (let's say residential for this argument) and someone builds a home in that zone, then that should be it. The city, because they changed the plan should not have the right to take someone out of their home and sell it to a private developer. I would not want a smokestack next to my home. If the zoning changed, I would most likely sell my home before the smokestack went in. But I should not be forced to.

Maybe I am not understanding your opposition to 98. Do you belive that any governmental entitey should have the right to take property form it's citizens for the benefit of another citizen? or do you disagree with the abolition of rent control. Zoning, I understand, but not at the cost of personal freedoms. I know of no cases where the a city had to take someone's land to satisfy a zoning requirement and then give it to another person. I do know of a time , here in San Diego, where the city forced a commercial property owner to sell to them and they turned around and sold it to someone else. It was Cigar store on 5th Ave. It is now a privately owned parking lot. It was my seven million dollars in tax money that they overpaid.

Jun 08, 2008 01:44 PM

Anonymous

John A. Mozzer

Regarding a city changing the general plan and/or zoning, it is not easy to change it. Usually, it requires public hearings, during which all stake holders can have input. Cities cannot do "spot zoning" (zoning that favors one particular property owner), cannot pull away someone's entitlements (i.e., a building permit) after it has been issued, cannot retroactively change zoning (either to stop or support a particular popular project), and so on.

Cities cannot "take someone out of their home" under most circumstances. Generally speaking, you could not be "forced to" sell before a smokestake went in next door to you.

Re, your question: "Do you belive that any governmental entitey should have the right to take property form it's citizens for the benefit of another citizen?" No, cities should not (and, in fact, do not) have the right to "take" property under most circumstances. However, I think you do have the right to ask a city to help you preserve "neighborhood character" (i.e., with development guidelines).

Although I have personally benefited from rent control, I am no longer a big fan of it. I think it is leading to demolitions of perfectly good apartment buildings in the city of Los Angeles. (Landlords have the right to "go out of the rental business".) However, even if someone hates rent control, I think reasons existed to vote against Prop 98 regardless of its rent control provisions.

Regarding your example about the commercial property in San Diego, was that in an area declared "blighted", a "redevelopment zone"? If so, that would be an exception to the rule, because such use of eminent domain is limited to areas declared "blighted". I am not an expert on redevelopment zones, but it is also not what I have been talking about. I have been addressing the fact that Prop 98 had implications beyond the use of eminent domain in "blighted areas".

Jun 09, 2008 04:27 PM

Anonymous

John A. Mozzer

Correction

I wrote "either to stop or support a particular popular project"

I meant "either to stop or support a particular project"

Jun 09, 2008 04:31 PM

Es r

CSR - Huntington, TX

John,

I appreciate your extensive knowledge of city planning and eminent domain. I do belive that the area in San Diego was under redevelopment. I also appreciate the ancilliary problems that Prop 98 could have had. I guess I don't agree with throwing the baby out with the bath water. The main point of Prop 98 was to limit goovernments' right to take property for the benefit of anoter private entity. I agree that government should not have that right. I understand that it is extremely rare, I understand that it would be very difficult for the government to do and I also understand that it has been done and even if just for physochological reasons, it should be banned. It goes against the very grain of our society. Our founding fathers would roll in their graves.

I think you have shown that the proposition has many varied consequences and that it is not black and white. I still strongly disagree and say that the main issue is black and white. Just because you can find one or more instances when this law might benefit a homeowner doesn't mean that it is a good law.

We probably will not agree on this issue, but I have had a good time discussing it. Thank you.

Jun 10, 2008 04:58 AM