Friday, February 22, 2008

Sierra Club California opposes Proposition 98, supports Prop 99

OPPOSE 98 -- While prop 98 is ostensibly about eminent domain, the fine print threatens local land use planning and environmental protections and was deliberately crafted to challenge affordable housing policies. This measure comes from many of the same wealthy special interests who proposed the defeated Prop 90 in 2006, and rejecting Prop 98 is a top priority for Sierra Club California this June.

SUPPORT 99 -- Prop 99 is a real eminent domain reform measure intended to constitutionally protect home owners without the hidden agendas and adverse consequences of prop 98. Prop 99 will prohibit government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer. It is supported by a broad coalition of homeowners, environmentalists, labor, business, cities and counties who want straightforward eminent domain reform that responds to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision.


Kate said...

What is not mentioned in this brief comment in support of Prop 99 is that it only covers HOME OWNERS and only their home of residence.

Renters, and that includes owners of mobile homes in parks who rent the land under their mobile home, small business owners, and farmers, are provided no protection whatsoever under Prop 99. So "rent control" matters not at all when the homes of renter's are seized by the government and turned over to a private developer.

If a developer wants to have a mobile home park or farm land seized by a local government agency and then turned into expensive condos or a shopping mall, Proposition 99 will do nothing to stop this from happening.

This is a serious omission that should be mentioned if one is at all concerned about the "environment" or housing for people with low income.

Neither proposition cleanly addressed the problem of the use of eminent domain by government agencies to seize private property to provide profits for private developers.

The proposed waterfront stadium in New York involved the seizure of land and buildings used by small businesses. The seizure in California of the land upon which Dodger Stadium sites and which caused the displacement of a predominately Hispanic community would not have been stopped by Proposition 99 as most of the residents did not own their homes but were renting them.

Proposition 13 created many problems by including commecial property which often goes for decades without changing hands as with stores owned by Macys' Sears, Safeway, OSH, Chevron, Unocal, etc., which are paying 1970's level property taxes at public expense. Neither Proposition 98 or Proposition 99 do anything to address this root problem that is a
key driver for local agencies to convert property and receive a more fair amount in the form of property tax for the services they provide.

Anonymous said...

It is obvious to me the in this case Sierra Club has not read the fine print or has given in to this battle in order to win a dfferent one.

Shame on you, Prop 99 offers no protection for any private property and perhaps you are in on the deal.

I a extremely disappointed in your policy.

....J.Michael Robertson said...

Dear Anonymous:

Do I smell a sock puppet?