" Prop 99 is placed on the ballot by the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association - The people who want to keep it easy to take private property and give it to private developers. "

" The League of California Cities has responded responsibly to an irresponsible state measure (Prop 98). They are basically a support and networking organization consisting of city officials whose job it is to make sure cities function optimally for all who live there. Thank goodness city and local governments collaborate, because good information can be shared that benefits us all. The Redevelopment Association, likewise, focuses on making sure communities have the necessary infrastructure and amenities, not to mention housing, to prevent degredation. Maybe they make some unpopular recommendations or take controversial positions at times, but the agenda of both these entities is to serve cities and their citizens. Unlike the backers of Prop 98, whose agenda is to make money. If we have to impose restrictions on the power of eminent domain to preserve peoples' right to keep their homes (which in some cases is not even better for the community or the homeowner), then Prop. 99 is the reasonable choice. "

" Della: I disagree with what you say the Prop 98 backers agenda is. It is not making money, quite the opposite, it is preserving private property rights from greater and greater government intrusion. Actually, it is the goal of cities and the Redevelopment Assn to make money for cities by enhancing the tax base at the loss of private property. For clairity could you tell us just what are the restrictions on the power of eminent domain in Prop 99? I can't find any. "

" Specifically, Prop 99 restricts state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire owner-occupied residences and conveying them to private parties. This is the very issue that caused the hue & cry in the Kelo case. Nothing more. I can't agree that all regulations affecting an owner's use of private property are violations of constitutional "property rights". As for the money issue, if it's not about losing one's home, my guess is it's about how much money one can make through use of real property -- commercial as well as residential. The "greater and greater government intrusion" that seems to be so feared is nothing more than government's efforts to maintain balance, safety, economic strength and sustainability in communities. Unfortunately, people fight the efforts of those they hire (government officials), because it might mean loss of profitability from their property. The Kelo case found government could go to the extent of turning private property over to a private entity which it was believed would help reinvigorate the community. Prop 99 restricts government's ability to do that. So basically the local government would be limited in terms of what it could consider as a redevelopment plan. Prop. 99 takes care of the homeowners without hurting renters and without severely limiting local governments' ability to look out for the community it works for. "

" Prop 99 does protect one's residence...but only after 1 year of occupancy, but not if the city changes the zoning to Commercial nor if the purpose of the taking changes. And, Prop 99 does not protect farms, vineyards, ranches, investment property, private businesses nor places of worship. Prop 99 does not compensate ranchers and businesses for relocation and restart costs...leaving a business owner destitute. And 99 retains the Kelo definition of Public Use (Public Benefit)which means these private properties can be taken and transferred to a private developer who then makes a profit. Prop 99 has an overly broad definition of "blighted area". All these things are purposely placed in 99 by the Calif League of Cities and the Calif Redevelopment assn to make it easier to take private property to transfer to a private developer. I vote for 98, a proposition protecting private property placed on the ballot by taxpayer and property rights groups. I vote against 99 placed on the ballot by the very groups who take private property from us. "

" Vote no for BOTH propositions until each issue is seperated, considered on its own merits, and voted for seperately. 98 is a sham and 99 is a weak response to a sham. "

" Using the term "sham" to describe Prop 98 is like saying global warming is a spring heat wave. The complexity may be overwhelming you Entity but not to others who have studied it. "

" Fine, I'm glad you've studied these issues - now bring that knowledge to the public. Tell us why each individual issue is worth voting for or against, specifically, beyond a gross over-simplification of "it's just property rights", and without personally attacking me.

The analogy with global warming fails - what you're saying is that I'm understating the level of fraudulence in proposition 98, which you claim to support. "

" Della, are you OK with the very limited protection that 99 would give us? That it doesn't protect family farms, mom & pop stores, or community churches from the savage beast of eminent domain? I'm not OK with that. "

" Entity: In my posts I have touched on every aspect of 98 & 99. I am not trying to strong arm anyone. I am aware of the complexity of the issues. It took me a long time to understand the underlying issues. If you go to Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assn you can get tons of info. (hjta.org) or call the Sacramento office and speak to David Wolfe the man coordinating the Prop 98 campaign. He is very friendly and very willing to discuss the matter with you. "

" Yes I am okay with those protections as they stand in Prop. 99. Small farms, mom & pop stores, other businesses, are not so frequently disrupted by eminent domain without good reason in terms of the community, and never without just compensation. Unless you're talking about what's called "regulatory takings", which is another issue, yet not so cleverly folded into the other proposition in such a way that it protects large, wealthy landlords more than anyone else. Another webside people might want to check out is the League of California Cities website, which gives accurate info on local government & municipal issues, as well as eminent domain issues. It's a very informative site, and if you fear the League of California Cities more than smallpox, it will be a challenging experience for you, but enlightening. Eminent domain, although it has been poorly and unfairly used at times through the development of our nation, has resulted in some impressive improvements as well. And even government is learning from its mistakes. And except for that poor old woman in Chavez Canyon who sat on her porch with a shotgun trying to keep the Sherriff's deputies from taking her little ramshackle cabin so someone could build a ball park, I do not have the concerns about the pillaging of the little guy that property rights activists have. What amuses me is the property rights movement is spearheaded by some pretty big guys with their mighty big money, who also stand to gain even more if it prevails. Prop. 99 does just what it needs to do, nothing more. "

" Oops, correction. Chavez Ravine. Go Dodgers! (just kidding) "

" I agree with musikluvr.

Prop 99 is just another developer lobby-government backed and sponsored measure designed to allow developer-government alliances to take maximum advantage of private property; to take it away from its owner to provide an oasis of cheap land to the developer.

Now, dellasumbrella's stand is quite predictable, as she clearly always favors big developer rights.

I mean, where will the poor underprivileged developer find cheap land to develop if they can't get their political allies in government to give it to them? Gosh, wouldn’t want to make them pay real value based on what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller!

Prop 98 is not perfect, but it's a good start.
"

" The Whole Truth:
Your comment about my position belies the validity of your name. Dellasumbrella is never in support of big developers, and neither is Prop. 99. Dellasumbrella thinks big developers are a big problem, and that they are wolves in sheeps' clothing in many of these local measures -- Prop. 98 is one of them. Maybe even your baby, N. I don't know. I do know that the League of California Cities does its best to keep communities economically viable without seeing them deteriorate, and does its best to keep up with good planning practices. I trust the League, as I trust AARP and many of the other groups that support Prop. 99 and which are against Prop. 98, because I know that they are not in the pockets of big developers. "

" Facit, dellasumbrella has bought into the lie that is Prop 99. Once you have completed your first year in your new home, guess what? The tenants of Prop 99 can now take your property. Prop 99 also uses "Water" as one of it's buzz words. CA Cities and the Redevelopment agencies are only concerned about getting revenue!

As for "Rent Control" that is restricting the market place and telling landlords how much they can collect and how much they can raise your rent every year. In my mind that is WAY TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT. Prop 98 is a much better choice.

As for Dodger Stadium, that was one of those public good moves. I mean how much longer could the Dodgers play at the Collessium. "