 |
|
Welcome to Robyn Nordell's Conservative California Election Website
Please Check Back in October of 2010 for Extensive Voter Information
For the November 2, 2010 California General Election
ARCHIVES - June 3, 2008 Elections
STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS for the June 3, 2008 Elections
PROPOSITION 98: YES!!
Protects private property rights from Eminent Domain Abuse - protects homes, businesses and places of worship.
Partial List of Those Who SUPPORT PROP 98:
Senator Tom McClintock, Assembly Members Chuck DeVore and Mimi Walters, Jon Fleischman of Flash Report, Steve Frank of Capitol News, Capitol Resource Institute, Traditional Values Coalition, California Republican Taxpayers Association, California Taxpayer Protection Committee , Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association , National Tax Limitation Committee, National Taxpayers Union, California Family Council, and Robyn Nordell.
More Extensive Endorsement List for YES on Prop 98
Secretary of State Info on Proposition 98
PROPOSITION 99: NO!!
Don't Be Fooled by claims that this will protect private property from eminent domain!
"Prop. 99 is backed by government groups who want to continue to abuse eminent domain, including taxpayer-backed organizations such as the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association. How can they claim to be protecting property rights when their initiative – Prop. 99 – is designed to protect a status quo that is against property rights?"
Full article: 4/20/08 Orange County Register: Prop. 98 protects private property rights ...Vote YES on Prop. 98, for real eminent-domain reform, and NO on Prop. 99, which is designed to stop such reform.
Partial List of Those Who OPPOSE PROP 99:
Senator Tom McClintock, Assembly Members Chuck DeVore and Mimi Walters, Jon Fleischman of Flash Report, Steve Frank of Capitol News, California Family Council, Capitol Resource Institute, Traditional Values Coalition, and Robyn Nordell.
Secretary of State Info on Proposition 99
GET THE FACTS ON PROP 98
EMINENT DOMAIN - Proposition 98: A protection for private property all the time, by Jon Coupal
5/14/08, San Diego Union Tribune
Excerpt: "Over time, the courts have changed the "public use" requirement into a "public purpose" requirement. This new "public benefit" test allows government to take property for any perceived public benefit even if the property will not be used by government. Courts now allow any home and small business to be forcibly seized and given to a developer or big-box store so long as the government can state some "public benefit," including the "benefit" of generating more sales or property tax dollars..."
(Coupal is an attorney and president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association – California's largest taxpayer organization.)
Read the full article
Apr 28, 2008
The View - Yes on Prop. 98/No on Prop. 99 - The Battle to Restore Private Property Rights
California Real Estate Journal, By Joel Ayala, John Kabateck, and Doug Mosebar
Excerpts: "It is well documented that business owners are the most common victims of eminent domain abuse because of local governments' appetite for sales tax revenue to finance unsustainable levels of spending. In the never-ending chase to generate greater sales tax revenue, it is increasingly common for public agencies to use the power of eminent domain to replace existing businesses with projects that hold the promise of generating more tax revenue. As a result, it is not just homes and businesses in blighted neighborhoods that are seized from property owners who don't want to sell; it is also modest homes and productive businesses that have the responsibility of supporting their employees and families..."
Read the full article
The Lincoln Club supports Prop 98 / opposes Prop 99
Excerpts from their 4/12/08 press release:
"Proposition 98 is the true eminent domain reform initiative that provides private property owners the most protection against the ability for governments to seize the property of one private party and hand it over to another private party for the benefit of government coffers," said Richard K. Wagner, President of the Lincoln Club.
"Proposition 99 is being funded and falsely marketed by cities and counties as the 'true eminent domain reform,'" explained Dan Baren, Lincoln Club Legislative Committee Chairman. "In fact, some of these same governments, through their redevelopment agencies, have abused eminent domain by seizing so-called 'blighted' property then, transferring them to another private owner for private uses, such as the development of big-box stores or retail projects, that generate tax revenue."
Read their full press release
Traditional Values Coalition: YES on Prop 98 / NO on Prop 99
"Do not be fooled! Prop 98 OFFERS THE ONLY TRUE protection for your home, business, farmland and your place of worship from being unjustly taken by the government, being bulldozed and having strip malls built in their place..."
Read TVC's Entire Article on Propositions 98 & 99
Capitol Resource Institute: YES on Prop 98 / NO on Prop 99 "There are two very important ballot initiatives Californians will consider this summer: Propositions 98 and 99. Similar to Proposition 90, the 2006 initiative that sought to protect homeowners and churches from eminent domain abuse, Proposition 98 will prevent government from taking private property and then giving it to another private party.
Unfortunately, property developers and tax revenue-hungry local governments have also placed an eminent domain measure on the ballot that is much weaker. Proposition 99 does not include protections for churches and other types of property. Voters should be aware that if both initiatives pass, Proposition 99 has a "poison pill" provision that will nullify the protections for churches include in Proposition 98. That is why it is so important that voters vote "YES" on 98 and "NO" on 99."
NEW! Campaign for Children & Families
Click HERE to Read their Analysis
Excerpt: "Also on the ballot are Proposition 98 and Proposition 99 are competing statewide ballot propositions. Both claim to protect private property from eminent domain (government seizure) for "private purposes." Only one is telling you the truth:
Prop. 98 YES True protection for all private property
Prop. 99 NO False protection, hardly protects private property
California Family Council (affiliated with Focus on the Family)
CFC SUPPORTS Prop 98 & OPPOSES Prop 99
Excerpted from CFC's Analysis of Propositions 98-99
Read CFC's Full Analysis Here
Eminent Domain:
"Eminent domain is the power of government to seize private property for public use. The right comes from the Fifth Amendment, which says, "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." When the government does take private property, the owner must be fairly compensated. Often, this is a smooth process, with agreement between a willing owner and the government; other times there may be heated disagreements leading to lawsuits.[1]
In 2005, the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. the City of New London (Conn., June 2005), upheld government's right to take private property for private economic development and seemingly lowered the threshold for municipalities to condemn property for what they deemed a higher public-benefit use.
One year later, in June 2006, President Bush responded by issuing an executive order barring the federal government from taking private land for someone else's private use. More than 41 states have now passed protections for private-property owners, but California has only been successful in limited protection reforms; efforts have stalled in the California Legislature and Proposition 90, California's Protect Our Homes Initiative, failed at the polls in November 2006.
Meanwhile, gaping holes in California's eminent-domain law allow state and local governments to operate as "middle men" – transferring land on which exist homes, businesses and churches into the hands of private developers who promise more tax dollars. Churches, providing no direct economic output, are particularly vulnerable to misuse of this specific government power. Because governments cannot capitalize on churches (which are exempt from income and property taxes), some California governments have attempted to use the power of eminent domain to remove congregations from their property in order to build revenue-generating condominiums and strip malls.
In the wake of Proposition 90's failure to pass – and a continued failure of the California Legislature to come to terms on eminent domain – critics of eminent domain returned with another ballot measure, this time garnering wider support, including the California Farm Bureau. But local officials, worried that eminent-domain reform could pass at the polls, introduced their own competing measure "that would bar seizure of owner-occupied housing for private purposes – albeit with some loopholes."[2]
Both these measures now appear on the June primary ballot as Propositions 98 and 99, and will likely confuse many voters. However, there are key differences between the two. Should both conflicting measures pass at the polls, the one garnering the highest vote total will go into effect.
If both Propositions 98 and 99 pass, the one receiving the highest number of votes would go into effect. For this reason, it is important that Californians vote for one measure or the other – NOT BOTH.
Proposition 98 provides real eminent-domain protections for property owners –
homes, small businesses, places of worship, and small farms.
Proposition 99, on the other hand, provides limited protections for owner-occupied residences."
Read CFC's Full Analysis Here
|
|
