One More Bullet Point on the Hidden Agenda
by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]
Way back in 2006, I wrote about Proposition 90. Remember how I said that was going to be terrible for the environment? Well, it's as if the Hidden Agendas Scheme folks are trying to one up that. According to a new legal analysis by Shute, Mihaly, and Weinberger (a good environmental and land use law firm), the Hidden Agendas Scheme has some real potential to mess with California's environmental regulations. You can get the complete report at the CA League of Conservation Voters Education Fund website here (look in the lower left corner).
Basically, Shute Mihaly issued an opinion that the CPOFPA would "amend the California Constitution to add a regulatory takings provision that would allow a property owner to sue to obtain compensation for, and/or to invalidate, regulation that imposes costs on the owner, regardless of whether the regulated activity is a nuisance, a threat to public health or safety, or harmful to the environment" and will negatively impact the implementation of AB 32, CEQA, smart growth regulations and other environmental regulations and possibly be more restrictive than last year's dangerous Prop90. Here's another key quote:
[T]he initiative prohibits regulations affecting the use of real property that are enacted 'in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.' Put simply, nearly all regulation provides an economic benefit to some private person. Accordingly, although the initiative is ambiguous in several significant areas, a court could interpret it to restrict a host of environmental and land use regulations that would be plainly legitimate under existing law. (SMW report (PDF) 12.10.07)
Rack up another bullet point on the Hidden Agenda. The fact is that the Hidden Agendas Scheme is a poorly drafted piece of legislation, and it's impossible to really see how far this can be stretched by overzealous landlords and property owners when they are facing the possibility of common sense regulation. We know about rent control. We know about the myriad of additional headaches this could bring to the water storage debate. Now we know about the possible negative effects to the environment. That's quite a hidden agenda they've got going on.
A tremendous environmental coalition has been assembled to oppose this Hidden Agendas Scheme with members like the Cal League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club CA, the NRDC and many others. To put this bluntly, there can be no possible benefit to the environment from this initiative, but there could be a huge downside for the California's environment just as we are making progress on the legislative front.
And when you add this to the end of rent control that is embodied in this Hidden Agendas Scheme, it is imperative that we make sure this initiative is defeated. We can get REAL eminent domain reform with the Homeowner's Protection Act, without all the baggage of these Hidden Agendas.
Posted December 11th, 2007 by Syndicated
- Read original article
- Login or register to post comments
And finally, on the other initiative
Just a quick thought on water storage. That claim is widely refuted. The prohibition on taking property to consume natural resources applies to natural resources appurtenant to the property being taken
As for the Homeowner's Protection Act. It should be called Homeowners Deception Act. It's not real eminent domain reform. The Kelo decision affects all property, not just homes, and the Constitution says "nor shall private property be taken for..." not "nor shall owner-occupied residential property be taken for..."
We've had over 1,000 eminent domain cases in California, a small % having been homes. Overwhelmingly, it is done to small businesses. But answer this: is taking away the roof over my head that much different from taking away what pays for the roof over my head?
I will not support a proposition that increases or decreases my rights based on the kind of property I own. If this got rid of the ability of government to make frivolous blight designations for all property (instead of just residential), I'd see no reason to oppose it. But of course, the League of California Cities won't author that, because that would be real reform, and trusting them to author real reform is trusting a wolf to guard the sheep den. For 2 reasons, this is worse than nothing at all:
1. It will convince voters that real eminent domain reform has taken place when it hasn't
2. The explicit mention of one thing excludes all others. "(b) The State and local governments are prohibited from acquiring by eminent domain an owner-occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person" means they are not prohibited from acquiring all other properties by eminent domain for the purpose of conveying it to a private person. Small businesses, churches, and farms at least have a fighting chance to challenge the validity of the taking, under this they won't even have that
CPOFPA gets rid of rent controls, but that's the only point against it I've heard that's actually factual. With that in mind I urge a yes on CPOFPA and a no on HPA
The Silent Consensus
On rent control
All current rent controls for current tenants are allowed to remain under this.
That aside, to the issue of rent controls per se. They are wrong practically and wrong morally. They don't work, and the proponents know it. The proponents don't care though, they see them as a "humanitarian" issue regardless of the practical impact, the same logic that says socialism is the best system. Rent controls create shortages in housing, reduce COLAs, give the landlords a captive audience (the tenant can't afford to move, because any place he/she moves to will have a way higher rent) and the ability to throw ultimatums and neglect the property, and finally, can be exploited by rich people as well
Of anyone in favor of rent controls, are they landlords? Have they gone and risked their time, money, and energy and invested like landlords have? Have they then decided to rent control their own property? That would be a great start, and I'd completely support them in that. Otherwise, they are in absolutely no position to force that demand on other people.
And why is it the job of one group of people to fix a societal problem they didn't create? Seriously, why?
The Silent Consensus
Not this time
You said that Prop 90 would have hurt the environment, and on that I agree with you completely. Prop 90 delved into regulatory takings and would have made that, along with all eminent domain, prohibitively expensive
I'm not convinced that this delves into regulatory takings, let alone environmental regulations, like 90 did.
The part being talked about: (iii) regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner
Environmental, land use, zoning, and consumer regulations are inherently for the PUBLIC benefit, not "one or more private persons." These regulations CAN transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons, but they are not enacted for that express purpose (in order to). Unless if the property owner can prove that's their express purpose, they have no claim with any weight
The Silent Consensus