[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Vivian Kahn

Much of the recent press coverage on Proposition 98 has focused on the effect this proposed constitutional amendment would have on renters. Homeowners who ignore this ballot measure because they think it has nothing to do with them do so at their own peril because this devious initiative would amend the California Constitution in ways that could, in fact, have sweeping impacts on all Californians.

The proponents of Proposition 98 advertise the measure as an effort to control public agency use of eminent domain because they know that California voters would likely support a measure to protect homeowners from having government take their property to use it for private development. They also acknowledge that passage of Prop 98 would end rent control (although they dismiss concerns about immediate impacts on renters claiming that nothing happens until tenants vacate their units). In fact, the same section of Prop. 98 that could undermine renter protections such as “just cause eviction” regulations would also threaten a wide range of land use and environmental regulations and programs.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Parents and educators have voiced their strong opposition to all cuts to schools and students. And while the Governor’s revised budget proposal avoids suspending Proposition 98, the state’s minimum school funding law, it still cuts billions of dollars from public education. It makes cuts to the many vital programs that help student achievement, like class size reduction. It also fails to include a cost-of-living adjustment for schools, despite the steadily increasing operating costs for local districts. With this budget, schools and students are once again being asked to “do more with less.”
 
With more than 20,000 layoff notices already sent to teachers, custodians, school bus drivers, principals and other school employees around the state, California's schools and students have paid a steep price for proposed budget cuts. Many teachers have already been recruited to leave the state. In addition, many school districts have already been forced to cut music, arts and career technical education programs.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

The Governor spoke briefly this afternoon at 1 p.m. on the May revise of his proposed California budget, took a few questions, and left in a little over 20 minutes. Ne was followed by Michael Genest, his cabinet member who heads the Department of Finance and who is in charge of the details on the budget and who walked reporters through an overview of the budget and took a number of questions from reporters.

The Administration pegged the budget deficit at $17.2 billion and said it would have been $24.7 billion had the legislature not acted earlier this year and made changes and cuts totaling $7.5 billion.

The Governor and Genest frankly admitted that the cuts being made are painful and were difficult choices. Despite the spin being put on the proposals, such as that education is being “fully funded” as required by the state constitutional minimum requirements of Proposition 98, John Laird, the Assembly Budget Chair released a statement and a 46 page report indicating there are $4 billion in cuts to education. There also are severe cuts in health and human services—where 26% of the cuts were proposed by the Governor in areas that include the payments made to Social Security recipients and payments to those who provide in home supportive services to the disabled, aged, and infirm.

by Calitics Editorial Board [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Proposition 98 claims to be about eminent domain and protecting the little people. But here at Calitics, we have reason to question the motives of Jon Coupal and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association. And once again, they are trying to hoodwink California voters.

Proposition 98 eliminates rent control and other renter protections, making living in California's cities out of reach for a greater percentage of our population. Prop 98 would also make protecting California's environment even harder than it is presently. The effects on governance, the environment, and tenants are simply disastrous. NO on 98.

Prop 99 is not ideal, but it is tolerable. It simply blocks the use of eminent domain to transfer owner-occupied homes to private developers. Nothing fancy, but it does have a nice provision that overrules Prop 98 if it gets one more vote.  It also has the potential to do the state a great favor by removing the issue of eminent domain from the ballot.   YES on 99.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

The Bakersfield Californian urges a no vote on Proposition 98 and a yeson Proposition 99, arguing that the first measure would lead to an "avalanche of lawsuits involving government, developers and landowners." The Californian also criticizes 98's abolition of rent control and potential to harm the environment.

Legislative Democrats are trying to be reasonable about how to increase revenues this year, with a myriad of proposals targeting strip clubs, six packsof beer, even plastic bags, the Los Angeles Times reports. If theRepublicans cannot accept these tiny bites, they should at least agreeto repeal the mortgage deducation for $1 million vacation homes.

Recalls have the tendency to be wasteful endeavors no matter what party is pushing them,the LA Times editorializes today. The Times supports Senate Pro Tem DonPerata's decision to stop pursuing the "dump Denham" effort, which mayhave served as a distraction during budget negotiations.

Meanwhile, the Bee reports that Denham will continue campaigning, even though support for the recall has been pulled. I guess when you're that unpopular, you can't take anything for granted.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Peter L. Stahl
Pete Rates the Propositions

Hey, voters!

The June primary is upon us. This ballot features two statewide propositions, both narrowing the government's ability to use its power of eminent domain to condemn and acquire private property. This is not a trivial issue. A ridiculous recent decision by the U. S. Supreme Court now allows governments to take private property, such as people's homes, for transfer to new, private owners, such as a Fortune 500 corporation, for no purpose other than increasing tax revenue. We must act to prevent this from happening in California.

Both Prop 98 and Prop 99 will curtail this new use of eminent domain. But while Prop 99 stops there, Prop 98 tracks on a sinister and gratuitous abolition of rent control. Obviously I don't think that's a good idea. Why? Read my ratings to find out. Then make up your own mind.

Proposition 98: Elimination of Rent Control – NO

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

My No on 98 Disclosure.

Governor Schwarzenegger has once again abandoned his radical friends on the right, and boy are they pissed. But, here's his remarks on Proposition 98, the constitutional amendment to end rent control, land use restrictions, and governmental regulation of the environment. Arnold opposes it mostly because it blocks him from building dams.

Schwarzenegger said he was opposing Proposition 98 in part because it might block the building of water projects crucial to farmers and residential users.

"Eminent domain is an issue worth addressing," Schwarzenegger said in a prepared statement. "However Proposition 98 would undermine California's ability to improve our infrastructure, including our water delivery and storage." (SacBee 4/25/08)

Apparently the potential harm to tenants was a little lower down on his list. But with this Governor, you take what you can get.  He's opposed to Prop 98, and that's a good thing.