Californians: Prop 98 and 99? Confusing as hell

[Elspeth]

Any advice? I've got my absentee ballot in front of me but haven't gotten the info book on the propositions yet.

[gateley]

1. K&R -

I can't help and don't live in CA, but my best friend does so I'll pass along the DU wisdom.

[Elspeth]

3. Thanks. They often write propositions that look the same to confuse voters

I'm usually up on the differences, but I haven't heard much about these.

[AlCzervik]

2. i've read them over a couple of times and still can't decide, the howard Jarvis Tax payers assoc.

supports 98 and to be honest that gives some pause. I need to read more material on both.

[Elspeth]

4. Ah, Jarvis. The people who brought us Prop 13

On the other hand, I am really opposed to the extension of eminent domain.

[AlCzervik]

6. indeed, you can see why i'm still undecided. I see that name and recoil but i do

have some major problems with eminent domain.

[Retrograde]

10. I have a knee-jerk reaction to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Organization

Whatever they're for, I'm against it.

Especially this one, with the manipulative radio ads. Who can resist little children who have to say goodbye because BigEvilDevelopers are taking their homes? Or the lady choking back her tears as she says BigEvilDevelopers are going to destroy her family (huh?)? I can.

When I first moved here from New York I thought the proposition process was a good thing. Now I don't: it's become a tool of well-funded special interest groups who want to push through some special programs that even the legislature is smart enough to realize is not a good thing for the state.

I haven't decided on 99 yet: I'm leaning no on general principles.

[AlCzervik]

12. i'm voting no on 98 now because of the repealing rent control, it's down thread.

[Gormy Cuss]

16. The problem with 98 is that it's a broad owner rights prop.

Like everything from the Jarvis people, it's a bad idea.

99 seeks to offer some remedy to the Supremes' decision on Kelo v. New London without all of the added stuff banning rent control, etc. There are problems with 99 as well -- with it in place it would still be possible to take multifamily properties by eminent domain for private developers thus displacing renters, for example-- but the principal reason to vote for 99 is to defeat 98.

My childhood home was taken via eminent domain for a public works project and that was bad enough. To force the destruction of residential communities to put up a retail complex is beyond the pale.

[devilgrrl]

5. No on 98 - yes on 99

http://www.no98yes99.com/

[Elspeth]

8. Thanks. This helps some.

Appreciate it. Is there a large scale site that talks about all the propositions.

[slackmaster]

13. What she said!

:kick:

[Cant trust em]

7. NO NO NO on prop 98

it eliminates rent control. The list of people who have come out against it is wide and very bi-partisan. The Governor has teamed up with SEIU an the Teacher's Union to oppose this bill. When Arnold and the Teachers come together on something that is pretty significant.

[Elspeth]

9. No kidding. Never thought I'd see Arnold and the teachers agree about ANYTHING!

...

[mulsh]

11. CA League of Women Voters supports 99

in general what ever they support tends to have merit. prop 98 is a round about way to end all rent control in this state, is is confusingly worded and supported by the Jarvis Tax organization, a very right wing group. 99 addresses eminent domain exclusively and in plain english.

[Annoyingly Logical]

14. California Prop Advice

Generally speaking, because of the economics of putting a Prop on the ballot in California, only well-funded (re: conservative) organizitons get measures on the ballot. Taking that into account, if you are ever in doubt about a Prop it is usually safer to vote No.

[Xithras]

15. Prop 98 undermines zoning and land use laws too.

Prop 98 essentially and effectively strips the state government of all authority over private property. Yes, it will stop eminent domain abuses, but it will also eliminate rent control, prevent cities from determining their own growth patterns, prohibit local governments from protecting privately held wetlands and sensitive areas from development, eliminate the concept of greenbelts entirely, and on, and on.

It essentially sets California back to a Texas style system where you can do anything you want on your land, no matter how destructive or disruptive it is to the environment, neighbors, or community.

99 is better, but I have issues with it as well. It offers no protection for businesses other than private residences. If a city wants to convert the small farm your family has lived on for 100 years into a Super WalMart to enhance their tax base, Prop 99 extends no protections to the homeowner. Likewise, if a developer decides that your cornfields need to be converted into homes, and he can get the city to agree to it, they can use eminent domain to drive you out even if you don't want to sell. These types of abuses are permissable after Kelo, and 99 does nothing to curb them.

I'm voting no on both.