Debates
30 Oct 06
30 Oct 06
I just read the arguments for, arguments against and the "Analysis by Legislative Analyst" on this site:
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop90/analysis90.html
I am in favor of Prop 90. It forces the government to pay citizens when it inflicts financial losses on them via use of eminent domain.
Anyone feel we should vote no?
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungVote against eminent domain, vote libertarian.
I just read the arguments for, arguments against and the "Analysis by Legislative Analyst" on this site:
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop90/analysis90.html
I am in favor of Prop 90. It forces the government to pay citizens when it inflicts financial losses on them via use of eminent domain.
Anyone feel we should vote no?
30 Oct 06
I'm against eminent domain abuse by the government, however, the second part of the initiative looks like it might be abused by developers and lawyers at taxpayer expense.
According to the Argus:
"Aside from putting stricter limits on eminent domain, Proposition 90 also allows property owners to sue the government — that's you and me — for actions that result in "substantial" economic loss as a result of new regulations. What defines "substantial" isn't clear, and it's likely to be one of the first issues hashed out in court."
http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/oped/ci_4570761
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe developers and lawyers could only "abuse" the initiative if the government made laws that inflicted financial losses on them.
I'm against eminent domain abuse by the government, however, the second part of the initiative looks like it might be abused by developers and lawyers at taxpayer expense.
According to the Argus:
"Aside from putting stricter limits on eminent domain, Proposition 90 also allows property owners to sue the government — that's you and me — for ...[text shortened]... rst issues hashed out in court."
http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/oped/ci_4570761
30 Oct 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's incredibly vague and open to abuse.
I just read the arguments for, arguments against and the "Analysis by Legislative Analyst" on this site:
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop90/analysis90.html
I am in favor of Prop 90. It forces the government to pay citizens when it inflicts financial losses on them via use of eminent domain.
Anyone feel we should vote no?
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNO NO NO NO NO.
I just read the arguments for, arguments against and the "Analysis by Legislative Analyst" on this site:
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop90/analysis90.html
I am in favor of Prop 90. It forces the government to pay citizens when it inflicts financial losses on them via use of eminent domain.
Anyone feel we should vote no?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Prop 90 deals with the police power of the state to regulate land via zoning and such. What the Prop wants to do is say that the government must pay for damages loss by enforcing police power. Now if it is inverse condemnationt then the government would have to pay for it. But the government does not, I repeat, does not have to pay anyone anything to regulate land.
And as for eminent domain, the government is required to do two things: pay for the land and due process. This is because of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. So the land would be paid for.
If this passes, they are going to backrupt the local governments in California.
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungEminent Domain has been skewered to hell and back....I'd vote yes if I were a permanent resident of CA.
I just read the arguments for, arguments against and the "Analysis by Legislative Analyst" on this site:
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop90/analysis90.html
I am in favor of Prop 90. It forces the government to pay citizens when it inflicts financial losses on them via use of eminent domain.
Anyone feel we should vote no?
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by slappy115I don't understand.
NO NO NO NO NO.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Prop 90 deals with the police power of the state to regulate land via zoning and such. What the Prop wants to do is say that the government must pay for damages loss by enforcing police power. Now if it is inverse condemnationt then the government would have to pay for it. But the governme ...[text shortened]... be paid for.
If this passes, they are going to backrupt the local governments in California.
Prop 90 deals with the police power of the state to regulate land via zoning and such.
Elaborate please.
What the Prop wants to do is say that the government must pay for damages loss by enforcing police power.
Let's stick with what the proposition does say. What is all this talk about police power? I don't see the word police in the text of the prop anywhere.
Now if it is inverse condemnationt then the government would have to pay for it.
What's "inverse condemnaton"?
And as for eminent domain, the government is required to do two things: pay for the land and due process. This is because of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. So the land would be paid for.
This proposition makes them pay more; realistic amounts I think.
If this passes, they are going to backrupt the local governments in California.
No it won't. It will make the government more careful about making new laws, and it might raise taxes. It won't "bankrupt" the government though.
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere is a huge difference between eminent domain and the police power of the state. You keep using the words "eminent domain" yet you are describing police power. You said something to the effect that the state should pay for eminent domain. The state MUST pay market value to claim land for eminent domain. Police power is used to put restrictions on land uses which is where zoning gets its power. I think that the website you read is intentially using the words eminent domain in place of police power.
I don't understand.
[b]Prop 90 deals with the police power of the state to regulate land via zoning and such.
Elaborate please.
What the Prop wants to do is say that the government must pay for damages loss by enforcing police power.
Let's stick with what the proposition does say. What is all this talk about police power? I don' ...[text shortened]... making new laws, and it might raise taxes. It won't "bankrupt" the government though.[/b]
Inverse condemnation (condemnation=eminent doain) is where the government uses the police power of the state to the point that the regulations render the land financially
The government must pay market value for any land taken by eminent domain. So why should they pay more?
The government will stop regulating land use and when you have a nuclear facility or a paper mill in the middle of your neighborhood, then you will have exactly what you wanted.
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoung"Require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules."
I just read the arguments for, arguments against and the "Analysis by Legislative Analyst" on this site:
http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/props/prop90/analysis90.html
I am in favor of Prop 90. It forces the government to pay citizens when it inflicts financial losses on them via use of eminent domain.
Anyone feel we should vote no?
That is police power NOT eminent domain. And that comes right from your web page.
"Limit government authority to take ownership of private property."
The 5th and 14th amendments do that.
"Under current law and court rulings, government usually is required to compensate property owners for losses resulting from laws or rules if government's action deprives the owners of virtually all beneficial use of the property."
This is inverse condemnation.
The rest of that webpage is just spouting off tougher restrictions on eminent domain. Why should the government pay more than fair market value? They are taking the land for public use so the public would have to pay more.
But the first half of that page is definitely talking about police power without mentioning police power. Don't confuse police power and eminent domain.
20 Feb 08
Originally posted by slappy115I Totally agree.
There is a huge difference between eminent domain and the police power of the state. You keep using the words "eminent domain" yet you are describing police power. You said something to the effect that the state should pay for eminent domain. The state MUST pay market value to claim land for eminent domain. Police power is used to put restrictions on l ...[text shortened]... r a paper mill in the middle of your neighborhood, then you will have exactly what you wanted.