Go read. Follow the links. Understand what’s going on. The super-rich want it all – including “your” property and “your” money. Want your country back? Vote the bastards out.
The far right says that a government stopping a company from dumping waste into a river is “taking” money from that company. I am not kidding. And you had better take this seriously or YOU will be PAYING companies to not harm you and your families.
Along with EVERYTHING else going on in this election, the far right has managed to get stealth “takings” initiatives on the ballot in four states. In California it is Proposition 90. In Washington it is Initiative 933. In Idaho it is Proposition 2. In Arizona it is Proposition 207.
This is a “private property” and “takings” amendment disguised as a limit to “eminent domain.” This means that it is supposed to be about keeping the government from seizing property so it can be used by commercial interests. But what this really does is prevent the states from ANY regulation of property, including ANY environmental regulations, ANY zoning laws, etc.
These ballot initiatives are all funded by one person – a New York real estate tycoon named Howie Rich. And he did this through front groups – organizations disguised as something else. See if you can guess what he plans to do the day after these laws pass? (Hint — think “hog farm next door to your house.”)
6 Responses
Prop. 207 in Arizona (and perhaps the other examples as well) contains an exemption for all existing land-use regulations. Those who maintain that it wipes out existing environmental regulations or zoning laws are misrepresenting the content and effect of this proposition.
The law mandates that if new regulations are created which restrict the use of property in a way that reduces its value, then the government must compensate the owner for the “taking”–the same basic principle is in the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which says “Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Here in Florida there’s a proposition to raise the percentage of voters needed to amend the state constitution. Apparently politicians fear nothing so much as direct democracy. The Forida Bar endorses this proposition, not surprisingly. Not exactly on point to the property rights thing, but thought it might be interesting to you.
Yupper we are fighting In Washington against Initiative 933, Its terrible. Its a rape the land for the rich law…
gads
David Friedman has a post about California’s Prop 90 and how an argument for Santa Clara’s Measure A is really an argument for Prop 90.
The problem is there is NO cost to developers for their takings in developing land. We are in a world of hurt right now as far as our environment is concerned, and these not just local but GLOBAL considerations are being considered by nobody in this country. Those cities and areas that are recogniizing the problem and starting to do something about it will be penalized by those actions like Prop 90 that seekt o compensate developers over the common good. It is the tragedy of the commons playing out on a global scale.
Humans have always damaged land in developing it, but before, it was a regional problem. Now it’s global, and yet, this country refuses to recognize it. And since we have no national plan to limit the damage and preserve open space, watershed areas, critical habitats, limit CO2 in the atmosphere, and on and on, local governments must act. And yet, when they do, the developers want to be compensated for not being allowed to develop.
Agreed, if you own property and can’t develop it just as you please, there should be some compensation. But, to say that you have no responsibility to the surrounding community when you DO develop is just as wrong.
These things need to be decided on a community basis, since our state and federal government refuse to deal with the problem. There are already means to do so. And there is no reason to support land grabs and yet more money going to the rich for adding to problems they are already responsible for creating, and have not bothered to pay for.
BTW, where I said “an argument for Measure A” I should have said “an argument against Measure A.”
I’m in favor of a cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions, though the Europeans have so far shown how *not* to do it (in part because the EU Emissions Trading Scheme gives out too many allowances to polluters, and the fact that they are giving away any allowances for free at all, rather than requiring them to be purchased). The U.S. has only engaged in purely voluntary cap-and-trade (e.g., the Chicago Climate Exchange)–though there are some pretty big companies participating.