Alls I know is I hope you all look carefully at the text of Prop 99 (http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/06/03/ca/state/prop/99/#text) and don’t just believe what renters groups tell you. For example here is one of the changes the Prop would make to the state Constitution

Private property may be taken or damaged for a public use *and only* when just compensation … has first been paid to … the owner.

“And only”?? WTF? That is terrible. At best, it is shitty writing, and at worst it is a sleeper cell that turns into a loophole later.

Also– I’m not the best at deciphering legalese but the rest of the changes to the Constitution seem like they will actually make it easier for the state to use eminent domain because they mostly insert conditions into the original, which is pretty succinct language. Also it introduces language that could be construed to mean that the state is only prohibited from seizing owner-occupied properties, i.e. small business is fair game.

Read it yourself and tell me if I’m wrong. It just sounds like a convenient way to get eminent domain rules rewritten the way a certain group wants them, by taking advantage of the confusion.

Sorry if the Mo discussion is either passé or verboten. I don’t stop by very often, and you *did* put a picture of his lovely redevelopment work on this post.

If this measure were approved by more votes than Proposition 99, the provisions of Proposition 99 probably would not take effect.

So you probably want to look into that.

Prop. 99 is a “poison pill” initiative to stop Prop. 99 should it pass, so by voting “yes” on both you’re actually voting “yes” for 99. This happens once in a while, because often it is a more successful strategy than simply contributing to the “Vote No on the Dumbass Initiative” fund. Why do they do it? Because it works!

There are also some important differences between 98 and 99, such as the fact that Prop. 98 would end rent-controlled housing in California.

From http://www.sftu.org/ :

Proposition 98 on the June ballot is disguised as a measure to reform eminent domain laws. The measure’s real target, though, is rent control. It would repeal and ban any rent control, as well as other measures promoting affordable housing such as inclusionary affordable housing laws. The competing measure to save rent control–Proposition 99–lets voters choose real eminent domain reform, without any hidden agenda like rent control repeal. Proposition 99 also takes the eminent domain reform issue away from right-wing groups, which have been trying to use the eminent domain reform issue as a mask to attack consumer and environmental regulations. Plus Prop 99 has a poison pill, invalidating the rent control repeal measure if 99 wins.

However I should note it is only funny in the sense that it is perfectly reasonable. I still might actually do it.

“Voting” as envisioned by the Framers was also restricted to people who were white and male. Certainly even Turty Squirp would agree that the right to vote shouldn’t be restricted that much!

The right to vote carries the responsibility of carrying some of the burden of decisions of state. Everyone who lives in this country has a stake in how it is run–not just those who own real estate, have reduced melanin, or have Y chromosomes–so everyone should have a voice.

As far as votes for the insane and those who live off the public dole, yes, I think that even oilmen and Halliburton employees should have a vote. Despite the fact that they’ve voted themselves some pretty swanky horse and buggies.

“Voting” as envisioned by the Framers was restricted to people who 1) had a direct interest (usually determined by holding land within the state*, or by being taxed on an issue), and 2) were thought to have the ability to make decisions balancing the wants of the individual with the needs of the state*. The reason: You don’t want everyone voting themselves a new horse and buggy.

So before claiming that “everyone should vote”- please tell me why it is inherently “good” that everyone gets a vote? Even the insane? Even those who don’t want to earn a living, and are content to live off the public dole?

* “State” meaning the governmental entity.

Of course, that does have the end result of a lot of folks writing in Mickey Mouse or what-have-you…

Voting is a right, not a mandate. Or do you want eveyone to also own a gun? Maybe if you make qualifying for voting harder, more people will want to, and actually do it.

Prop 98 is a government nightmare waiting to happen. Take a look at the effects of a similar measure passed in Oregon, it has cost the state billions of dollars. And that’s just little Oregon, the impacts in California would be enormous.

Incidentally, the legislature couldn’t get its act together to put its own eminent domain reform package together. Which may or may not give support to the idea that we ought to consider redistricting reform. Which was, of course, an initiative in a past election.

And, I’m with Jennyo on the issue of initiatives. I don’t like that bills are passed, so that one small group on the other side of the state can get their way on some issue, but then there are far reaching consequences for everyone else.