Legisl. Action, May ’08:  Spread the Word to Vote June 3 No on Prop. 98, Yes on 99 Stop the most Extreme Far-Right, Anti-Public-Interest, Fraudulant Initiative Ever

98 and its twin, 2006 Prop. 90:   • Billed as just “eminent domain reform”   • In fact, a bait-’n’-switch

• Extremist secret agenda     • Slips into our Constitution an end to most kinds of restraints on business

   or property protecting the public good   • No exception for rules protecting  public health or safety

• On the ballot via paid-for signatures       • Yes votes on Prop. 99 help defeat 98

All this may be hard to believe.  But it’s actually understated, literally true.  Not a word is a stretch.  Believe it:  Prop. 98 is a grave, real, threat to our entire way of life.

Text Box: Background: Twin of Prop 98, 2006 Prop. 90 Prop. 98 is 90's twin in most respects. In 2006, Prop. 90’s backers came close to fooling enough voters: It lost by just 2½%. The S.F. Chronicle, Nader’s Public Citizen group, and other investigators exposed its secret main funder as a far-right NY billionaire who put anti-environment, anti-regulation initiatives on many state ballots (find links to their reports at www.HowieRichExposed.com).

Prop. 98 will:

–End redevelopment in Calif. by public entities

–End probably all planning and zoning in California

–End most renters rights, including rent control

–Likely end new public water quality and supply projects

–End most environmental laws and protections

–End most consumer protection and product safety laws

–End most workplace and labor protections

Text Box: Why a Yes on Prop. 99? It helps defeat Prop. 98, because: Both are billed “eminent domain reform.” (Prop. 99 really is, and only that.) Prop. 98 loses if it either, 1) loses outright; or, 2) passes, but 99 also passes, with more votes, and thus prevails over 98.–End most laws regulating healthcare, insurance, credit, financial disclosure, plant security, and countless other state and local rules restraining business and property

–The most radical far-right. pro-unrestrained-business-and-property, anti-public, full agenda initiative ever

That’s why it’s vital for each of us to spread the word to vote No on Prop. 98 and Yes on Prop. 99.

 

Text Box: HOW to HELP STOP PROP. 98: Our Board asks you spread the word these ways: • Of course VOTE: NO on Prop. 98, Yes on Prop 99 • Ask others to do likewise • COPY THIS SHEET to start your own letter chains: • Mail it to friends and family in Calif. • Post it where you can (laundry room? bulletin board?) • Give it to neighbors • Sign postcard at meeting, or write your own, to Editorial Page Editors of L.A. Times and O.C. Regis- ter urging their editorials against Prop. 98 and for 99 (Mr. Jim Newton, L.A. Times, 202 W. 1st St., Los Angeles, 90012; Ms. Cathy Taylor, O.C. Register, 625 N. Grand Ave., Santa Ana, 92701) • If you have email, and will forward to friends an email with this message, email a request with the subject line “Send me No on 98 / Yes on 99 email” to Jonathan at LawGuruLaguna@Yahoo.com • Write letters-to-the-editor (to be printed) to the Times and Register urging a No on 98 and Yes on 99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hidden Trickery of Prop 98 – How it Works:

(Read this only if you need to “get down in the weeds”)

     98 is a highly devious “bait-and-switch” fraud, billed as mere “Eminent Domain” law reform.  But its real agenda is buried deep in unique definitions and use of terms like “taken”, “damaged”, “private use,” “associated property rights,” “just compensation,” and “transfer an economic benefit to ... private persons at the expense of ... owner.”

     If its definitions are plugged into its operative parts, it says:  “Regulation of the ... use of ... property or associated property rights ... to transfer an economic to private persons [is unlawful, subject to] injunction ... or  [court] declaration invalidating [it]” and taxpayers must pay for all lost value it causes to business or property, plus attorney fees.

     Businesses use property and “associated ... rights.”  The public and its sub-groups – consumers, workers, tenants, patients, seniors, etc. – are “private persons” who usually get “economic benefit” from regulations.  The result:  98 exalts all claimed rights to unfettered business or property


 

over all public interests to restrain business and property for the common good, and public health and safety.

       The list of laws we’d lose is nearly endless.  Prop. 98 is breathtaking in its disastrous anti-government scope.  It must be defeated.  And you are the key.  Please help.

 

What is “Eminent Domain”?

     ED goes back centuries.  Governments at all levels use it as a last resort to compel sale of property, at fair market value – set by a court if need be – for such classic public uses as roads, bridges, parks, schools, public buildings, etc.

     ED has also been used since the 1930’s to re-develop blighted areas, as voted by local governments, after hearings, that usually end up sold or leased to private entities.

     California law already bars ED to force sale of homes to re-develop non-blighted areas.  Orange Co. Measure “A” passed in 2006 bars ED for any re-development that ends up sold to private persons or companies.