What’s in a Name? The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act

http://blogging.la/archives/images/2008/01/homeless-thumb.jpgEven those of you who follow politics and are diligent about exercising your right to vote may not know that the June ballot will include a state measure that, if passed, would eliminate rent control and “inclusionary housing programs.”

The ballot measure, which is deceptively titled the “California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act,” is being talked about as a way to keep the government from seizing land for private development, and yes, it would protect landowners in this way.

It also, though, as yesterday’s LA Times cautions us, would effectively eliminate rent control and regulation that requires builders to provide a certain number of affordable units in their developments.

It also may make enforcement of various environmental protections difficult if not impossible–the protection of habitat for endangered species, for instance. Screw those spotted owls–we need more lofts!

The measure was just approved for the June ballot last week, and needless to say, there are beaucoup bucks backing it, so help spread the word about its full effects. I for one, plan to call it the Anti Rent Control and Environmental Protection Act. For more information, both the California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund (CLCV Education Fund) and the Western Center on Law and Poverty (WCLP) have released (.pdf) analyses of the act. Thanks to the Public Blawg for the links.

d70focus‘ photo used through Creative Commons License.

3 thoughts on “What’s in a Name? The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act”

  1. Well shit, we need to reign in eminent domain use but not at the expense the way this is put together.

    At least this stuff goes to the voters and we can put an issue to rest or enact it based on public vote.

  2. This was put together by the idiots that wrote prop 13. The wolf in sheep’s clothing giveaway to commercial property owners. Anything they do should be look at with suspicion.

  3. Remember in 2006 when an “eminent domain” initiative (Prop 90) was placed on the California ballot and it turned out to be a trojan horse for a “regulatory taking” law backed by wealthy landlords? Well, it’s back. Same horse, different trojans.

    In 2006, due to justifiable public outrage over some well-publicized cases of eminent domain being (ab)used to transfer land to private companies, Prop 90 had very strong support in the polls for the first few months. After the scam was exposed, thanks in part to an advertising campaign funded by environmental and other groups, Prop 90 was defeated by a margin of about five points.

    Will they get away with it this time? I doubt it. There will also be an initiative on the ballot that simply addresses the abuse of eminent domain, without any sneaky fine print. Assuming left/liberal groups can come together and bang the drum against this thing, most voters should be able to tell the difference between the real eminent domain initiative and the phony one.

Comments are closed.