No on Proposition 90

 

We hope voters won’t be fooled by the deceptive rhetoric coming from supporters of Proposition 90 on the November 7 statewide ballot. They want voters to believe Prop. 90 is about eminent domain reform, but hidden in the measure are provisions completely unrelated to eminent domain that will cost taxpayers billions, threaten farmland and the environmental and quality of life protections we cherish and expect in our community and in California.

 

We can all agree that California should reform eminent domain laws. But Proposition 90 goes too far and would end up costing taxpayers billions each year, hurting our quality of life. Proposition 90 is a Trojan Horse.  Please join us in voting No on Proposition 90.

Proposition 90 has attracted the opposition of one the most diverse coalitions ever organized to defeat a ballot measure in recent memory. The No on 90 coalition includes nearly 400 organizations representing taxpayer watchdogs, homeowners, police and fire, teachers, businesses, organized labor, environmentalists, ranchers and farmers, local governments, seniors, Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  This broad-based coalition opposing Prop. 90 includes the Governor, League of California Homeowners, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Board of Realtors, California State Sheriffs’ Association, California League of Conservation Voters, California Professional Firefighters, California Chamber of Commerce, taxpayer, environmental, local government and community groups throughout the state. These groups typically don’t work together on issues, but all are joined together to oppose Prop. 90.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his opposition to proposition 90 yesterday in an opinion piece posted on the San Francisco Chronicle political blog. He wrote, in part:

"The proponents of Prop 90 added provisions that I believe will undermine basic government laws that protect our home values, safeguard our environment and allow for the building of safe roads, schools and other essential infrastructure. According to a variety of independent fiscal analyses, some provisions in Proposition 90 threaten to increase costs for taxpayers by billions of dollars each year.

"That's why Proposition 90 has attracted opposition from a unique coalition that includes property rights advocates, taxpayer watchdogs, farmers, environmentalists, police and fire officials, small businesses and homeowner groups. Some 50 California newspapers have also come out against this ill-advised initiative."

In describing why they oppose Prop. 90, the California Farm Bureau Federation’s website http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=677&ck=71A3CB155F8DC89BF3D0365288219936

states the following:

 

“While farmers and ranchers seek relief from California's onerous regulatory climate, in which they must contend with many costly and restrictive regulations, often involving the inability to use portions of their land, Proposition 90 is not the solution. This poorly written initiative, with its far-reaching consequences, will likely aggravate, rather than mitigate, the risks and costs of farming [and ranching] in California.

 

“Although Proposition 90 might appear to be the solution to protecting property values and the ability to farm, it is not. It would freeze California's planning and zoning laws, the Williamson Act and local zoning ordinances as of November 2006. By redefining "damage to property," people could sue any time a law or regulation is passed that they claim devalues their property, creating a disincentive for counties to expand the Williamson Act or modify local general plan policies intended to protect farmland and farmers' right to farm.

 

“It is imperative that the economic viability of agriculture be protected. Much of this is accomplished through the land use planning process. Proposition 90 will bring this process to an abrupt halt. The new and extraordinary costs that will be incurred under Proposition 90 will make it much more difficult for counties to regulate land use to prevent uncontrolled development next to our farm and ranch operations.”

 

What proponents of Prop. 90 aren’t telling you is that this initiative will fundamentally change our constitution to: 1) require new taxpayer payouts any time a new law or regulation is passed that someone believes has caused them “substantial economic loss;” and, 2) redefine “just compensation” to require inflated and unrealistic payouts for legitimate public works projects such as roads, bridges and schools .  While on its surface these provisions may seem rational, Proposition 90 is anything but.  Prop. 90 is written poorly and rife with numerous loopholes so that even the most basic and important laws are subject to litigation and new payouts – at the taxpayers’ expense.

 

Here’s an example of how this provision could play out in Mariposa County, threatening our quiet communities, our agricultural economy, our pristine, natural landscape and picturesque, rural lifestyle: If a developer wants to build 500 homes and a shopping mall, but our local elected officials and newly adopted general plan limit the development to 50 homes to prevent traffic congestion, to address concerns of neighboring residents and to keep greenbelts between residential and agricultural uses, and/or to protect the environment, Prop. 90 would allow that developer to sue for the value of the 450 homes not built.  Mariposa County taxpayers have no choice but either pay for the claim to prevent the growth, or to allow the developer to build the extra homes.  The years and cost of updating Mariposa’s general plan may well have been a wasted effort if, in order to avoid costly litigation, the plan must be set aside. 

 

Furthermore, Prop. 90 encourages frivolous lawsuits. Virtually any speculative landowner or business looking for a windfall can file a lawsuit under this measure, claiming even the most minor law has impacted the value of their property. What’s worse, you the taxpayer would be required to pay legal expenses to defend these lawsuits.

 

We only need to look at Oregon to see how Prop. 90 would impact California. After a similar law was recently passed in Oregon (a state one-tenth our size), more than 2,600 claims have been filed – seeking over $6 billion in claims that taxpayers of that state would pay. 

 Mariposans for the Environment and Responsible Government Board Members
Martha and Bart Brown
Sylvia Boyd
Betty Boykin
John Brady
Joan Conlan
Alice and Dick Kuntsman
Len McKenzie
Shirley Schmelzer

MERG Committee for the Preservation of Catheys Valley and Hornitos
Rita and Tony Kidd