Understanding 98-99
Eminent Domain reform is in the ballot today. It is something I discussed in my “Don’t steal in my name” post on the topic a few months ago. In it I gave the history of eminent domain and local alternatives. Ruth 666 brought up some of the issues in Prop 98 with her post “Nice try, Prop 98“. Two measures on the ballot today were brought up yesterday by Matt telling you to just vote.
Over in the SGV eminent domain is a hot button with all the planned redevelopment. These two propositions became part of a series of posts on the FCBlog in a point-counterpoint by a couple of realtors and investors that comment there often. After an introductory post by the Centinel, Wes and Gilman took off with their analysis of one measure then the debates took off.
Gilman argued the merits and pit falls of Prop 98. He ran an intro on 98. Then he explained what it actually will do. His final post explained how 98 would stop government taking.
Wes argued Prop 99 merits in his introduction calling 98 a sheep in wolfs clothing. Then he counterpointed Wes’s with the rebuttal “rent controls invisible demise“. His final stab at the issue was his “won’t get fooled again post“.
In the end the great debate cemented my decision to vote “no” on both. Both are written by special interests, neither are reform protecting a landowner from legalized theft of their home or business without strings.
Related posts:
I’m voting Yes on 98, No on 99.
Funny how all these Pasadenans are saying "No on 98" when they all talked shit on rent control a year ago.
Now that I don’t support rent control, seems like everyone else in Pasadena suddenly does?
- AP
http://www.proctorformayor.com
Thanks for the link round-up on this topic, Fraz. Good info, and a good reminder that I need to go vote.
Yes, Aaron Proctor. It’s all about you. Please inform us of your positions on other issues, so we can reflexively take the opposite position.
Signed,
Everyone in Pasadena