Proposition 90 Would Hurt California
With the election coming up, many people are still confused about what Proposition 90 says. Here's how Smartvoter.org describes what a Yes vote for Proposition 90 would do.
A YES vote on this measure means:
State and local governments would have significantly increased requirements to compensate property owners for economic losses to their property resulting from new laws or rules. Also, government would be more restricted in taking private property for public uses.
I've seen some say that Proposition 90 is not like Oregon's Measure 37 and so they think Proposition 90 should be supported. Here's how Measure 37 was described:
Government must pay landowners or forego enforcement, when certain landuse regulations reduce property values.
There are a few things that are different between Measure 37 and Proposition 90, but a major reason they are different is because Proposition 90 covers even more regulations (regulatory takings) than Measure 37 which only concerned landuse laws. Proposition 90 covers all rules and regulations except ones covering health and safety.
Let's say California finally decides to deal with the problem that we have too little protection of our privacy and too many people have too much access to our personal data. So our representatives pass a law and direct the governor to put in regulations limiting the amount of personal data a corporation can obtain or use without our permission. Any corporation that has already been using our data could sue California for lowering the value of their business (their private property). And we as taxpayers will be forced to pay people to keep their mitts out of our personal and private lives. That is what Proposition 90 promotes.
So what do the people of Oregon think of this law? They are angry because it was sold as one thing and it actually did something else: namely it put the rights of the wealthy investor over the collective rights of the community to make rules that affect the quality of their lives. Here's one story from Oregon:
(Text of proposed Proposition in extended entry)
In bold are the reasons that this proposition (pdf) is NOT about eminent domain, but is a stealth "takings" initiative. Through it private property will always trump community rights and obligations.
(b) Despite these constitutional protections, state and local governments have undermined private property rights through an excessive use of eminent domain power and the regulation of private property for purposes unrelated to public health and safety.
(c) Neither the federal nor the California courts have protected the full scope of private property rights found in the state constitution. The courts have allowed local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to advance private economic interests in the face of protests from affected homeowners and neighborhood groups. The courts have not required government to pay compensation to property owners when enacting statutes, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions, laws, rules or regulations not related to public health and safety that reduce the value of private property.