Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
They’re called "rights", you fools
Posted by: Dale Franks on Wednesday, November 08, 2006

There are times I despair of ever understanding what my fellow Californians are thinking. Often, at those times, I can see the reasoning behind the Anarcho-Capitalist hatred of elections, as well, since elections can be method of allowing others to take away my rights. A good case in point from this election is Proposition 90.
Proposition 90, which would have limited local governments from using eminent domain law to acquire properties for non-public projects, was narrowly defeated, with support from about 47 percent of voters.
In other words, 53% of Californians say it's perfectly OK for the State to deprive them of their property, and give it to a developer for private use.

Well, let me propose an experiment. For the 53% of you who thought proposition 90 was a bad idea, here's what we'll do. We'll come and take away your property, and give it to someone else. Maybe even me.

After all, more than half of you think it's a good idea, so, we'll just take your sh*t, then we'll see how wise you think your vote was.

Stupid bastards.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
As a fellow Californian who voted for 90 as well, I’m also disapointed. The opposition to 90 did their usual trick of scaring those who haven’t looked into the issue by claiming that it would be the end of parks, schools, clean air and clean water, and that the government would be bankrupted by frivilous lawsuits. (I’m not making this up, it’s right out of the "Agument against Prop 80" in the voter guide.)

Unfortately, *just* enough Californians fell for it.
 
Written By: Jon Biggar
URL: http://
No way! It was defeated?!!
This election was a huge nail in California’s coffin. Bond projects, massive debt, double standard on parental notification for minors, and now the voters reject the Fifth Amendment. I thought that if there was any bipartisan issue, this was it.

*shakes head in disbelief*
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Sorry man, but we all gotta suck it up today. You get to live with Prop 90, I get to live with (D) Lampson representing me just because the courts kept a (R) off the ballot. Great country.
 
Written By: rjvtx
URL: http://
Given the California housing bust, there are probably plenty of people who would prefer that the government buy them out. After all, it beats foreclosure.
In other words, 53% of Californians say it’s perfectly OK for the State to deprive them of their property, and give it to a developer for private use.
The government cannot deprive anyone of property without due process of law, and without being justly compensated. That has been the law of the land for over 200 years. Welcome to America. Where the h*ll have you been? How do you think the roads you drive on get built?

As for who the property is handed over to, who cares, as long as the government gets good money for what it hands to private parties?

After all, as we learned yesterday, government can be held accountable. This is a proposition often forgotten on this site, where the various commenters have no problem - none at all - with the government imprisoning citizens indefinitely without access to the courts.

So the majority of Californians voted in favor of something you are against. Democracy sucks, huh?

As I have said before, you might find the Deep South more consistent with your values. Ever thought about moving there? Seems as if you more happy there.
Stupid bastards.
No one is stopping you from moving away from these stupid bastards. I make it a principle to live in a state in which the majority agrees more or less with me, politically speaking. So why don’t you?

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Dale, that’s nothing. Here in Idaho, the anti-Kelo proposition lost 76-24. Admittedly the pro-proposition folks did a supremely crappy job of advertising (I never heard a pro-proposition ad, just the antis), but still, here in a very red state, apparently the vast majority of folks are cool with government robbing the poor to increase its tax base.
As for who the property is handed over to, who cares, as long as the government gets good money for what it hands to private parties?
I’m pretty sure mk is the reason that this
stupid bastards
needs to be said.

Oh, the answer to this
I make it a principle to live in a state in which the majority agrees more or less with me, politically speaking. So why don’t you?
is "because that’s a stupid, provincial way to live your life."
 
Written By: Linus
URL: http://
No one is stopping you from moving away from these stupid bastards. I make it a principle to live in a state in which the majority agrees more or less with me, politically speaking. So why don’t you?


Love it or leave it, right?
The government cannot deprive anyone of property without due process of law, and without being justly compensated. That has been the law of the land for over 200 years. Welcome to America.
Welcome to your civics lesson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

From Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissent:
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
This is one of those things like school vouchers ... I just don’t get why liberals disagree with conservatives on this one! Who knows? Maybe they like the idea of ... oh, I don’t know ... an inner-city slum being cleared out for the construction of a Super Wal-Mart.
 
Written By: Ronnie Gipper
URL: http://
Ronnie,

Nice comment. I think the reason the Libs like the idea of a strong state vis a vis economic issues, but it does seem strange.

For schools it’s because they have a stranglehold over public schools and what they teach - it’s a great chance to get at the kiddies’ minds before they turn 18.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
You can’t establish an Eurostyle Socialist-Corporate Elitist State without giving the government that kind of authority over the public.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
So the majority of Californians voted in favor of something you are against. Democracy sucks, huh?

As I have said before, you might find the Deep South more consistent with your values. Ever thought about moving there? Seems as if you more happy there.
I seem to recall you having a different opinion when it comes to things you disagree with.

As for who the property is handed over to, who cares, as long as the government gets good money for what it hands to private parties?
As long as the government gets good money for it??? Is that what you think the government is there for? Take from a private party and make money giving it to a different party? Yikes MK - you are one sick puppy.

BTW - why do you assume things in the south are better suited for Dale? Painting with a broad brush again I see...
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Didn’t Prop 90 also have a part about regulatory "takings," defined as diminution in value caused by government regulation without an actual taking? Both reforms are needed, of course, but the regulatory takings argument is a much tougher sell politically than a straight anti-Kelo measure like the ones that passed in other states.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Heh - here I thought MK would be so happy at the sweep in Congress that he’d be a decent human for day.

no chance.




 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Yeah D@MN that whole democracy thing.... the Sheeple failed me...those grapes were sour any way...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Xrlq,
The Idaho proposition, which also failed, also had a regulatory takings part, dealing with diminution in value caused by government regulation without an actual taking. Many folks believe this was why it failed, and there’s some truth to that; the anti- ads never even mentioned Kelo, they just harped on the regulatory part.
 
Written By: Linus
URL: http://
That’s insane. I figured any Kelo related eminent domain decision would be a no brainer. Heck, Michigan’s ballot proposal limiting eminent domain passed with over 80%, winning an overwhelming majority in every single county. And Michigan’s not exactly a hotbed of intelligent voters either... What on Earth could possibly make Californians so different???
 
Written By: Mariner
URL: http://
Joe - come on, having democracy doesn’t mean they made the right decision.
The Palestinians have a Democracy, remember? Hugo Chavez allegedly has a democracy going.

Let’s not confuse democracy in action with wisdom.

If anyone couldn’t see past the mis-direction in
no more parks, schools, clean air and clean water,
then, sorry, they really ARE sheeple.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Just compensation?
Unless the developers have suddenly seen Jesus and become non-profit charitable organizations, they are going to make a bundle of money while paying the dispossessed owners less than the true value of the property. In law there is a term "unjust enrichment", and while this does not technically apply to this situation, I certainly think it applies in a moral sense.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Please allow me to ammend "seen Jesus" to include Buddha, Mohammed, Jahweh, Zoroaster, The Great Pumpkin, and any other religious figure. My omission of non-Christian faith tradition figures was purely accidental, and in no way reflects any faith-traditional bigotry on my part. Please accept my humblest apologies if I offended anyone.
Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Oops.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Joe - come on, having democracy doesn’t mean they made the right decision.
True, on any given day most companies are either OVER-valued or under-valued in the market, yet in the LONG-Term the market works by assigning ROUGHLY the correct values to them.

Same thing with democracy. Dale’s complaining that today his position was under-valued by the voters. Oh well...thru successive iterations voters, generally get it right. Better luck next ballot cycle.

It’s just funny to hear libertarians kvetching about voting...it’s like complaining about purchases and purchasing decisions. It’s FUNDAMENTAL to the process!

The people aren’t SHEEPLE, they’re buying an alternative brand... when Coke loses to Pepsi, Coke doesn’t blame the consumers, it re-brands itself. Dales just being grumpy that his marketing campaing didn’t succeed. OK, but place the balme where it needs to go, on the campaign, NOT the consumers.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.
And now you’re being Latin-o-centric, what about those who don’t speak Latin, eh? Try Esperanto, be inclusive...I brand you LANGUAGE INSENSITIVE. Plus you’re placing blame, even upon yourself, which is bad for self-esteem...THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The government cannot deprive anyone of property without due process of law, and without being justly compensated.
Yeah, that due process consists only of the right to be heard. It’s just going through the motions. And the government does not have to pay you fair market value for your property (and you can bet they damn sure won’t). For all your wailing about "The Corporations" you don’t seem to mind corporate welfare programs.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
I make it a principle to live in a state in which the majority agrees more or less with me, politically speaking.
Mkultra, why limit yourself to a state? How about a different country? North Korea, perhaps.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I voted for 90, but I heard that 90 as well as the Idaho statute had problems with it... a clause that could basically allow it to be interpreted where if your land is taken from you because you dumped toxic sludge on your property, you have to be reimbursed for the takings. (at least Idaho’s was interpreted in that way.)

 
Written By: h0mi
URL: http://
Eminent Domain and Referenda &/or Constitutional Amendments are tricky things...Eminent Domain is an ACCEPTED Governmental practice. The actions of the Connecticut government predating the Kelo Decision were, by-and-large exceptions to the established order of Eminent Domain. So any limitation of Eminent Domain has to be:
1) Very carefully worded so as to achieve the desired effect...that of limiting the ability of local governments from taking your house for the purpose of constructing a Nordstroms, without intefering with the accepted practice of taking your house for a park, a bridge, or a highway; and
2) Extensively explained to the voting populace, so as to limit the ability of opponents to protray it as an illegitimate limitation on the Public Good.

Obviously either 1 or 2 or both were not successful here. There’s always next election cycle. Dale et. al. one reason it may have failed, is that it was poorly worded, ambiguously worded or poorly explained, combinded with the fact that California has not experienced a Kelo-type action by a local or state government. In the face of legitimate questions and ABSENT a mobilizing event it is not unsurprising that the Proposition could fail. Most voters will vote "No" if they are unsure of an amendment and doubtful about its needfullness, under the theory "If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it."

I don’t think calling them Stoopit, bastiges necessarily advances the cause of limiting Eminent Domain. No Right is Absolute.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
... combinded with the fact that California has not experienced a Kelo-type action by a local or state government.
We have, it’s just not very widely reported. There’s a list at the Pro-90 site.

I remember hearing about the Bernard Luggage Shop and Euclid Ave in Ontario on local news, but ... maybe eminent domain just isn’t a sexy issue. There just hasn’t been a whole heck of a lot of coverage.

I tend to agree with you a bit on this, Joe. I think it comes down to ignorance. Folks just need to be educated on what this all means. I mean "eminent domain"? It’s like the words "habeus corpus". It sounds important, but the language just feels arcane and occult, so who cares what happens to it. I haven’t seen any of the ads that ran in areas where similar measures passed, but my guess is they explained what "eminent domain" means — or at least put a human face on the abuse.
 
Written By: Ronnie Gipper
URL: http://socalconservative.blogspot.com
I just don’t get why liberals disagree with conservatives on this one! Who knows? Maybe they like the idea of ... oh, I don’t know ... an inner-city slum being cleared out for the construction of a Super Wal-Mart.

MK disagrees mostly because he hates you. But as usual, there’s grains of truth on all sides - There are reasons why it could be a problem if government became unable to construct new facilities, just as there are reasons to fear the unlimited ability for a government to seize property. The local liberals were absolutely against the eminent domain actions in Kelo. A lot of conservatives lump moderate, republican-appointed judges in from the seventies with the generic liberal, because they’re not Clarence Thomas.

I’m against eminent domain being used in the name of private corporations, and therefore, disapprove of Kelo. However, there’s a pro-efficiency argument for having Kelo that is very similar to the one used for Walmart, which liberals hate and conservatives love. Which is: if it attracts corporations and jobs, the market will reward your community, so who giv*s a damn what happens to individuals? Be they the minority eminent domained, or the minority forced out of small businesses by a 100-scale multinational corporation?

I don’t like either of these arguments.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Well Ronnie, really though I don’t like them much Reason’s website did a nice set of discussions on the issue...A number of small shops went under to make way for a Nordstroms in Baltimore, IIRC. That was a PERFECT set-up to fight blight as a reason for Eminent Domain...Hard-working BLACK folks being displaced for the benefit of upscale WHITE folks. It was lettre perfect for beating on the issue. Just need to look for examples in California.

Because that’s how it really is going to work, low-income, disproportionately minority folks being displaced for the benefit of upper income, disproportionately WHITE folks. You can work RACE and ELITISM into the mix, plus add the fact that Eminent Domain, for tax purposes and removal of "blight" really works well for local government. It removes all those PESKY VOTERS AND CITIZENS from the locality. I’m betting that the city/county makes more in taxes, net AFTER Eminent Domain, than it did before the Eminent Domain, simply because PEOPLE USE SERVICES, and when you replace people with a Nordstroms and the like, you effectively reduce the full-time population of an area to near zero. So at the end of the day, the local government displaces pesky service users with tax-revenue-producing entities, a net good-for the local government, not necessarily the local populace.

Still any Proposition or Constitutional Amendment needs careful wording, simply put there are those who oppose ALL Eminent Domain and who would be glad to use a Prop. to destroy the whole idea. So draft carefully and campaign hard. You can win. It takes time...

More elbow grease, less calling the voters Sheeple and stoopit bastiges, please.

Glasnost, the funny thing about Walmart is that in 1 state a Walmart is being "Kelo’d" out...I’ve always felt that businesses need to be careful of Kelo simply because IF your local government doesn’t like you, YOU being Walmart OR Bob’s Whole Foods Co-op, they can simply make the case that Eminent Domaining you will produce a "public good" and you’re gone! Kelo is not really business friendly, it puts ALL private property at risk, mine AND Sam Walton’s. Something that business folks and Tom Hayden might BOTH profitably unite around.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
So at the end of the day, the local government displaces pesky service users with tax-revenue-producing entities, a net good-for the local government, not necessarily the local populace.
I should look on the "bright" side. There is a "goose that laid the golden egg" eventuality here. At some point, there will be nothing BUT shops and condos in Los Angeles. All of the low-income wage earners will be priced completely out of the market, and will migrate away. With no one to work the retail and food service jobs, the shops will begin to close up, leading to modern day ghost towns.

The political arguement (displacing voters) is interesting. It could work like some sort of reverse-engineered gerrymandering. Hmmm. Sneaky.

Oh well. I’m sure we (Californians) will get to vote on it again next year.
 
Written By: Ronnie Gipper
URL: http://socalconservative.blogspot.com
I’m shocked - shocked! - that an Allen blogger has little to no grasp on policy and dishonestly misrepresents the issues at stake. With Allen and prop 90 going down, I’ve been pretty impressed with the electorate’s ability to smell nonsense before they step in it.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
Glasnost, the funny thing about Walmart is that in 1 state a Walmart is being "Kelo’d" out...I’ve always felt that businesses need to be careful of Kelo simply because IF your local government doesn’t like you, YOU being Walmart OR Bob’s Whole Foods Co-op, they can simply make the case that Eminent Domaining you will produce a "public good" and you’re gone! Kelo is not really business friendly, it puts ALL private property at risk, mine AND Sam Walton’s. Something that business folks and Tom Hayden might BOTH profitably unite around. Sure.. they might... except they’re not. The Kelo case went to the Supreme Court because of Pfizer. I’m not saying that your theoretical argument isn’t good (it’s at least interesting), but it’s not the first time, or the one thousandth, that individual businesses cheerfully backed their own short-term interests with potentially disasterous long-term consequences for their own collective environment. Ronnie’s LA scenario is another example of how a pro-eminent domain business stance leads to disaster.

You have thus provided an anecdotal case study of why I am not a libertarian, Joe. Good times.

By the way, where is the conservative anger at Pfizer for pushing eminent domain in the first place?
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
I’m against eminent domain being used in the name of private corporations, and therefore, disapprove of Kelo. However, there’s a pro-efficiency argument for having Kelo that is very similar to the one used for Walmart, which liberals hate and conservatives love. Which is: if it attracts corporations and jobs, the market will reward your community, so who giv*s a damn what happens to individuals?
The Kelo "pro-efficiency argument" is pretty much the same as the Soviet "pro-efficiency argument", only differing in scale. It is about the power of government to take private property for uses it deems as better for the public good.

The Walmart "pro-efficiency argument" is in fact rooted in individual rights and individual decision making. Walmart does well, because individuals choose to shop there and work there, on their own accord.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
By the way, where is the conservative anger at Pfizer for pushing eminent domain in the first place?
Because it’s not their job to protect our rights, and we expect corporations to act in the interest of their investors, not in the interest of the public good.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Kelo is not really business friendly, it puts ALL private property at risk, mine AND Sam Walton’s. Something that business folks and Tom Hayden might BOTH profitably unite around.
Some of the more nutty-left congresscritters opposed Kelo. Proving that anyone can be right at least once.
The Kelo case went to the Supreme Court because of Pfizer. I’m not saying that your theoretical argument isn’t good (it’s at least interesting), but it’s not the first time, or the one thousandth, that individual businesses cheerfully backed their own short-term interests with potentially disasterous long-term consequences for their own collective environment. Ronnie’s LA scenario is another example of how a pro-eminent domain business stance leads to disaster.

You have thus provided an anecdotal case study of why I am not a libertarian, Joe. Good times.
glasnost, libertarians don’t support theft (Kelo), or propping up buisnesses with public largess in general. Rather, libertarians believe buisnesses should be left alone to succeed or fail on their own merits. You need to find another reason to not be a libertarian.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The yes on Prop 90 made no grassroots outreach and after spending a bundle on petitioning, bought some slate mailers. I didn’t see any TV ads in favor and the environuts brought out both Clinton and Gore in TV ads opposing. The Bond Brokers and City Governments (thru their proxies) also put out ads.

There was no association of this measure with Kelo. Initiatives without the takings feature (McClinttock’s) did not have the budget to get signatures.

This measure was badly hurt by Republican’s staying home.

Hopefully we’ll try this one again soon. Eminent Domain Abuse is prevalent in Kalifornia. The threat of eminent domain is enough to get property owners to sell cheap rather than face tens of thousands in legal bills and still lose your home or business.

Steve
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
I’m shocked - shocked! - that an Allen blogger...
Since I’m not an "Allen blogger"—the election took place in a state 3,000 miles away, and I was indifferent to the outcome, as I wrote weeks ago, the ignorance you display in the first seven words of your comment thankfully frees me from taking the trouble to read the rest of it.

Thanks for sharing, though.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Actually, prop 90 is a lot more complicated than that and thankfully, enough voters actually researched it well enough to realize that it stood to do more harm than good as a typical "stealth iniioative".

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/20/INGD9KJ0LG1.DTL

California propositions are seldom as simple as they purport, making this system of legislation rife with pitfalls.
 
Written By: Mark
URL: http://www.knockinonthegoldendoor.mu.nu

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider