Just because I’m liberal doesn’t mean I don’t have a libertarian streak. Forcing someone to give up their property (inevitably at a discount) is fundamentally wrong.

You mean like when you force a land owner (that’s a someone) to give up their property (rental real estate) at a below market rate (ie. a discount)? How do you reconcile your objection to Kelo while supporting rent control? They’re the exact same thing: a taking of someone’s property at an unfair price by government fiat.

Given the fact that California voters rejected Arnold’s government reforms less than a couple years after he took office, and last election I witnessed Los Angelino’s vote for a 9% phone tax, I pretty much figured that 99 would beat out 98… mainly because California voters are so overwhemingly stupid and ill-informed they just vote for whoever shows the most ads on TV and sounds better.

I suppose Prop 99 will have to do until people see the government taking land for eminent domain and wonder, “Hey, didn’t we pass Prop 99?”, and then there will be another eminent domain proposition that passes.

I mean, 99 was endorsed by Arnold and a ton of other legislatures… so didn’t anyone else think it was suspicious that the government would support a bill restricting “eminent domain” powers that they want? We’re so gullible, and this happens not just in California but everywhere else but I just think there are too many stupid uninformed citizens!

I bet if I campaigned to go to Congress be fully transparent, and vote down every single law and against every advacement of government power people would have a problem with that type of platform… maddening!

Yet another example of why we should require a passing score on an IQ test to be allowed to vote. Score another win for the scam artists.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/59.htm

Nope. Just because I’m liberal doesn’t mean I don’t have a libertarian streak. Forcing someone to give up their property usage (inevitably at a discount) is fundamentally wrong.

There, I fixed it for you, Rusty. Telling an owner what they can and cannot charge for rent – money due them in exchange the for occupant’s right to exclusive USE OF THE PROPERTY – is wrong. Why you think it’s OK to tell someone what they are allowed to charge, whether that’s for sale or monthly use of the property, is too dumb for me to even begin to understand.

P.S. You’re a socialist. Get over it.

Off to the voting booth for me. And I think you’ve hit right on btw. I had already decided yes to 98 and no to 99.

I have cast the Yes 98, No 99 votes.

I appreciate your points, but even if I cast a No vote for 98, I’d still vote No on 99 because 99 is worthless.

Business and farm property need to be shielded from unethical government takings. 98 does so, 99 does not. That reason alone is really my main reason for the vote.

Regarding rent control, I simply do not have the concerns you do, as I am certain that California’s liberal legislature will compensate anyway (unfortunately) in some way, probably with some kind of subsidy scheme.

Eventually, though, citizens have to make a stand against government controls over what property owners can and cannot charge for rent, or over what they can and cannot do with their properties.

Regarding an earlier comment, I do understand how cities work. The poor will find affordable housing; government always finds work-arounds to subsidize the poor, but a Yes vote on 98 will be a bracing and clarifying shot across the bow by property owners against land-covetous and hyper-controlling governments, state and local.

Prop 98 does stop commercial as well as residential land grabs, with the appropriate exception of ‘city’ use. IE: schools and water projects, etc.

Prop 98 also has provisions to phase out rent control. Having lived in rent controlled places what I can say is that this measure is sorely needed. Regardless of the comments here regarding ‘city blight’, the real blight comes when no-one will repair, rebuild or build in any meaningfull way. Rent controls do just this, they force property owners to NOT repair or replace their buildings.

As a side note, just watch the big fight every year for the handfull of permits in SF that people fight for to allow them to convert their buildings to condo’s. That is a major payday there for a property owner because of rent controls. Do not think for one minute that this is not a rigged process, with city workers bringing home some bacon for themselves!

And our mayor, Bill (bleed the taxpayer)White, also has used the “one vote more” trick to invalidate city propositions he didn’t like too. a couple years ago a TaBOR proposition was put up by a local conservative group. The mayor put up a competing one with the same “one vote more” invalidation language that was a much watered down version with a lot of loopholes, managed to have it put ahead of the conservative one on the ballot so that it benefited from ballot order bias. The resulting lawsuit is still working it’s way through the courts.

The League of Women Voters and the AARP oppose Prop 98. That makes me more inclined to be for it.

Agreed!

Yes on 98
No on 99

Vote YES on 98.

Let’s save ourselves from bigger government.