BART Cop Murder Trial to Move to Downtown L.A., Lawyer Predicts More L.A. Riots
Jason Segel Sings His Phone Number at the Swell Season Last Night
Video of the Day: Your East Side Moment of Zen
-thumb-110x110-459458.jpg)
Bouchon Amuses Our Bouches
Sobriety Checkpoint in Sherman Oaks Tonight
You won't be faulted if you feel as if it just now seems we are getting out from under the covers of the Feb. 5 Primary. For one, there was very little finality -- something that elections are supposed to deliver -- when we were promised Super Tuesday would end all lingering doubts about our preferred candidate. For another, election officials are just now getting around to changing the flawed ballots that left so many crying Bubble Trouble last time around.
But, here we are, mere weeks from the June 3 primary where two important ballot propositions command our attention and understanding, even if the judicial races are pointless and potentially harmful.
Both Propositions 98 and 99 deal with the plucky issue of eminent domain, a social contract that gives the government authority to take property under very specific circumstances. If passed, both would curb the government's ability to take land that they might have previously claimed the right to based on public interest. Inherently stark differences, however, mark both proposition's divide and could ultimately doom one over another.
For this week, though, we will concentrate on Proposition 98
What does it say:
As mentioned, Prop 98 would bar state and local governments from taking or damaging private property for private uses if passed. But it would also phase out rent control, a fiscal safety net for thousands of renters around the city, the likes of whom pay $600 a month for a one bedroom in Venice that might cost three times that today.
What happens if you vote Yes:
The government would not have the same authority it does today to take homes, small businesses, farms and places of worship for their own or another private developers' purview; Rent control would be phased out.
Wait, seriously? I would not be protected by rent control anymore if this crap passes:
Yes and no. More than a 100 cities and counties around the state have some form of rent control law that affects about one million California apartment and mobile home dwellers. If passed, local governments would not be able to enact new rent control measures and controlled rents in place would be phased out when the resident moves. Hold on there cowboy, if you currently live in a $600 Venice pad you secured from some sweet deal you got in 1992, your rent won't be phased out. But new renters would be charged a market rate for apartments (and mobile homes, if thats your thing), as they are now, and would be subject to yearly increases.
Detractors of the measure, including the League of Women Voters and the AARP and have launched attacks opposing 98, saying:
- "Prop 98 would devastate millions of renters"
- "Prop. 98 is the worst kind of special interest proposition. it benefits a few wealthy landlords at the expense of millions protected by ret control and others laws that ensure renters are treated fairly."
So, why would anyone vote for this measure? Supporters of the proposition, who include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. and small business owners, say that passing 98 will actually help renters by securing the places in which they live.
- "The great risk for thousands losing their rent controlled home is if the opponents of Proposition 98 are allowed to seize and bulldoze them and replace rent controlled homes with strip malls."
The government has no right to take your property to use it for private use and assage of 98 is vital to ensure no more seizures take place, or so they say,
Is eminent domain really a problem? I mean, shit, what if we need a new schools and a liquor stands in the way of the county and Johnny learning his ABCs?
Prop. 98 would not affect government acquisition of private property for public use. Schools, fire stations, highways, etc. are still fair game. But let's say this is 1949 and the city wants your Echo Park home to build Dodger Stadium. If 98 was law, they would not be allowed to do that, which might have been a good thing for residents there, who were promised the moon and barely got a star.
The residents were told that they would have first choice for these new homes, which included two dozen 13-story buildings and more than 160 two-story bunkers, in addition to newly rebuilt playgrounds and schools. Some residents resisted the orders to move and were soon labeled “squatters,” while others felt they had no choice and relocated. Most received insubstantial or no compensation for their homes and property. [PBS]
Due to the changing political climate, many associated living assistance programs and social welfare akin to Communism. Developments were not built and all we today is a team that hasn't won a playoff series since Kirk Gibson, with two bad legs, helped the Dodgers in 1988 to a championship.
If this passes, how much would it dent my taxpaying wallet?
It's hard to say. If rent control is abolished, and seniors or other low income renters are thrown out on their asses, the government cold be forced to build more subsidized housing and/or provide rental assistance, which could cost taxpayers money.
What do you think?
Photo of vote sticker by atomicshakespeares, via LAist Featured Photos Pool on Flickr.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Prop 98 is a well funded scam by commercial property owners to obliterate rent control and renters rights under the guise of eminent domain. If passed, it would make living in LA exponentially harder for most renters. There's a good chance that means you, so Vote No! I'm shocked that LAist hasn't taken a more vocal stand against this - like the proposition itself, the words "rent control" aren't even mentioned above the jump in this article.
For a prior LAist take on the fraud, um, I mean proposition, check out:
http://laist.com/2008/01/30/california_rent_control.php
I'm really surprised LAist isn't ripping this prop to shreds. VOTE NO on 98, people!
Another scam due to the flaws in our proposition system which should have worked better than it has.
"Here, all the free bananas you want/ but we can house monkeys in your front room."
Too many of these props are sleight of hand with ulterior motives.
It is false to say that 98 will throw seniors out of their low income housing. LA City rent control currently allows landlords to raise the rent of any units when a tenant moves out. That will not change if 98 is passed.
What 98 (but not 99) will prevent is the city condeming, in the name of 'economic development' large swatches of south central LA and giving it to a developer with promises of 'redevelopment'. Politico's love to do this to help out their developer friends.
Prop 98 will, however, prevent new rent control legislation and thus give landlords more incentive to build housing for low income renters.
As things stand now, builders prefer to build high rent units because those are unlikely to be effected by future rent control. It's the law of unintended consequences. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. paul
So, my main reason for doing these guides is not to sway people one way or another but to provide some impartial background so people can make an informed decision.
Clearly the LAist community is pretty opposed to this, as the poll shows, and that's fine. But for me to come out strongly against this or any measure would be irresponsible on my part without first informing people what the hell is going on.
There are two sides to every story, even if you feel one is shit colored.
The HJTA quote is a beaut:
The shows just how laughable it is to conflate eminent-domain seizures and rent control. Am I really supposed to believe that failure of Prop 98 will cause my rent-controlled apartment to be condemned by the city so it can be sold to a shopping center developer? My landlord is quite capable of selling my building to a developer without any help from eminent domain, thank you.Prop 98 really needs to be split into two measures. The first, limiting use of eminent domain, is actually accomplished by Prop 99. Vote for that. The second, abolishing rent control, is selfish and dangerous. As Jeremy himself wrote,
Assage indeed. See more at Pete Rates the Propositions, peterates.com