Little-Acorn
Gold Member
Well, that's hardly news, I guess, for California.
But this one's a real head-scratcher, even for there. State Proposition 90 (restricting eminent domain to only direct public use) was voted down.
I'm trying to imagine who on earth would vote against this. I know of five Supreme Court justices who did, but that's it. And none of them live here.
The Const says that govt can force people to sell them their property, only if it's for PUBLIC use - govt buildings, military bases, roads etc. Though distasteful, eminent domain is a necessary evil that comes with having any government at all.
A year or two ago, the Supremes announced in a 5-4 decision, that it's OK for govt to force people to sell, just to turn the property over to other private concerns to build a shopping center or whatever that might hand that govt more tax money than the house that used to be there. The four dissenting justices (and most of the public) screamed their heads off over the flagrant violation of the Constitution. Since then, many cities, counties, and states have enacted laws saying they will not do that - that eminent domain can only be used for the old-style PUBLIC use purpose. And such measures have mostly passed by landslides.
Well, yesterday Californians just said, "Oh, no, please, government, please take my house or my auto-repair shop away from me and turn it into another hotel or strip mall or amusement theme park. Yeah, we want you to be able to do that!"
This one's totally baffling. Over 50% of the voters, actually said that with their votes yesterday! And now it's law in the People's Republic of California.
I fell almost like checking to see if this was presented to voters on a butterfly ballot. It wasn't, in my precinct in San Diego. But what voter anywhere, would think that such flagrant misuse of eminent domain, would be a GOOD thing, for him or anyone else???
Sometimes, I wonder......
But this one's a real head-scratcher, even for there. State Proposition 90 (restricting eminent domain to only direct public use) was voted down.
I'm trying to imagine who on earth would vote against this. I know of five Supreme Court justices who did, but that's it. And none of them live here.
The Const says that govt can force people to sell them their property, only if it's for PUBLIC use - govt buildings, military bases, roads etc. Though distasteful, eminent domain is a necessary evil that comes with having any government at all.
A year or two ago, the Supremes announced in a 5-4 decision, that it's OK for govt to force people to sell, just to turn the property over to other private concerns to build a shopping center or whatever that might hand that govt more tax money than the house that used to be there. The four dissenting justices (and most of the public) screamed their heads off over the flagrant violation of the Constitution. Since then, many cities, counties, and states have enacted laws saying they will not do that - that eminent domain can only be used for the old-style PUBLIC use purpose. And such measures have mostly passed by landslides.
Well, yesterday Californians just said, "Oh, no, please, government, please take my house or my auto-repair shop away from me and turn it into another hotel or strip mall or amusement theme park. Yeah, we want you to be able to do that!"
This one's totally baffling. Over 50% of the voters, actually said that with their votes yesterday! And now it's law in the People's Republic of California.
I fell almost like checking to see if this was presented to voters on a butterfly ballot. It wasn't, in my precinct in San Diego. But what voter anywhere, would think that such flagrant misuse of eminent domain, would be a GOOD thing, for him or anyone else???
Sometimes, I wonder......
:
