HJTA Vows to Work on Legislative Solution to End Eminent Domain Abuse

Sacramento, CA — Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, issued the following statement on the outcome of the election.

 

"Since the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London decision in 2005, more than 40 states have passed reforms that would prohibit government from profiting by seizing private property and giving it to politically connected developers. Prop. 98 was the only measure on the ballot that addressed the Kelo decision by providing comprehensive protections to all private property and would have phased out dated rental policies not practiced in 46 states.

 

By placing a second eminent domain measure on the ballot, opponents of private property rights created enough confusion between the ballot measures to defeat Prop. 98. Prop. 99's loopholes will allow eminent domain abuse to continue. Even with its passage, over 400 Baldwin Park property owners and many others are at risk of losing their property to politically connected developers. Prop. 99's purported home protections do not apply to all homes, and not one business, family farm or place of worship.

 

Throughout the campaign, Prop. 99 proponents repeatedly assured voters that after Election Day they would address the measure's shortcomings through the legislative process. We would gladly join such efforts with the Governor and the Legislature to protect all homes and all private property — including businesses, family farms and places of worship. If the legislature fails to act, we will consider qualifying another ballot measure.

 

While we will work in good faith with Prop. 99 proponents, we will continue to support local and state calls for a legislative investigation into how an obscure public agency, controlled by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, could funnel millions of dollars into their campaign accounts. Had it not been for these anonymous campaign accounts, Prop. 99 would not have qualified for the June election and contributed to Prop. 98's defeat. Public agencies using taxpayer dollars for campaign purposes is illegal and sets a dangerous precedent.

 

Since California is among the biggest abusers of eminent domain in the country, our coalition cannot abandon efforts to restore private property rights in California, and will continue to hold government accountable for eminent domain abuse."

 

For more information on Prop. 98, visit http://www.yesprop98.com

Say Yes to Property Rights Protection
Vote Yes on Proposition 98

O

n the 30th Anniversary of Proposition 13's passage, it is appropriate to acknowledge that we stand on the shoulders of giants. It took the hard work of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers to pass Proposition 13, but none worked so hard or showed such dedication to bringing tax relief to Californians as the measure's co‑authors, Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann. In fact, Howard Jarvis had to work for tax relief for over 15 years before he finally achieved success in 1978.

 

While we pay tribute to Proposition 13's authors, we also must look to the future, and in the spirit of Proposition 13, find ways to protect property owners from additional threats from governments that abuse their power to seize property.

 

As part of a large coalition of homeowners, small businesses, farmers, and rental property owners, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has already placed property rights protection on the June ballot, as Proposition 98, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act.

 

If we overcome the opposition of local governments — much as taxpayers backing Proposition 13 had to do 30 years ago — and pass Proposition 98, all property owners in California will be protected from having their property taken for the purpose of turning it over to private developers, and the ability of government to dictate the sales or lease prices of properties also will be severely limited.

 

To counter our efforts to bring lasting protection to property owners, the League of California Cities has attempted to confuse the issue by qualifying a phony property rights protection measure for the ballot as Proposition 99. One newspaper has called the difference between Props. 98 and 99 as the "Real Deal" vs. the "Real Steal." We agree. Proposition 99 is a sham designed to perpetuate politicians' ability to take property to be turned over to private developers and other political allies.

 

So please, on June 3, protect your property rights by voting yes on Proposition 98.

 

 

Phony Homeowner's Group Fronts Phony Ballot Measure

T

he story is told that to fool Catherine II, Russian minister Grigori Potemkin constructed hollow facades of villages along the desolate banks of the Dnieper River. When the monarch and her entourage sailed by, they were duly impressed with the prosperity in her new territories. Backers of a phony property rights measure, Proposition 99 on the June ballot, have borrowed a page or two from Potemkin's book.

 

Last year, taxpayers, farmers, and small business owners began qualifying a measure for the ballot Proposition 98 — that would bar cities and counties from seizing private property from unwilling sellers so it can be turned over to favored developers for strip malls and other for-profit projects.

 

To protect local officials' power over private property, the League of California Cities drafted their own initiative, Proposition 99 which is as fake as a $3 bill. Although designed to be cosmetically attractive, even a cursory examination reveals that it is just another hollow shell.

 

The non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office states Proposition 99, "is not likely to significantly alter current government land acquisition practices." In other words, Proposition 99 does nothing. Well, it does one thing. If it passes with more votes than Proposition 98, which is the "real deal" for property owners, it invalidates all the protections contained in our measure.

 

Here is why the League of California Cities and their developer allies should be sending a royalty check to Potemkin for using his ideas. Not only have they constructed an initiative that has nothing of substance on the inside, but to further confuse the voters, they are featuring its support by the League of California Homeowners, Inc. While this attractive name may cause many voters to think this is a broad-based statewide homeowner organization, it is actually a corporation whose primary function is to act as a contractor referral service.

 

In fact, this organization is essentially a one-man band headed by its president, Upland City Councilman Ken Willis. Apparently, Willis values his power to take property in his community because he is willing to violate his organization's bylaws to back the fake Proposition 99, and oppose the genuine Proposition 98. The bylaws of the League of California Homeowners clearly state, "...the Corporation shall not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office or for or against any cause or measure being submitted to the people for a vote."

 

However, the website for the deceptive Proposition 99 lists the League of California Homeowners on the top of the list of endorsers. The same website shows this "homeowner" group as an opponent of Proposition 98, which would actually curtail abuses of governments' right to take private property.

 

What we have here is a contractor referral service with a misleading title being used to screen a phony property rights initiative.

 

Potemkin would be proud. Property owners will get more protection from "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" than they will from the League of California Cities, the League of California Homeowners and their fraudulent Proposition 99.

 

Proposition 98, proudly sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, will allow governments to take property only for genuine public purposes, like schools and roads, and will bar the seizure of property so that private developers can make profits.

 

With the passage of Proposition 98 in June, property owners will get real protection, not just happy talk. Vote "Yes" on Prop. 98. Vote "No" on Prop. 99.

 

Read the story about Proposition 99 in the Orange County Register — A complaint by supporters of June ballot measure accuses backers of a competing initiative of laundering taxpayer dollars — Read the article in the Orange County Register — Jon Coupal, Trevor Grimm and AAGLA mentioned.

 

Proposition 98 to Appear on June 2008 Ballot

Three Cheers for Property Rights

 

While Proposition 98, otherwise known as the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, would phase out rent ordinances (they are only practiced in five states in the entire nation), its primary intent is to restore private property rights to all California property owners. And that means everyone.

 

Since 2005, some 42 states have reformed their eminent domain laws in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London ruling, a case decided on a bare 5-4 majority, that subjects any property—home, business, family farm or place of worship—to seizure by government if its new use merely holds the "promise" of generating greater tax revenue for the public agency. Since every property in America meets this standard, no property in California is safe from governments' unrestricted power of eminent domain.

 

But the Kelo decision was not all bad news. The court did say that if states wanted to provide additional property rights protections, they were free to do so. For that reason, Californians for Property Rights Protection, a coalition led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation, and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, drafted the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act and collected over 1.1-million signatures to qualify it for the June 2008 ballot.

 

With the news that the measure has collected a sufficient number of valid signatures, so begins a statewide campaign to reform eminent domain abuse as well as the phasing out of rent regulations that have reduced capital investments in rental property, reducing the supply of affordable housing in California.

 

The ballot measure that will appear on the ballot as Proposition 98 also provides sweeping eminent domain protections for all California property owners by prohibiting government from profiting by seizing property from unwilling sellers for private projects that benefit wealthy and politically‑connected developers. But it is also very sensible, including procedural and compensatory reforms, as well as allowing government to use its power of eminent domain for public purposes that have true public benefits, such as roads, schools and water projects.

 

Opponents of Prop. 98 have said that economic development will be stopped if the measure passes. That is simply nonsense. In the City of Anaheim's "Platinum Triangle" redevelopment project, under Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle's leadership, the city has ambitious redevelopment projects in the state, without infringing on the private property rights of its residents and local business owners. In fact, existing property owners have been welcomed to participate in this project.

 

Unfortunately, it is all too common for public agencies in California today to quickly embrace the draconian approach to urban renewal that comes at significant financial and personal costs to its residents ‑ and this certainly appears to be the case in the Southern California community of Baldwin Park.

 

The City of Baldwin Park is expediting eminent domain proceedings to demolish over 500 homes and small businesses—leveling an area of approximately 125 football fields! The accelerated pace at which the city is taking private property is a result of a letter from the developer to the city urging them to seize the homes and businesses quickly before voters approve eminent domain reform this coming June.

 

"The City of Baldwin Park is using eminent domain to seize my home for a development project that benefits a politically‑connected developer," says homeowner Ms. Cruz Baca Sembello, to those who will listen. "They should not be able to take my home. Where are my rights?"

 

Sadly, Ms. Sembello, has concluded that she has no private property rights. But, she has not given up hope and she is fighting back to save a home that has been in her family for more than 100 years. Ms. Sembello is one of hundreds of Baldwin Park residents staging protests at city hall and burning the city's notices of eminent domain before television cameras.

 

Despite the great injustice this community is facing, these property owners are proud to be Americans, for they know they live in a country where its citizenry feels empowered to fight back and change the system.

 

Please join us in supporting Proposition 98. Together, we can restore our private property rights in California and protect so many ‑ whether it is the good people of Baldwin Park or those with investment property. In June, vote "Yes" on Prop 98!

 

Proposition 98 is sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. It is also strongly supported by AAGLA and the California Housing Providers Coalition, among many others. The measure is endorsed by NFIB, the Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and a diverse coalition of taxpayer, faith and good government organizations. To learn how you can contribute to Prop. 98, go to www. yesonpropertyrights.com

 

OPPOSITION TO EMINENT DOMAIN REFORM FUNDED BY ANONYMOUS CAMPAIGN FUNDS

T

he Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the National Taxpayer Limitation Committee, and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights announced that they have introduced the "Taxpayer Protection Act of 2008," a ballot measure that strengthens existing laws prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars for political activity by making it illegal for taxpayer-financed organizations, such as the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the California Redevelopment Association, to finance their political activities through anonymous campaign accounts.

 

Over the past two years, taxpayer-financed public agency organizations have used anonymous campaign accounts to contribute nearly $7 million to oppose eminent domain reform ballot measures. Unlike traditional political action committees, these so-called "non-public funds" accounts do not disclose the source of their financing or contributors. Limiting the ability of regulatory agencies, the media and watchdog groups to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used to finance political activities.

 

"Organizations that accept taxpayer dollars should be held to the highest standard and they should disclose all the sources financing their political activities," said Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jon Coupal. "To ensure that these taxpayer-financed organizations are serving the public interest, the law needs to be changed."

 

In 2006, these taxpayer-financed organizations contributed more than $4.7 million from their anonymous "nonpublic funds" accounts to oppose Proposition 90, an eminent domain ballot measure which was narrowly defeated.

 

More recently, they have spent over $2 million to oppose the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, a ballot measure supported by proponents of eminent domain reform.

 

As evidence that these campaign accounts have become the taxpayer-funded agencies' preferred method of financing their political activities, 81% of the money spent so far this year to oppose the Jarvis sponsored eminent domain reform ballot measure has come from these anonymous accounts.

 

"This kind of political activity certainly explains why California is not among the more than 40 states that have reformed their eminent domain laws," said Senator Jim Nielsen (ret.), Chairman of the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. "These taxpayer-funded organizations should not be financing political efforts that undermine private property rights."

 

Taxpayer Protection Act of 2008 Features

 

•  Require taxpayer-financed organizations to fund political activities with non-taxpayer funds and through a political action committee required to disclose receipts and expenditures like other committees.

 

•  Ensure accountability by imposing fines and possible imprisonment for using taxpayer dollars for political purposes.

 

"This ballot prohibits taxpayer-financed groups from using our tax dollars for political purposes," said Lew Uhler, president of the National Taxpayer Protection Committee. "They need to play by the same rules as everyone else."

 

The Act is sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the National Taxpayer Limitation Committee and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, two of which are also sponsors of the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, an eminent domain reform measure slated for the June 2008 ballot. For the Taxpayer Protection Act of 2008 to qualify for the November 2008 ballot, 433,971 valid signatures must be collected. Your help is appreciated and needed.

 

For more information, contact Kris Vosburgh, Executive Director, Howard Jarvis Tax payers Association, 621 S. Westmoreland Ave., Suite 202, Los Angeles, CA 90005, 213-384-9656.

DON'T BE FOOLED — LEAGUE OF CITIES PROPERTY RIGHTS PROPOSAL DOES ALMOST NOTHING

T

wo property rights initiatives are currently in the signature gathering process and are likely to appear on the June '08 ballot. The first is the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA), supported by AAGLA and sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights.

 

The second measure, filed for no other reason than as a defensive tactic against the first, is entitled the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act. It is sponsored by the California League of Cities and the California Redevelopment Association, organizations usually associated with eroding property rights, not advancing them.

 

Although both deal generically with the power of eminent domain, that is about the only similarity between the two. CPOFPA has a blanket prohibition against so-called "Kelo" takings, the use of eminent domain for the purpose of economic development. While continuing to permit traditional exercises of eminent domain for actual public uses such as roads, dams and public buildings, the initiative protects

all property from seizure by government for the purpose of simply handing it over to someone else. Thus, churches, farmland and businesses would all receive protection.

 

The "protections" offered by the League of Cities proposal are virtually non-existent. First, it claims that it would protect only single‑family, owner-occupied residences leaving other properties wholly unprotected. But even with homes, there are several caveats. For example, if a homeowner has owned his or her home for less than a year, they are out of luck. Moreover, the League's measure permits taking of homes for economic development if such a taking is for a use that is "incidental" to some public purpose.

 

In short, the League's measure does almost nothing, offering but scant protection to a limited number of homeowners. Because of this, the independent Office of the Legislative Analyst said the League's measure "is not likely to significantly alter current government land acquisition practices."

 

Nonetheless, because it does, ostensibly, offer a thread of protection to some homeowners, another concern about this measure has been raised. Specifically, many in the business community have historically worried about policy proposals emanating from the left that would treat business properties differently than residential. This concern was eloquently expressed in a letter dated June 8, 2007, from the California Taxpayers Association in opposition to Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 8, the legislative precursor to the League's initiative. Cal‑Tax, California's leading representative of businesses interests in matters relating to taxation and fiscal affairs, unequivocally stated that:

 

"Constitutional Rights Should Not Hinge Upon the Type of Property that is Taken by Eminent Domain. There is simply no justification for protecting owner-occupied properties, but not rentals and investment properties, and small businesses, but not large businesses. The distinction is arbitrary, and it sets up a system whereby constitutional rights are diminished depending on the use of the property.

 

In addition, it sets an unfavorable precedent for other types of government intrusion on individual rights, most notably in the area of property taxation." The disparate treatment of business properties in the area of taxation is usually accomplished through a "split roll." This literally refers to "splitting" the property tax roll according to the use of the property and applying differing tax rates depending on the use. The most common "split" — found in several states — is between residential and commercial property. Thus, it is not uncommon to find in these other states higher property tax rates applied to businesses. Politically, it is easier for the tax‑and‑spend lobby to raise taxes on businesses rather than homeowners.

 

In California, we have a uniform roll, treating all property the same. It is a good policy which has served the state well. It has also resulted in property owners from all corners homeowners and businesses ‑ forging a strong political alliance to preserve the current system, particularly as it relates to Proposition 13.

 

That is why the League's proposal is so dangerous. It would provide a template for anti-business interests to do with taxation what the League of Cities is attempting to do with property rights. Organizations such as the union-financed California Tax Reform Association have long pushed for higher taxes on California business properties. That push will be even greater as California's budget crisis grows.

 

If the League's measure passes, we can anticipate increased efforts to further drive a wedge between residential and commercial properties. Thus, California's business community has a unique opportunity to close the door now to split roll proposals, whether those proposals address property rights or property taxation.

 

 

LA OVERCHARGING FOR WATER
By Jon Coupal and Timothy Bittle

K

oko the gorilla, a resident of the Los Angeles Zoo, had become quite adept at picking the pockets of the zookeeper. One day Koko used the zookeeper's key to let himself out of his cage, and ambled over to the snack shop.

 

Climbing onto a bar stool, he grunted, "Water." When the man returned with a bottle of Aquafina, Koko handed him a $20 bill from the zookeeper's wallet. Guessing the gorilla wasn't too smart, the man gave Koko one dollar in change.

 

"We don't get a lot of business from the animals here," the man remarked. Koko snorted, "At $19 for bottled water, I'm not surprised."

 

Koko is not the only Los Angeles resident paying too much for water. And the snack shop isn't the only water purveyor hoping that its customers aren't too smart. In fact, every Los Angeles water customer has been overcharged for years. And, although the California Supreme Court ruled last year that cities can no longer charge customers more than it costs to provide water service, the City of Los Angeles was hoping it could break the law again this year and no one would notice. Sorry, L.A., we at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association noticed. So did AAGLA.

 

But first, a little history: In 1999, HJTA and AAGLA sued the City of Los Angeles over its water rates because, for each of the preceding four years the city set rates at an amount that significantly exceeded its cost to provide water. The overcharges resulted in a surplus of over $20 million each year, which the city transferred to its General Fund for the City Council to spend at its discretion.

 

Our lawsuit alleged that the overcharges violated Proposition 218, which, in part, states, "Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property-related service." It also says, "Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed." The suit also alleged that, to the extent water rates did exceed the funds required to provide water service and were spent on other purposes, the overcharge constituted a special tax which required voter approval.

 

Unfortunately, the court of Appeal sided with the city, ruling that metered water rates are not fees for a property-related service and therefore are not subject to Proposition 218's cost-of-service requirement. The court certified its opinion for publication, which made it a precedent binding every lower court in California. Cities and counties throughout the state immediately took advantage of the decision by raising their water rates to generate new General Fund revenue for things unrelated to water.

 

This was the state of affairs for six years. Then, in 2006, the California Supreme Court granted review of a case called Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil. The Bighorn case involved a voter's initiative to reduce water rates after a water district promised rate relief, but didn't deliver. The lower court, adhering to the precedent in HJTA v. City of Los Angeles, held that water rates are not subject to Proposition 218. That meant, according to the court, that rates could not be reduced using 218's initiative power.

 

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court. The high court not only ruled that reducing rates is within the people's initiative power, it also held that water rates are subject to the other requirements of Proposition 218 as well. In so doing, the court expressly overruled the precedent from six years earlier in HJTA v. City of Los Angeles.

 

The Supreme Court issued the Bighorn decision one year ago, in July 2006. Anyone with faith in the rule of law would expect that, by now, the City of Los Angeles would have adjusted its water rates to comply with the law as laid down by the state's highest court.

 

Only a cynic would be looking for the small legal notice that appeared in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise addressed to "All persons interested in the matter of the validity of the transfer of $29,931,300 from the Water Revenue Fund of the City of Los Angeles to the City's Reserve Fund."

 

According to the notice, circulated only in this one obscure newspaper and only for three days, the City of Los Angeles recently filed a lawsuit against all of its water customers, and this is their notice that they are being sued.

 

If someone sees the notice and files an Answer to the lawsuit by July 23, the notice explained, then the city will litigate with that person whether it may legally continue to generate and transfer a surplus from its Water Fund to the General Fund Reserve. However, the notice continued, if no one files an Answer by July 23, then the court will enter a Default Judgment against all of the city's water customers, validate the transfer of funds, and the issue will be settled forever.

 

Although the city was obviously hoping that no one would catch the notice, someone did. We prepared an Answer to the city's lawsuit denying the city's asserted right to continue generating and transferring a surplus, and affirmatively alleged that the city's practice became illegal not only generally, but specifically as to the City of Los Angeles when the Supreme Court overruled HJTA v. City of Los Angeles. The two sides will now battle it out in court, and we're not monkeying around.

 

Coupal is the President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Bittle is the organization's Director of Legal Affairs.

 

 

AAGLA AND HJTA TRY TO STOP FLOW OF DWP FUNDS TO CITY'S RESERVE COFFERS

By Trevor A. Grimm, AAGLA General Counsel

0n April 9, 2007, the City of Los Angeles, through its City Attorney, Rocky J. Delgadillo, filed a validation action seeking "a declaration from this court that the transfer of $29,931,300 from the Water Revenue Fund of the City's Department of Water and Power to the city's reserve fund as surplus money for the fiscal year 2006‑2007" is legal.

 

Now, why did they have to go to court to get an approval? Because the transfer is illegal, that's why!

 

AAGLA and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association have filed an opposition to the city's approval request, alleging, in part, that: "Article MID, section 6, of the California Constitution prohibits setting fees for property‑related services, such as water, which would 'exceed the funds required to provide the property‑related service.'

 

It also prohibits using revenues derived from such fees "for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed."

 

Well, you get the idea... the city now has the burden of proving that the fees that generate almost $30 million more than required to provide water are not excessive, and that the use of the fees sought to be transferred to the reserve fund are not transferred for illegal non‑water‑related purposes. This money is sought to be stolen, but not if we can help it.

ASSEMBLYMAN GIVES TAXPAYERS THE FOAM FINGER

 

While watching my first televised baseball game of the year, the camera panned the crowd and then zeroed in on two youngsters wildly waving concession stand foam fingers to express their conviction that the home team is "number one." Of course, I knew their beliefs to be mistaken, no matter how well intentioned, because I am a fan of the visiting ball club and I am certain it is number one.

 

However, seeing these naïve adolescents enthusiastically urging their favorites forward, I was reminded of the members of our State Legislature. As a state, California ranks 8^th in per capita state and local taxation. Some politicians may counter that we are "only" 12th when our tax burden is measured as a percentage of personal income, but either way, we are running near the front of the pack in a 50 team league. And according to the latest from the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation, the percentage of our income that we Californians provide state and local government is moving up steadily, going from 10.5% in 2002, to 11.5% this year.

 

Most Sacramento observers recognize that a majority of our state representatives would like to see the tax burden increased so they can more easily pursue their spending ambitions. And it is no exaggeration to say that some lawmakers — who often have a background in social activism and imagine that taxpayers have an unlimited supply of money — will not be satisfied until they can proclaim that, when it comes to taxation, we are number one.

 

Assemblyman Jared Huffman, a Democrat from San Rafael, is the latest to step forward with an idea to wring more from taxpayers. Huffman wants to change the state constitution to dismantle Proposition 13's mandated two‑thirds vote for local special taxes and to reduce the two-thirds vote — established in 1879 ‑ required to pass local bonds that must be repaid by property owners. His legislation, ACA 8, would allow local voters, with a two‑thirds vote, to reduce the vote threshold needed to approve a tax earmarked for a specific purpose and local general obligation bonds that place a lien on property to guarantee repayment.

 

If this seems confusing, it is doubtful that Huffman will mind. You see, with ACA 8 he can claim he is not a tax raiser, he just wants to enhance majority rule and local control by making it easier for local voters to raise taxes. As he told one reporter, "We are hoping this might be the sweet spot that can get this passed statewide."

 

This is similar to the argument made by the multi-million-dollar campaign that passed Proposition 39 in 2000 and reduced the vote needed to increase property taxes for school bonds. The result is costing property owners billions of dollars. Huffman now wants to reduce the vote required to pass all local bonds.

 

Surveys show that a two-thirds vote for new taxes is popular with about two-thirds of voters, so it is clear how Huffman's proposal will be used if it becomes law.

 

First, local officials will find a lever to open the door to new taxes. They will begin by focusing on a tax or bond for a popular issue, like public safety that is already likely to receive approval of two-thirds of voters. Tax proponents will tell voters that they can assure passage by first voting to lower the local vote to approve special taxes. If voters agree, the door is open for good.

 

Interested in raising sales taxes to build a new stadium for wealthy professional sports team owners, as politicians recently attempted in Sacramento? Well, you could thank Jared Huffman and his ACA 8 for making it much easier.

 

Want to increase the burden on local homeowners by passing a bond to provide housing subsidies to newcomers to the city and upper-income residents, as the Los Angeles City Council tried to do last November? Huffman is your man.

 

The insidious ACA 8 is the biggest legislative threat to taxpayers, especially property tax taxpayers, to be proposed in the Legislature in many years. Taxpayers must make every effort to guarantee its defeat. Lawmakers cannot be allowed to give taxpayers the foam finger.

It's Time for Private Property Rights in California

It may come as somewhat of a shock to you, but government can fix the price for which you can sell your home. (We do not use the word "fix" in the sense of correcting something that is wrong. We use word "fix" in the sense of rigging a horse race.) How, you ask? Aren't price controls on property something you would have seen in the now defunct Soviet Union?

 

Think about it. If government can fix the price for which you can rent your property (as it does in a number of communities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Santa Monica) then what is to stop it from regulating the purchase price of property? All it has to do is adopt some self-serving language as is found in the prologue to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. That law provides as follows.

 

"There is a shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing in the City of Los Angeles resulting in a critically low vacancy factor."

 

It is certainly conceivable that the elected leadership of Los Angeles could make a similar finding by stating that: "There is a shortage of affordable, well-located single-family residences in the City of Los Angeles resulting in dramatically high median residential housing sales prices and making it hard for home buyers to afford to buy single-family residences."

 

The rent control findings continue.

 

"This problem... (rental housing shortage)... reached crisis level in the summer of 1978 following the passage of Proposition 13."

 

This non sequitur (what did Prop. 13 have to do with the L.A.'s rental housing shortage?) is either just a coincidence or it is an indication of government's hidden anti-13 agenda. But we digress.

 

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), to which many of you belong, filed an initiative measure with the Secretary of State on February 13, 2007, in an attempt to scale back government regulation of private property and to prevent government price-fixing.

 

The measure now awaits the receipt of "title and summary" from the Attorney General, the language that is supposed to be an impartial analysis of the initiative. If the initiative qualifies for the ballot by gathering at least 694,354 valid signatures, it will be decided at the June 2008 election.

 

The HJTA initiative prevents government from taking one person's private property and transferring its beneficial use to another private person, generally a favored higher tax-paying individual or entity, as happened with Mrs. Kelo's home in Connecticut. Also, since it amounts to government limitation of an owner's—beneficial use of his property—and affects the limitation on an owner's right to enjoy the product of his investment, the initiative also prohibits government from limiting the value of private rental property by regulating and reducing what an owner can charge for its ownership or use.

 

The initiative provides, in part, as follows.

 

SEC. 19(a) — "Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use...Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use."

 

SEC. 19(b) — "Damaged...(includes any limitation on)...the price a property owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his property…”

 

SEC. 19(b)(4) — "Private use means: (iii) regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner."

 

Because rent regulations result in a significant transfer of economic benefit to private persons at the expense of the property owners, they would be governed by this section.

 

In the case of eminent domain, when private property is taken, the government must pay fair market value for it (even though no payment can compensate homeowners like Mrs. Kelo who lose homes after decades of ownership). However, in the case of price controls, regulations fixing rents at reduced rates are imposed with no payment whatsoever to the owner, fair or otherwise.

 

The initiative measure provides for a three-year phase-in period, modeled after the three-year phase-in period adopted by Los Angeles County when it discontinued its experiment with rent regulation.

 

Joining HJTA in this effort to secure property rights for Californians is the California Farm Bureau Federation, The California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights and several other interests which are negatively impacted by government's restrictions on the rights of those who own property.

 

HJTA has already invested a great deal of time, effort and financial resources to launch this important project. The coalition must raise approximately $1.7 million to ensure qualification for the June 2008 ballot. It is time for homeowners, apartment owners and all others who believe in private property to rally behind this measure to ensure that property rights remain valued threads in our Constitutional fabric.

 

For more information, contact us at 213-384-9656, 916-444-9950 or by email jon@hjta.org or ed@hjta.org.