CA legislature promoting new eminent domain/property theft scheme!

[msongs]

(this is a copy from the general discussion thread and is more timely for us in California)

In the California legislature, a proposed law now working thru committees will give the government MORE imminent domain power to steal property from california land owners.
SB 521 would define "low density uses" like single family homes as "blight". Then government agencies, operating as a "transit village special district" can condemn small business and homes as blight and give the land on which they are located to private developers.
Local goverments consider property in their area as "dirt", as in all the vacant land (dirt) is gone, so now we have to get more vacant land to develop by turning existing houses and apartments into "dirt" by taking over the properties by eminent domain.
Our speficif interest is in Riverside Ca, home of the University of Ca at Riverside. Local government agencies want to turn a local train right of way into a commuter line and put stations right next to the campus. Sorry to say much of that land is currently single family residences.
The city of Riverside and the university of Ca all claim they will not take anybody's land. what they mean of course is that they will create a "transit District" and that district will then take the land.
Pretty slick way to screw people and deny responsibility eh?
So if you are in California you had better start learning about this new law SB 521, a law that cannot really get off the ground until January 2006, so now is the time to fight it. This law will be used all across the state to take away people's single family homes that cannot yet be considered blight for redevelopment purposes.

The Ca legislature is run by DEMOCRATS so don't think for a millisecond that dems are always our friends.

More information on this will appear soon.

Msongs
Riverside CA
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[The Doctor.]

1. Not that I'm advocating this...

But doesn't anyone understand why some people blow up government buildings? Don't they understand that a person with no legal recourse can become very dangerous?

If I lost my home and property due to this type of legislation and was not justly compensated after all the work I put into that home (and by 'justly', I mean slightly more than it's worth... not less)

I would find a way to make life miserable for ANYone who upheld such theivery. Deadly force? Absolutely not. But by the time they'd had all those 'unexplained' misfortunes...

[mitchtv]

2. My community will be interested

We are also Freeperside county. I will pass it on

[msongs]

3. our neighborhood association is on to this so stay tuned - >

gonna get a website up or give them some space on my site.

this legislation is kinda stealth right now, still doing the backroom committee thing.

we have sent a letter to the mayor and each councilperson asking them what they are doing to STOP this legislation on behalf of the riverside property owners. expect to get bullshit replies...in writing.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[mitchtv]

4. The Dems on the USSC supported this kind of thing

It would be suicide for the Dems to try this, no matter how many cities it helps. my neighborhood association is being informed now. Most states are heading in the other direction, towards protection.

[ProudDad]

5. There are no Dems

on SCOTUS...

They're all corporate tools.

[Oerdin]

6. two sides to this coin

While imminent domain abuse is very real I can also see the other side of the coin where blighted areas do need to be redeveloped for the good of the entire community. Politicians are so easily bought and paid for that it makes me nervous to think they could have such great power that's why imminent domain should need some sort of voter approval before it can be used.

[msongs]

7. the area is NOT blighted, the homes sell for $300K+AND ->

the legislature is changing the definition of blight to apply to single family homes that sell for more than $300,000! the reason to change the blight designation is that government entities cannot currently eminent domain residential areas that are NOT defined as blighted.

If you are familiar with California, think of the neighborhoods around UCLA being defined as "blight" and rezoned so the area can be bulldozed and rebuilt to the benefit of the developers who own the mayor and city council members (think chamber of commerce and downtown business association)

the whole thing is a change in the rules of the game to the loss of the property owners.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Oerdin]

8. That's extremely unlikely.

The reason is the city would have to come up with the money to buy the owners out. ID can force people to sell but the city still needs to come up with the cash. LA won't be able to come up with the cash for huge buyouts.