Wednesday, June 4, 2008

California and eminent domain

I used to know more about this subject, but since leaving California in 1996 I don't follow it much.

But I did read that California voters yesterday passed one ballot initiative restricting takings on single-family owner-occupied homes, while rejecting a more sweeping proposition that would also have barred the taking of non-residential property for private use and phased out rent control.

The libertarian (small "l') in me would probably have voted for Proposition 98, the one that failed. I am still disgusted by cases like Kelo that give government such sweeping powers over private property when the land will be handed over for another private user. Perhaps Jeff Brown or some of you other Californians can edumacate me on the goings-on?


BawldGuy Talking said...

It's no mystery, David. California is now dominated by two classes, sometimes embodied in the same voter.

1. Not real bright.

2. Socialist, or at least fairly liberal in nature.

Too harsh? Research the rent control fiasco in the People's Republic of Santa Monica. You'll realize I'm moderating my comments.

Since Reagan, CA went for Clinton twice, then Gore, then Kerry. They'll go for Obama.

This is a huge factor in my rationale for advising anyone who'll listen, to take their real estate investment capital out of CA ASAP. This is also why businesses have been fleeing CA for years now. They're tired of being fleeced.

At least the forward pass has a one outa three chance of a positive outcome. Investing in CA income property is now beyond the acceptable risk bar IMHO.

Make sense?

David Stejkowski said...

No, I remember the People's Republic of Santa Monica well, especially when it declared itself a haven for the homeless. And of course there are the Del Martians down your way.

One of the reasons I left CA in '96 was the awful tax burden there, one my former colleagues complain about frequently.

Thanks for basically confirming, alas, what I guess I expected.