skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Prop. 90 Seeks Limitations on Eminent Domain

Video

To view video on KPBS.org, you must have a JavaScript-enabled browser and the Flash Player, minimum version 9, available for free at Adobe.com.

Source file.

Above:

Proponents call Proposition 90 the “save our homes” measure. They say it’s needed to stop cities and counties from abusing their powers of eminent domain.

A “yes” vote on 90 approves barring state and local governments from seizing private property to promote other private projects. It also restricts government authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws except when necessary to preserve public health or safety.

Supporters say without Prop. 90, governments can seize private homes and businesses not for public projects, but for the benefit of private businesses that generate more tax revenue. But the opposition says Prop. 90 is a radical measure with far-reaching consequences. Guest host Elsa Sevilla talks to proponents for and against the measure.

Guests

  • Ray Haynes, State Assemblyman.
  • Andrew Poat, Vice President of Public Policy for the Regional Economic Development Corporation

 

Comments

Avatar for user 'joemamma42'

joemamma42 | September 18, 2011 at 10:51 a.m. ― 3 years, 3 months ago

If a person is being forced off of their land they should be compensated more than "fair market value". A home or property has long been thought of as an investment. To say "we're only going to pay you what it is worth now" is like forcing someone to cash in a 401K plan early and not giving them full maturity value. As for additional taxpayer costs. Are they not trying to generate MORE tax revenue from these deals? Why should the cities get MORE, and the developers make PROFIT, but the original land owner only gets current market value. What stops developers from waiting for a down turn like now to scoop these properties. As opposed to scooping during a boom. And what provisions are in place to insure that these developers actually complete their projects. Is there something in the laws that state that a developer MUST start the project by a certain time an also MUST complete the project by a certain time or face reimbursing the city and landowners?

( | suggest removal )