OC Lawmakers on Kelo, Bills, El Morro
On June 23, the Supreme Court continued its march toward the dismantling of our private property rights. On a 5-4 decision the court made our property rights subject to the whim and greed of local governments.
In the case of Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court decided for the first time that private property could be taken for purely private purposes to increase local tax revenue. This decision opens the floodgates to other cities that seek to increase their tax base at the expense of private property owners by utilizing eminent domain.
If “public purposes” can be defined as any project that increases the local government’s tax revenue, who is to say that people’s homes cannot be subjected to eminent domain, even if the only purpose is to build an auto mall or a shopping center?
So, what is the solution? The Supreme Court has left to the states the ability to protect private property owners from the abuses of eminent domain.
AB 590, which I authored to address this issue, will soon be heard by the Assembly. The bill prohibits the use of eminent domain by local governments for private business development purposes strictly intended to increase tax revenue. I also support amending the California Constitution, a more lengthy process, to protect private property owners.
To further address the impacts of the Kelo decision, I’ve created a task force on private property rights, headed by former Assemblywoman Pat Bates, whose 14 years of experience in local and state government make her uniquely qualified to direct such an effort.
This task force will investigate the abuse of eminent domain and will make recommendations to prevent such abuse.
Private property rights are the foundation of our economic and political liberty. AB 590 and the Private Property Rights Task Force are two steps toward securing these rights for all Californians.
Mimi Walters
Assemblywoman
R-Laguna Niguel
The list of terrible bills that are making their way through the state capitol unfortunately is very long. Here are some:
SB 300 (Kuehl): This bill expands the already terrible “Family Leave Act,” which requires businesses to give three months leave to employees for care of a sick relative. This bill expands coverage from illnesses to any form of “psychological comfort” and to an expanded group of relatives including siblings, domestic partners and children or grandchildren of any age. Everyone has some relative at any time who they can claim needs “psychological comfort.” The bottom line of this bill is that any employee who wanted to could take off three months. It’s another job killer for California.
SB 441 (Soto): We have an ongoing energy crisis right? One thing we could do is put in meters that charge us the true cost of the energy at the time it is consumed; then we would all have an incentive to use our appliances at night rather than in the afternoon. This bill would prohibit that kind of electric meter. It is sponsored by a group called “The Utility Reform Network.” They love to spend your money to run ads on TV to tell you to conserve energy. But with market pricing they would have little reason to exist. So, they want to prohibit a pricing strategy that could save us all money and energy so they can continue to promote spending more of your money to fail in accomplishing that objective. (Heavy sigh.)
AB 1184 (Koretz): This bill would prohibit mandatory overtime for nurses employed by the state. The state would have to hire more nurses who would pay mandatory union dues, which would be used to elect Democrats and to run ads against Gov. Schwarzenegger.
AB 391 (Koretz): This bill would pay unemployment benefits to union workers who are locked out in a labor dispute. This bill rose out of the recent supermarket lockout/strike, which nearly broke the unions because they paid out strike benefits. If this were to become law, those locked out/striking workers would instead be paid by the state. This would create an incentive to strike. Because of the unions’ control over Democrats, this will pass and the governor will have to veto it.
SB 46 (Alarcon): This is an attempt to get rid of last year’s workers’ comp reforms. It would replace the market based system with an entirely regulated rate system run by a committee of the governor, insurance commissioner and attorney general. Two of these three are Democrats right now.
SB 645 (Dunn): This ridiculous bill would spend scarce state money to set up a commission to study the “forcible Mexican repatriation of 1929-1944.” The real purpose of this trial-lawyer-supported idea is to encourage a flood of litigation against the state and federal government for “reparations” to the descendants of those who were deported.
SB 840 (Kuehl): This is a modification of the “Hillarycare” proposal of the early 1990s which would put California on a “single payer” health-insurance system. The state runs so many things so well that I am sure that they would do a great job running our entire health insurance system. Not!
So, you can see that the Legislature is no different this year than it has been in prior years. Because of the huge Democrat majorities, Arnold is our main line of defense.
John Campbell
State Senator
R-Irvine
The most frustrating part of my job in Sacramento hasn’t been dealing with the Democrats. For the most part, they do what you would expect them to do: expand the size of government and try to raise taxes.
No, the most frustrating part of my job has been dealing with the bureaucracy,that permanent government seemingly unmoved by any election, completely immune from any attempts at reform.
One constant irritation I’ve had is with the State Parks Department at Crystal Cove.
This time the story isn’t about the multimillion-dollar overruns in the so-called “restoration” of the historic cottages (only a bureaucrat could call the complete destruction of a 70-year-old shack followed by totally new construction “restoration”).
This time the story is about the multimillion-dollar overruns for State Parks’ plans to destroy El Morro Village (a source of more than $1 million a year in revenue to the state) and replace it with a 250-car parking lot and campground (a money-losing venture for the state).
We are seeing a pattern emerge with State Parks,starting a project and then asking for more money before its completion.
As policy-makers, it doesn’t do us any good to approve multimillion-dollar projects and then find out in the middle of it that, oh yeah, we need several million dollars more.
State Parks expects us lawmakers to shut up and give the bureaucrats more tax money.
I have other plans.
Chuck DeVore
Assemblyman
R-Irvine
