Our reporting relies on your support. Contribute today! 

Help us reach our goal of $250,000. The countdown is on!

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 | Occasionally, I agree with Union-Tribune editorials. Today was such an occurrence. Evidently, they oppose Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, which could put an eminent domain reform initiative before voters on the June 2008 ballot. They described this as “a sham reform.”

How much of a sham is ACA 8? It would allow Kelo-style eminent domain transfer of private property from one individual to another as long as it is part of a “comprehensive plan to eliminate blight.” And as we know, practically any property can be legally defined as blighted. In other words, ACA 8 would reinforce the government’s right to condemn small business properties just to transfer their ownership to “well-connected developers.” This would allow redevelopment abuse, such as the Grantville redevelopment project, to continue. Furthermore, ACA 8 is endorsed by Jim “Let ’em sue us” Madaffer. Need I say more?

There is, however, and alternative: the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act. Signatures are now being collected to put this true eminent domain reform initiative on the same 2008 ballot. This is the initiative to support to truly stop redevelopment abuse and eminent domain abuse in California.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.