L.A. Times on Prop. 98: 'Cynical and devious'

The L.A. Times today strongly criticizes Proposition 98, which would bar the government from taking  private property by eminent domain for the ultimate purpose of private development. Proposition 98 would also phase out local rent-control ordinances, which The Times views as a separate issue best settled locally: "Statewide abolition of rent control must not sneak its way onto the books as a hidden addendum to an ostensible eminent domain reform. Including it in Proposition 98 is cynical and devious -- and reason enough to reject the measure."

The Times notes that a company run by Sam Zell has donated $50,000 in support of Proposition 98. Zell, chairman and CEO of Tribune Co., which owns The Times, also chairs Equity Lifestyle Properties, which owns 27 mobile home parks in California, some of which are subject to rent control. It was Equity Lifestyle Properties that made the donation to Proposition 98. In other words, the Times editorial page has crossed its new owner, and made a point of informing its readers it was doing so.

The Times gives a half-hearted endorsement to the other "eminent domain" question, Proposition 99, saying the measure is flawed because it protects only property owned by individuals, and not business-owned property.

Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com

Comments

[TakeFive]

"...98 would also phase out local rent-control ordinances, which The Times views as a separate issue..."

One day the state tells you how much you can charge for rent, as well as imposes a host of other restrictions on the use of your private property. This is merely eminent domain in practice, if not in name.

[Hugo Chavez]

The government should fund its own social experiments

[jb]

What's deceptive is the LA Times. They are looking for any reason to discredit efforts to undo the World War II-era rent control regulations that have long outlived their usefulness. WWII is long over. Let's move on. Let's do away with these unfair regulations.

It appears that LA Times can't come up with a reasonable argument against removing rent control so they are trying to stop meaningul discussion in its tracks.

[jb]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274es.html

[Dali]

......."The Times views (rent-control) as a separate issue best settled locally".......do you really think the city of Los Angeles would ever abolish rent-control, or ever vote on it, that's ludicrous.They are working on adding more and more regulation not less. I hope Sam Zell "evicts" all you left wing columnist from the LA Times. Vote Yes98 No99

[Larry Gross, Coalition for Economic Survival]

We applaud the Los Angeles Times with joining with over 20 other newspaper editorial boards and countless number of senior, disabled, business, labor, environmental, renter and homeowner organization across the state in condemning Proposition 98 and supporting Proposition 99.

Proposition 98 is a deceptive doomsday measure that a group of wealthy landlords spent millions to put on the ballot. These landlords want you to believe the measure is only about “eminent domain,” but Prop. 98 is full of hidden provisions that would hurt all Californians.

• Prop. 98 attacks renters by eliminating renter protections and rent control.

• Prop. 98 guts important environmental protections like laws we need to combat global warming, and protect our land, air, water and coasts.

• Prop. 98 jeopardizes the quality of our drinking water and our ability to secure new water sources to protect our environment and fuel our economy.

• Prop. 98 will result in frivolous lawsuits, higher taxpayer costs, and hurt our economy.

That's why a broad coalition including AARP, League of Women Voters of California, the Coalition to Protect California Renters, Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, Inc. (GSMOL), California Professional Firefighters, California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Teachers Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Chamber of Commerce and a long list of others all oppose Prop. 98.

Many of these same groups are also supporting a real eminent domain reform on the June 3rd ballot.

Proposition 99 is the straightforward solution we need to protect against eminent domain abuse. Prop. 99 prohibits government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer. Unlike the landlords’ Prop. 98, Prop. 99 is eminent domain reform with NO HIDDEN AGENDAS.

Please be sure you have the facts and vote NO on 98 and Yes on 99 on June 3rd.

[Dali]

Prop.98 will stop eminent domain abuse, prop.99 will do next to nothing....cities can rezone then bulldoze. Prop. 99 will not protect farms, churches, rental property, and businesses. Prop98 would not jeopardizes public water projects or the environment. Global warming????
"frivolous lawsuits, higher taxpayer costs, and hurt our economy"... that's garbage. All existing rent control laws would remain in effect. When a tenant moves out then the new tenant would not have rent control. Nothing is hidden in prop.98 Its all spelled out. Rent control is stealing by the government without just compensation...Rent control causes rents to be higher and causes housing shortages and creates more homelessness. Prop 99 is supported by cities that will gain the most from eminent domain abuse. For more information www.yesprop98.com vote yes98 no99

[YES ON NINETY EIGHT]

Every respected economist in this country agree price controls REDUCE supply , and increase prices. The "shortage" and "housing crisis" in Los Angeles is caused by rent control. Its the problem, not the solution. This is why even renters should vote YES on 98! It's unfair to landlords to be dictated on what they can charge for their investment AND unfair to new tenants who have to pay sky high prices to SUBSIDIZE RENTERS living in the same apartment complex. In time, prices will come down, if the free market is allowed to adjust by itself. The cities rent control programs keep hundreds of city workers employed (that's about all the good it does) RENT CONTROL IS WRONG AND UNFAIR TO ALL!!! ***YES ON 98 *** NO on 99!

[Gary]

I saw the provisions to prop 98 and boy does it have a secret agenda. it allows private developers to build whatever they want and avoid environmental & traffic impacts. it's a proposition for the greedy private developers and landlords. maybe rent control was used for wwii, who knows but prop 98 does not help our economy, especially with the housing crisis. without rent control, many people would be forced to live on the streets by now.

NO ON PROP 98
YES ON PROP 99

[Samuel Marmer]

stripping people of bare bones rent control when there is no other safety net to a collapsing housing market (which is, incidenally, now being inundated with new renters!) is really a MORAL issue. our tax dollars bailed out bear stearns, but not bankrupt homeowners. this is purely a class issue, don't parce words about it being left or right!

[Tom]

Sam Zell owns a mobile home park in my town, Santa Cruz. He sued numerous times til our city council could not mount another legal defense. He buried our town in legal paper He won.After quadrupling rents, or offering another attrition way out- basically desserting your property, many seniors had to elect to stay for the rest of their lives, but their kids don't inherit. At the sale of a mobile home, the rents can multiply by 10 and no-one will buy. This is a real life situation for all the residents of De Anza Mobile Home Park in Santa Cruz. Not the future, NOW for these poor folks who have lost everything, as their landlord bragged he was 12 million richer in a single day. This would have happened to me and hundreds of thousands had 98 passed. Perhaps the answer is to allow us, the residents, to buy the land under our mmortgaged, taxpaying properties. We need to trust our landlords. I no longer do. Ours donated to pass 98.