U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-02-2008, 07:50 PM
 
11,715 posts, read 36,663,884 times
Reputation: 7522

Advertisements

If you were being screwed out of millions of dollars, wouldn't you spend money to stop it?

 
Old 06-02-2008, 08:19 PM
 
27,075 posts, read 54,279,688 times
Reputation: 21277
Thumbs up Here's what the Voter Pamphlet states...

Directly from the voter pamphlet, "rebuttal to arguments against Proposition 98":

The opponents fail to even mention Proposition 98 protects homes, rental units, family farms, small businesses, and places of worship from being seized and bulldozed by politicians and developers to be converted to commercial developments for their private profit!

NO WONDER THEY DON’T MENTION THESE VITAL PROTECTIONS!—The opponents ARE the politicians and developers who are seizing the private property they want, to increase taxes and make huge development profits.

The opponents talk about wealthy landlords being the big Proposition 98 supporters. Nonsense! It is the individual homeowners whose voluntary donations sustain the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s efforts to protect Proposition 13 and our homes who are the biggest contributors to Proposition 98.

And the biggest opponents of 98? The politicians and their big developer buddies!



http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov]Voter (broken link) Information Guide

Last edited by Ultrarunner; 06-03-2008 at 12:34 AM..
 
Old 06-02-2008, 09:04 PM
 
3,413 posts, read 6,558,044 times
Reputation: 1430
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia View Post
If you were being screwed out of millions of dollars, wouldn't you spend money to stop it?
Oh, heck yeah!
 
Old 06-02-2008, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
6,294 posts, read 15,771,894 times
Reputation: 8353
I reread the actual text of Proposition 98, and found it curious that the verbiage states: "The provisions of this act shall become effective on the day following the election except that any statute, charter provision, ordinance, or regulation by a public agency enacted prior to January 1, 2007, that limits the price a rental property owner may charge a tenant..." etc. Why make the cutoff essentially December 31, 2006, 2007?

Then I found this California law: "As of January 1, 2007, California Civil Code Section 1946.1 requires a 60-day notice for no-fault evictions of tenants who have resided in a rental unit for at least one year. This law remains in effect until January 1, 2010."

Okay, so the 60-day notice law expires in roughly a year and a half (it then goes back to 30 days notice). However, it's obvious to me that the landlords who sponsored this proposition put this in so they could evict people with only 30 days notice. And if you think that there's not much difference between a 30-day and 60-day notice, then you're obviously not a renter. This is a big deal.

Last edited by SandyCo; 06-02-2008 at 10:12 PM..
 
Old 06-02-2008, 09:49 PM
 
Location: West LA
2,318 posts, read 7,125,102 times
Reputation: 1099
I'm voting against 98 because I feel like they are deceptively trying to slide rent control this by the voters. If rent control were its own proposition, and clearly laid out to the voters... that would be worth consideration. This to me seems a bit sneaky.

I'm voting against 99 because it seems to pretty much do nothing. After reading through all the language of the bill, and the arguments for and against, it seems this proposition is pointless. It says it protects homeowners... but if you see the list of exclusions to this protection, you will see that it is a joke.

If they want to really change eminent domain rules... then put forth a proposition that really changes them. Don't try to sneak in other policy though...
 
Old 06-02-2008, 11:08 PM
 
27,075 posts, read 54,279,688 times
Reputation: 21277
Quote:
Originally Posted by LASam View Post
I'm voting against 99 because it seems to pretty much do nothing. After reading through all the language of the bill, and the arguments for and against, it seems this proposition is pointless. It says it protects homeowners... but if you see the list of exclusions to this protection, you will see that it is a joke.
LASam... I can respect your decision. You read both Prop 98 and 99 and came to your own conclusion to vote no on both... can't ask for anything more

Last edited by Ultrarunner; 06-02-2008 at 11:21 PM..
 
Old 06-02-2008, 11:19 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,818 posts, read 24,266,197 times
Reputation: 6340
Against, I can see decent arguments against rent control, but the framing of 98 as an eminent domain issue is somewhat disingenuous.
 
Old 06-02-2008, 11:26 PM
 
27,075 posts, read 54,279,688 times
Reputation: 21277
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Against, I can see decent arguments against rent control, but the framing of 98 as an eminent domain issue is somewhat disingenuous.
I believe neither side is please with the Attorney Generals title and summary of Prop 98 and that's why both sides filed lawsuits... which both lost.

The Official Title and Summary of Prop 98 is:

EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY

I certainly would have chosen a more descriptive title... and I guess many agree...
 
Old 06-03-2008, 02:46 PM
f_m
 
2,289 posts, read 7,645,701 times
Reputation: 874
I voted no on 98 because I don't think the eminent domain and rent control issues should be attached.

Oddly enough I was talking to someone about San Francisco, even before I read what 98 is, and he was talking about rent control. He said that if there were no rent control there then only rich people would live in SF, but the character of SF is due to the diversity of the people that live there. Also, he mentioned that if the owner put in ~20% improvements on the property then the rent could be raised more than the standard level allowed by rent control, so if there were no rent control then I figure that would be a way to force people out by continually doing the improvements. This person went to law school in SF and lives there, so I figure he knows what he's talking about.
 
Old 06-03-2008, 03:24 PM
 
Location: CITY OF ANGELS AND CONSTANT DANGER
5,409 posts, read 11,541,667 times
Reputation: 2251
ok you guys didnt make my decision any clearer.

im still tryin to figure out how to vote. in most cases, when i am stuck i just vote no and wait for a better proposition to come along later. but here i want to make sure i got enough info as a home owner. i think im leaning no 98, yes 99, but i might change it to no/no.

fiddlesticks!!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top