I flipped prior return data in the original post. Prop 98 FAILED in Orange County, by a vote of 50.6 % NO, 49.4 % YES.
It also failed to carry statewide.
The following data, for those who follow this “stuff,” is part of the OC Registrar of Voters final tallies.
In this [June 3rd] election there were 1.5 million registered voters in Orange County. Of that total one quarter million cast votes representing a turnout of around 17 %. This may not be the lowest voter participation of record but for all those who were MIA they have no one but themselves to blame if the results were not of their desires.
As 172,000 votes were by mail, 70 % of the votes cast were by absentee voters. I had predicted that it would be over 50% but never anticipated it to be that many.
As my fellow blogger Art Pedroza did a post on one of the three events I attended last night I will add my comments of the participants to his prior post.
For those who took the time to vote I thank you.
Prop 99 passed in Orange County receiving 55.7 % YES, 44.3 % NO of the votes cast.
As someone reminded me yesterday morning. Howard Jarvis (and Paul Gann) did not get over the top with Prop 13 on their first attempt. I believe it took six or seven attempts before it became law in CA. While we lost yesterday, the fight to protect private property is far from over. When you have part time city council members, who are not land use experts or attorneys, functioning as both city council members (making $500 per month) and they switch hats to function as the local Redevelopment Agency, they generally do not fully understand the issues of eminent domain, property rights and redevelopment. They simply are not equipped to address this complex issue. As such they rely on the League of Cities, their lobbyists, or city management based on far reaching opinions of what exactly is “blight.”
We will continue to fight for the “metrics” which were initially part of SB 1206 for standardization so that the definition of blight in CA is consistent. The “metrics” that I lobbied for [in SB 1206] were removed in that we could not count enough noses to advance that Legislation down the long road to approval. In my Oct 2005 testimony before a joint meeting with members of our Senate and Assembly in San Diego, I referenced PPIC’s book written by Michael Dardia entitled “subsidizing redevelopment in California.” In his book Michael suggests the need for “quantitative criteria” such as “poverty rate of at least 20 percent of the population, 20 percent population loss in recent years, x percent of the buildings or assessed value abandoned, y percent of property taxes in arrears, or the crime rate z times state average. If the redevelopment subsidies are to be targeted, blight must be judged more on an absolute than on a relative basis. It is not enough that a project area be worse than the rest of the city. In a poor city, the average area may be sufficiently blighted to warrant assistance; in an affluent city, its worst area might still not qualify.” He follows by stating that “asking the legislature to compile a list of cities that qualify for tax increment revenue is a very tall task.”
Like life itself, working to fix a broken system is not a quick fix, its a journey. Sadly the only time that people recognize the cancer of eminent domain abuse is when it knocks on your front door.
Larry:
You did what you could do. Good job in the O.C.
However when the Jarvis bunch sold out to the landlords on the rent control issue you were doomed.
Once again for a few “Pieces of Silver ” the cause was betrayed .
Larry,
This 98/99 campaign has highlighted eminent domain’s need as well as it’s abuse. If a less dogmatic and more tailored approach that dealt with the actual, verifiable, and quantifiable problems (I like the metrics) was placed on the ballot I don’t think you would have triggered a campaign against you.
It was the drafters of Prop 98 that wrote it to appeal to their base (a strictly political move) that brought this on. I realize only yesterday you could scare the American people into giving away their protections and liberties to the influence of money but that day is over.
Sorry you guys didn’t get the memo.
Anon. Not enough sleep last night. I misread, and mis-reported by flipping the YES/NO results and have just amended the post.
The root cause of the issue relates to establishing a level playing field for every city defining what is “blight” and what is not. That is what we tried to accomplish three years ago.
Larry,
When the Jarvis gang took the money and backed out on ACA8 their fate was sealed. Working with LOCC they had negotiated a good piece of legislation. ACA8 was much better crafted than 99, truly this was a reversal of fortune for property rights supporters.
Your aurgument that locally elected officials cannot possibly understand what is in the best interest of the community in which they live is indefensible. By that logic all our local decisions should be made in Sacramento or D.C. by staffers who live off the public’s dime. That is not exactly a solid libertarian or even democratic viewpoint, and I find it strange coming from someone with your other stated positions.
I do agree with you that some communities have abused redevelopment agency powers and those should be called out.
Just..askin
With all due respect to our city council, where to varying degrees I helped each one of them get elected the first time they won, they each have different talents. None of them are attorney’s planners or enter office with any full time experience in community development.
No. All control must be local. The problem is that most of the small and medium size cities in CA have part time residents elected to office, earning $500 to $1,000 per month, being expected to make policy decisions and the spending of taxpayer monies,which in our city of 98,000 is around $70 million per year.
While our dream sheet is to have checks and balances between the full time city manager, and a part time city council, there are issues for which council members are simply not qualified to handle.
They do understand basic “limited” government functions such as public safety. From day one Mission Viejo chose to be a Contract City. We made a management decision to contract out our police protection to the OCSD. The same applies to our fire protection that is handled by the OCFA. We contract out maintenance of our slopes, parks and roads based on competitive bids.
However, the decision to engage in the “taking” of someone’s private property is complex and painful for the victims. Not that every city council person should be put in the same box but there are many who accept campaign contributions from city vendors and developers who have their own agenda. We have had a candidate spend $80,000 for a seat paying $6,000 per year. To retire their campaign debt they hold fundraising receptions attended by these same vendors, but that’s off point.
The League of Cities does not represent the best interests of your city. To attend their retreats in some distant resort, such as Monterey, out of sight of the general public where council members are TRAINED in how to address these policy issues, is very one sided.
I have a tape where one conference speaker, RW&G attorney James L. Markman, told a group of city council members in his presentation that he has gained clients by teaching them how to “circumlocut” the Ralph Brown (Open Meeting)Act.” Is that why we send council members to Monterey? Is this the kind of pro resident education that our council members gain from these meetings to benefit you and I? I don’t think so.
Larry,
“The problem is that most of the small and medium size cities in CA have part time residents elected to office, earning $500 to $1,000 per month, being expected to make policy decisions and the spending of taxpayer monies,which in our city of 98,000 is around $70 million per year.”
Then maybe the better solution is to have full-time positions.
You will find no company with a $70M budget that would be run by a part-time CEO.
As always, you get what you pay for. If running a city of 100K people is only worth a few $K for the board (aka the people of the city), then they have to accept sub-par decisions.
Larry,
If you believe that councilmembers are just lemmings that sit, listen and just believe what staffers and attorneys tell them, your very mistaken.
Just about every meeting where some numnut makes statements like Mr. Markman’s, there are many who call them out for the absurd postitions they are. That said, there are nuiances of the Brown Act that are pretty inane and add nothing to transparency.
I do believe that it is important to understand issues and positions on the wide range of topics that face local elected’s. LOCC does a good job of this, but then it is up to cities and elected’s to complete their search for knowledge. Unfortunatly some don’t do the work needed to fully understand the issues. You mention your city of MV, I believe then you may know a couple who fall into this category.
But I don’t think that just because some don’t do a quailty job you should take the authority away from all.
And by the way, the land use advocates are no better in many cases because they have their own biases on (re)development projects.
End of the day we need to elect better leaders!
I was around when Prop. 13 passed – 1978 I believe – and do not remember any other tries on the ballot before that. So, are you sure your statement that “Howard Jarvis (and Paul Gann) did not get over the top with Prop 13 on their first attempt” is correct? If so, please refresh my memory on what ballot initiative to limit property taxes was on the California ballot before Prop. 13. Thanks in advance.
Older than dirt.
The current, or immediate past, president of the HJTA shared that comment with me. It would not have been called “Prop 13” which only applies to the actual ballot measure that passed in that year. I will try to dig up a response and share it with everyone.
Just…askin..
Obviously with 478 incorporated cities in our state, having a minimum of five council members each, there are surely elected officials who have experience in redevelopment. My understanding is that you provide TIF support for those property owners who lack the resources to remedy “blighted” conditions on their own. In Mission Viejo a prior city council approved (upwards of $85 million) in Bond(ed) indebtedness for a mall parking structure for the Simon Property Group, the multi billion dollar shopping center developer. Their pockets are much deeper than our city’s. Furthermore the council members approved the debt obligation/CORPORATE WELFARE eight months AFTER the expansion/renovation was underway which led to my flying to meet with a Deputy Attorney General in Sacramento with a display board full of photos to protest the legality and timing of that CIP participation.
Without establishing “metrics” we will continue to find council members who are easily swayed, by whatever inducements, to declare areas of their communities blighted simply on the prospect of getting more tax revenues. We must establish a reasonable, but valid, floor to curtail the “bogus” declarations of blight.
Wow… even in Orange County, the one place we would have expected 98 to beat 99.
Holtzman, are you still there? I think the problem is that Larry didn’t listen to the ideas of your “Holtzman Commission,” as you outlined in previous comments, presenting Prop 98 in Fast Food terms.
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2008/06/institute-for-justice-analysis-of-prop-99-part-1-of-2/#comment-57625
and my input here:
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2008/06/institute-for-justice-analysis-of-prop-99-part-1-of-2/#comment-57654
I think the Commission (if I am allowed to join) should start NOW helping Larry come up with Fast-Food ways to sell his new project, the Anti-Gay-Marriage Referendum. I’ve got some material which I overheard yelled out at a sports bar on Main St. the other weekend, can’t print it here but contact me!