This week, the taxpayer financed League of California Cities and other longstanding opponents of eminent domain reform announced, with much fanfare, that “Kelo” reforms are finally coming to California – some two years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Kelo v. New London decision.
The Institute for Justice (IJ), that represented Susette Kelo before the U.S. Supreme Court calls their ACA 8 bill “flawed” and other property rights experts suggest that their plan, loopholes and all, has more in common with “Swiss Cheese” than real and meaningful reform!
The Orange County Register calls it, “so dishonest that it's worthy of caution.”
Dan Walters, of the Sacramento Bee, and the Orange County Register explain why voters should be weary of this legislation and those who are sponsoring it. The articles and analysis provided by IJ and the Pacific Legal Foundation are a worthwhile read for those concerned with bringing about meaningful reform that has come to the rest of the Nation, but has eluded California so far, and those who wish to report on the coming battle between advocates for “true reform” and the elected leaders who continue to fight against protections for those they profess to serve.
Institute for Justice, the organization which represented Susette Kelo in the infamous U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London case:
“the Act (ACA 8) will do little to prevent the actual taking of property in California – and this flaw is fatal"
Tim Sandefur, of the Pacific Legal Foundation, and author of “Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America”:
ACA 8 would make virtually no meaningful change in the law. Far from protecting home and business owners from Kelo-style takings, this proposal, if enacted, would ensure that state and local government would continue to violate property rights in the name of development."
Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee, May 22, 2007:
"An organization that calls itself Californians for Eminent Domain Reform should, one might think, be in favor of reforming eminent domain - the process by which governments take property, ostensibly for public purposes.
However, the government-labor-environmentalist coalition that has adopted that name really doesn't want to change eminent domain laws so much as prevent someone else from changing them in ways that cities, counties, unions and environmentalists wouldn't like.”
Orange County Register, May 24, 2007:
“No one should be shocked by dishonesty in the political process, but an effort by the League of California Cities and other big-government organizations to supposedly restrict the abuse of eminent domain is so dishonest that it's worthy of caution.”
California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights: www.calpropertyrights.com