June 2, 2008

Corona Chamber Positions on June 3, 2008 Statewide Propositions

Remember to Vote Tomorrow June 3, 2008

Proposition 98

Regulation of Private Property
 

Corona Chamber Position: OPPOSE

 

The Corona Chamber of Commerce's stated platform position on Eminent Domain issues supports bills that carefully balance private property rights with eminent domain and its impact on the overall community. Your Chamber takes the position that Proposition 98 and its intent to limit City access to eminent domain is too extreme.

Proposition 98 aims to protect private property, including businesses and farms, from government profiting by seizing property from one private property owner and giving it to another private entity.

Private property may not be taken by eminent domain for private use under any circumstances (e.g. to build a shopping center, auto mall or industrial park).

Property may be taken by eminent domain only for public use (e.g.. freeway construction, parks, schools).

Property may not be taken by government and used for the same purposes (e.g. residential housing cannot be used for government housing).

Family farms and open space are protected from seizures by government for the purpose of selling the natural resources.

Background

- Provides full compensation to the property owner, even when property is seized for public projects.

- Removes the current $10,000 cap on reimbursable expenses associated with legal or other expenses.

- Property owners will be compensated for all reasonable costs associated with moving, loss of business, and reestablishment of the business.

- Should a public agency take immediate possession of property, the owner is entitled to prompt release of the money offered while keeping the right to challenge the agency's offer, and its right to take the property.

- Includes a provision that requires a public agency to return the seized property to its original owner if the public project is ever abandoned. Under this provision, property would also be taxed at the pre-condemnation value. This is known as the abandonment clause in the proposition.

- Limits government’s ability to decide the amount a property owner can charge to sell or lease his property.

- Does not limit government’s ability to use eminent domain for public projects like roads, parks and water supply projects, nor does it limit local zoning ordinances and land use decisions, workplace regulations or projects that benefit the health and safety of a community or environment.
 

Reasons for the Corona Chamber's Oppose Position

This proposition is an effort to eliminate rent control as a hidden agenda and not about eminent domain.

Would allow landlords to raise rents on seniors and working families by eliminating rent control.

Would stop future water projects, destroy local-use planning, erode environmental protections and lead to higher taxpayer costs.

According to the Association of California Water Agencies Proposition 98 could derail needed groundwater and surface water storage projects around the state and calls this flaw in the measure "cause for alarm."
 

Proposition 98 could lead to thousands of frivolous lawsuits and paralyze approval of new homes, businesses and other projects.
 

Opponents of Proposition 98 and Proponents of Proposition 99 argue that in the definitions section of the Proposition 98 has a clause that would prohibit laws and regulations that “transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner.”

Courts have ruled that virtually all local land-use decisions can transfer economic benefit from one party to another, which would lead to countless lawsuits.

Proposition 99

Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence
 

Proposition 99 Aims to prohibit the government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to another private party.

Will not change state or local rent control laws or ordinances as Proposition 98 would abolish rent control.

Background

Amends the California Constitution to respond specifically to the facts and the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the Court held that it was permissible for a city to use eminent domain to take the home of a Connecticut woman for purpose of economic development.

Since that U.S. Supreme Court decision, more than 40 states have reformed their eminent domain laws.

Respects the decision of the voters to reject Proposition 90 in November 2006, a measure that included eminent domain reform but also included unrelated provisions that would have subjected taxpayers to enormous financial liability from a wide variety of traditional legislative and administrative actions to protect the public welfare.

Provides a comprehensive and exclusive basis in the California Constitution to compensate property owners when property is taken or damaged by state or local governments, without affecting legislative and administrative actions taken to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

Arguments in Support

True eminent domain reform without the “hidden agenda” of eliminating rent control laws and ordinances.

Proposition 99 will not threaten California’s water quality and supply as does Proposition 98, argued by proponents of this proposition.

Arguments in Opposition

According to the Institute of Justice, a non-profit organization, it says of Proposition 99, “Californians require real, substantive reform for everyone and the Act does not come close to providing it.”

Argues that many provisions have been left out of Proposition 99, but are included in Proposition 98 such as “quick take” protection, abandonment clause and just compensation.

February 10, 2008

Chamber Championed Indian Gaming Propositions Boost Corona Economy

On February 5, 2008, California voters approved the Corona Chamber-supported Propositions 94 through 97. These propositions ratified Indian gaming agreements with four tribes that operate casinos within an hour’s drive of Corona. The four casinos impacted by the agreements ratified by votes are: Agua Caliente, Morongo, Pechanga, and Sycuan.

“It is important to know that the Indian casinos throughout our region play an important role in our economic vitality,” stated Cynthia Schneider, Chair of the Corona Chamber’s Legislative Action Committee. “Propositions 94-97 give our area Indian tribes the ability to create more jobs and also increase much needed tourism, a major source of revenue, throughout our region,” continued Schneider.

The agreements now require each tribe to pay higher percentages of their net gaming revenues (up to 25%) into the state’s General Fund. This agreement will provide the state general fund with more than $200 million the first year (with revenues increasing significantly in future years) and an estimated $9 billion over the next two decades. The agreement also benefits the tribes by allowing them to have additional slot machines at casinos on their existing tribal lands.

“Our state will get more than $9 billion over the next two decades without raising our taxes – providing vitally needed new funding for our schools, public safety and other services,” stated Bobby Spiegel, President/CEO of the Corona Chamber. “The agreements will also protect and create thousands of local jobs at the four tribes' casinos and provide tens of millions of dollars to help non-gaming tribes throughout California.

The Chamber also supported Propositions 91, 92, and 93 all of which failed to pass on February 5. Proposition 91 would have prevented the state legislature from raiding important transportation funding to offset state deficits. Proposition 92 would have indefinitely decreased community college tuition as well as stabilized community college funding each year. Finally, Proposition 93 would have reduced the total amount of time state legislators may serve from 14 years to 12 years giving them the flexibly to serve the total 12 years in either house of the state legislature.
 

January 18, 2008

Corona Chamber Positions on February 2008 Statewide Ballot Propositions

The Corona Chamber announces its positions on Propositions 91 - 97 that will appear on the February 5, 2008 statewide ballot.

Proposition 91: Transportation Funding
Corona Chamber Position: Support

Prohibits the use of funds that are earmarked for transportation to be used for anything else other than transportation related issues after July 2008.

Eliminates General Fund borrowing of specified transportation funds, except for cash-flow purposes (repayment required within 30 days of adoption of budget) which the current law allows borrowing for three years where Governor declares transfer would cause significant negative fiscal impact on governmental functions and Legislature enacts authorizing statute.

Deletes the state’s authority to suspend the transfer of gasoline sales tax revenue to Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) and limits the state’s ability to borrow these funds as well as Article XIX revenues for non-transportation uses.

Deletes the state’s authority to suspend the transfer of gasoline sales tax revenue to TIF and limits the state’s ability to borrow these funds as well as Article XIX revenues for non-transportation uses.

The measure would make state funding from these sources for highways and streets and roads, which serve as the main uses of these monies, more stable and predictable from year to year.

Proposition 92: Community Colleges
Corona Chamber Position: Support

Changes current minimum education funding requirement into two separate requirements: one for K–12 schools and one for the California Community Colleges (CCC).

Lowers community college education fees from $20 per unit to $15 per unit.

Significantly limits the state’s authority to increase fee levels in future years.

Formally establishes the community colleges in the State Constitution.

Increases the size of the community colleges’ state Board of Governors (BOG) and the its authority.

Proposition 93: Limits on Legislator's Terms in Office

Corona Chamber Position: Support

Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years.

Allows an individual to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.

Provides a transition period to allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of any prior service in another house.

Propositions 94, 95, 96, 97: Indian Gaming Compacts
Corona Chamber Position on Each Proposition: Support

Governor Schwarzenegger negotiated new Indian gaming agreements (The Compacts) with four tribes; Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation have casino facilities on remote reservation lands in Riverside and San Diego counties. The four propositions represent each of the negotiated new Indian gaming compacts.

Expands gaming machines at the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Casinos.

Tribes will pay higher percentages of their net gaming revenues (up to 25%) into the state General Fund.

The agreement will provide the state with more than $200 million the first year (with revenues increasing significantly in future years) and an estimated $9 billion over the next two decades.