Team Irvine (Duong, Shea and Mavity, plus support from State Ass. Chuck DeVore and US Rep. John Campbell have a mailer out (from the Offical Non-Partisan Voter Guide, which is another great example of false advertising) that significantly distorts the Prop 90 initiative as a property rights initiative. The mailer falsely claims that voters will lose their homes if Team Irvine isn’t elected. The mailer states “you can protect your home or small business by voting for these pro-property rights candidates” and then Duong, Mavity, Shea, DeVore and Campaign are added to the list.
Hmmm, call me silly, but leading small business organizations have come out against Prop 90. This includes:
- California Small Business Assocaition
- Small Business Action Committee
- California Business Properties Association
- California Manufacturers and Technology Association
- the Irvine Chamber of Commerce
- the Orange County Business Council
and a host of political organizations (Democrats and Republicans), voter organizations, civil justice/civil rights organizations, educators, law enforcment orgaizations, and other business/economic leaders have all come out against Prop 90. The list if huge.
Simply stated the passage of Prop 90 could lead to a rash of lawsuits against measures to protect consumers and environment, or even to create rights-of-ways for utilities or to prevent development that would otherwise overwhelm roads and water systems. A similar measure passed by Oregon voters in 2004 has generated 2,200 claims for about $5.4 billion. Imagine the impact in California?
Proposition 90 would likely increase the cost of government by billions per year, so while Team Irvine is making a big deal out of not supporting any tax increases (of which none are on the table), their support of Prop 90 is support for higher taxes.
Prop 90’s dirty little secret is a provision would force local governments (Like Irvine) to compensate private property owners for any actions that diminish the value of their property (has Frank Jao bought some land here recently?) . California law already allows property owners a fair rate of return on their investment; it does not require an unlimited rate of return which is what Measure 90 do; and who foots the bill?. You, the taxpayer.
Here is a summary of Newspapers who have come out against Prop 90 (with all due respect to Jon Fleischman’s screed on FlashReport.org recently on why editorials don’t matter, in this case you have liberal papers like the SF Chron and conservative papers like the Sac Bee and San Diego Union Tribune all chiming in with the same message — Prop 90 is bad.
San Francisco Chronicle, (10/16/06)
Ventura County Star, (10/15/06)
Santa Barbara Independent, (10/12/06)
Los Angeles Times, (10/12/06)
Monterey County Weekly, (10/12/06)
Contra Costa Times, (10/11/06)
Los Angeles Daily News, (10/10/06)
Sonoma Index-Tribune, (10/10/06)
Fresno Bee, (10/9/06)
Santa Maria Times, (10/8/06)
Modesto Bee, (10/6/06)
Palm Springs Desert Sun, (10/6/06)
Milpitas Post, (10/5/06)
San Francisco Examiner, (10/5/06)
Woodland Daily Democrat, (10/4/06)
San Francisco Bay Guardian, (10/4/06)
Paradise Post, (10/3/06)
San Jose Mercury News, (10/2/06)
Pasadena Star News, (9/27/06)
Whittier Daily News, (9/27/06)
San Gabriel Valley Tribune, (9/27/06)
Riverside Press-Enterprise, (9/25/06)
Gilroy Dispatch, (9/22/06)
Sacramento Bee, (9/16/06)
Napa Valley Register, (9/14/06)
Mountain View Voice, (9/08/06)
Santa Rosa Press Democrat, (9/11/06)
Torrance Daily Breeze, (8/23/06)
San Diego Union-Tribune, (8/22/06)
Don’t expect to see the Register’s Steve Greenhut here; he’s written reports in Favor of Prop 90 and for me, frankly, his endorsement of the measure is all the reason I need to vote against it. (Please Steve, take the buyout..the private sector calls……)
But I have to hand it to Team Irvine; they have to find some divisive issue to gain power. Irvine is one of the safest cities in America. Its schools are exceptional. Property values are holding steady. There are about 3.5 jobs in town for every household out there. The Great Park development is going well. So what are they running on? They can’t run on crime rates going up. They can’t run on schools being bad. They can’t run on property values dropping. They can’t run on ethics, having voted against the ethics ordinance and having paid lobbyists on the ticket means that if Shea were to win, she would have to quit her business or quit the council. They can’t run on supporting the Great Park. There’s a big budget surplus (so NO NEW TAXES) and the Krom-led ticket has contributed significantly more money to IUSD schools than under the last Republican Mayor. Is the Sister City issue something that will get them elected?
All they can run on is FEAR. Your house will be bulldozed to make way for a Juice It Up, you can’t park in town, and traffic will be awful. They are counting on voters not digging too deep. They tell you to read a Grand Jury report on Great Park and their interpretation of the document is completely wrong. Same with Prop 90.
They support Prop 90 without telling you of the high cost to taxpayers for doing so. Because its the only issue where there is clear differentiation with the Great Park Team.
P.S. and for those of you who live in Irvine, how nice of the Police Association to issue signs that say Vote for Krom, Kang and Shea. So Christina gets to ride Beth’s coattails a bit. How nice.