AgdaPkt 2006-11-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A PROP. 90 from page 7 ........................................... to. . page 8 This now brings the total number of editorials 90 would reduce government's ability to regulate against the measure to 13, which includes: land use, protect consumers and workers, and safeguard the environment. . Woodland Daily Democrat (10/5/06) San Francisco Examiner (10/5/06) 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) 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) . . . . . . . Study Finds Prop. 90 Would Cost Taxpayers 'Billions' Annually A new independent study released by a team of economists at LECG Consulting, led by former legislative analyst Dr. William Hamm, has con- cluded that "the costs imposed on the taxpayers by Proposition 90 would amount to billions of dollars annually.' The report, "The Fiscal Impact of Proposition 90' was released on September 27. Among the key findings of the report are: Proposition 90 would increase the annual cost of state and local government in California by billions of dollars. · By increasing the cost of public works. like schools, roads, water systems, flood protection and utility services, Prop. 90 would curtail infra- structure development. For example, Caltrans is projecting that Proposition 90 will lead to more than $180 million in project schedule delay costs over the next seven years, and another $43 million per year in added litigation-related expenses - without even considering the higher property acquisition costs that the measure will require the agency to pay for highway improvements. · By increasing the cost of regulation, Prop The new report also includes an in-depth analysis of the measure and its provisions, and the likely impact on state and local government actions in California. According to LECG, two features of Proposi- tion 90 are mainly responsible for the measure's multi-billion-dollar price tag: · The measure would require government (and the taxpayers) to pay businesses and indi- viduals whenever it passes laws or adopts regula- tions intended to protect the public's interest (other than health- and safety-related) that substantially affect property values. · Proposition 90 also would significantly increase the amount that government and state- regulated, investor-owned utilities are required to pay owners when their property is acquired through eminent domain for public uses such as roads, schools, hospitals, airports, utility transmis- sion lines, and power plants. Under current law, government must compen- sate owners by paying them the fair market value of their property, taking into consideration existing limitations on how the property can be used (e.g., zoning restrictions). In some cases, Proposition 90 would require government to pay owners more than the fair market value of their property by directing courts to ignore these use limitations. F or a copy of the full report, visit www noprop90.com. 'No on Prop. 90' Coalition Continues to Grow. More and more organizations and individu- als are joining the "No on Prop. 90" coalition, as they become more familiar with the cynical "tax- payer trap" provisions in this measure. Here is a list of those individuals and organizations that have joined this week. For a complete list, visit www.noprop.90.com. Continued on Page 9 PAGE 8 - PRIORITY FOCUS October 6, 2006 . Issue #39 Visit the League's Official Website..www.cacities.org