AgdaPkt 2006-11-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A PROP. 90 from page 1 . · · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · · · · · · · · · · · . · · · . · . . . . . . . · . · · · Page 35 Gov. Schwarzenegger Announces His Opposition to Proposition 90 Earlier this week, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his opposition to Prop. 90. In a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle, which was posted in the Politics Blog of the newspaper's website on October 31, the Governor cited the increased costs to taxpayers, the potential for frivolous lawsuits and the undermining of laws that protect the environment, homes, and infrastructure as the core reasons for his opposition. Below are some passages from the Governor's letter: "The proponents of Prop. 90 added provisions that I believe wl71 undermine basic government laws that protect our home values, safeguard our environment and allow for the building of safe roads. SChOOls and othftr essential ififttlstftJCfiJfe. According to a variety of independent fiscal analy- ses, some provisiOns in PropositiOn 90 threaten to increase costs for taxpayers by billions of dollars each year. " 'The measure is so broad and poorly drafted that I fear it will result in a barrage of frivolous lawsuits from indivkJuaJs and property owners who claim the most rudimentary new laws have caused them economic harm. " The fun text of the Governor's letter can be found at www.sfQate.com. in the Politics Blog, under the heading "Carla Marinucci: Schwarzenegger comes out against Proposition 90." Editorials Against Prop. 90 Keep Coming As the Prop. 90 November 7 judgment day approaches, another six news outlets have editori- alized against Prop. 90, bringing the total to 68. The OakJand Tribune's editorial on October 29 urged a "no" vote on Prop. 90, calling it "more hindrance than hetp." "But what on the surface looks like a com- mon-sense remedy in reality opens up a can of legal worms that only lawyers and a few develop- ers will benefit from - at the exoense of taxoBV- &[8 and local control. ... Proposition 90 also allows property owners to sue the government- that's you and me - for actions that result in 'substantial' economic loss as a result of new regulations. What defines 'substantial' isn't olear, and It's likely to be one of the first issues hashed out in coun... Vote no on Proposition 90. " -OaIrIand Tribune, Tri-Valley Hera/d, Freemont Argus, Alameda Times Star, Hayward Daily Review, San Mateo County Times, Editorials (OctobeI' 29, 2006) A complete list of al/ editorials written against the measure is located at www.noDrop90.com. The following is a listing of the six new editorials written against Prop. 90 since Friday, October 27: · Oak/and Tribune, (10/29/06) Tn- Vaney Herald, (10129106) · Freemont Argus, . (10/29/06) · San Mateo County Times, (10129/06) · Hayward Daily Review, (10129106) · Alameda Times Star, (10129/06) In addition, an October 18 story by the Los Angeles Times looked into the impact Prop. 90 would have on infrastructure improvements in California, specifically, Propositions 1 B-1 E on the November batlot The article. entitled "Initiative Could Undermine State Bond ........,. induded the following passages: · "Even plans to shore up the state's aging levees could be affected. The California chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers passed a resolution warning that the measure would 'delay and could even prevent the construc- tion of many planned infrastructure projects,' including flood control efforts. " Continued on Page 4 Visit the League's Official Webslte..www.cacltles.org PRIORITY FOCUS . PAGE 3 November 3, 2006 . Issue #43