How I’m voting for the environment on Nov. 7, 2006.

My vote on Prop 90: NO!

The problem with Prop 90: This prop makes it really tough for our government to pass land-use regulations — including regulations that’re pro-environment.

Greenberg Quinlan RosnerThe San Francisco Chronicle gives us an example:”If you could fit 20 houses on your land, plus a junkyard and a gravel mine, and government regulations limit you to six houses, then the government would have to pay you whatever profit you would have made on the unbuilt houses, junkyard and mine. Of course, the government can’t afford to pay you, so it would have to drop its regulations, allowing the maximum development, no matter what your neighbors think.”

If you have any doubts about who prop 90 — also called an “eminent domain measure” — would benefit, check out who’s behind it. Capitol Weekly points out that the proposition wouldn’t even be on the ballot if not for a dude called Howard Rich.

This NY multimillionaire developer has put $1.5 million toward Prop 90, California’s eminent-domain measure, by funneling the money through the Fund for Democracy, a nonprofit intermediary.

And Howard isn’t stopping at California. According to the San Francisco Chronicle. “Rich’s Fund for Democracy and Americans for Limited Government have given more than $2.75 million to the eminent domain initiatives in California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Idaho and Montana.”

Now — Check out who’s against Prop 90. The California League of Conservation Voters hates it. So does the Sierra Club.

In fact, a huge coalition’s against Prop 90, from enviro groups to rather conservative biz groups like the California Chamber of Commerce. Here’s the No on Prop. 90 site.

Update, 10/28/06: Oregon voters, BTW, regret passing a measure similar to California’s Proposition 90 according to both a recent Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll AND a report by Sightline Institute.

Comments