Stay Off My Lawn!

Would the composition of the United States Senate change at all if we instituted a rule whereby members were required to own more than $1 million in assets?

If you can look past the hit-piece nature of the article, the LA Times does point out an important cause the current Governor is fighting for: fair treatment of insurance companies.

In an age in which the insurance industry is viewed on par with lawyers as being the least respected professions, this Governor has chosen not to use them as a cash cow to balance the budget.

Here's the kind of vague arguments that are being made against 90:

Under Prop. 90, virtually anyone can sue anytime a government agency passes a new law, ordinance or regulation that a property owner claims devalues his or her property. Because the courts have held in certain circumstances that homeowners' and community associations are "quasi-governmental" entities - they provide services and functions similar to that of a local municipality - they are potentially subject to similar lawsuits under Prop. 90. Things like landscaping ordinances and design guidelines could potentially make Associations liable for payouts to property owners. It's simply unfair that one disgruntled or speculative property owner could lower the property values for an entire neighborhood.

The problem with this argument is that it is incorrect. It's true that Prop. 90 would allow property owners to bring an action against government entities for new regulations including certain types of zoning. What this leaves out is that property owners will be required to show that they have suffered a "substantial economic loss" due to the regulation. It is hard for me to fathom the kind of landscaping ordinance that reduces the value of property. Indeed, the implication that an individual could stop rules that increase property values is absolutely ludicrous.

My deepest apologies to my loyal readers for my absence. To make up for my tardiness, I post the following resource. These are bills currently on the Governor's desk regarding eminent domain:

SB 53 - Information requirements for eminent domain programs.

SB 1210 - Procedural issues regarding eminent domain.

SB 1650 - Limiting use of property after a necessity determination.

There are some other bills as well, but these give a good indication of the very limited nature of the legislation before the Governor. This is precisely why Prop. 90 is needed.

Apparently, drinking leads to wealth.

Here's some quick links regarding California's anti-Kelo Proposition 90:

Pro-Property Rights
OC Blog
Flash Report -- Assemblyman Haynes is very disappointing.

Not So Pro-Property Rights
GOAT
California Progress Report
Land Use Watch
SoHum Parlance -- Worth a read for this statement: "What most property owners don't realize is that they don't really own their property. They own a tenancy in it. The commonwealth owns all of the land within its jurisdiction."

In short, the anti-Prop. 90 folks appear to be concentrating less on the substance of the issue and more on the sorce of the campaign's funding. Any other interesting blogs or articles would be appreciated.

As usual, Peggy was dead-on in yesterday's column. She expertly identified why this President seems so incapable of penetrating to reach Americans when speaking. She says:

One reason is that you don't have to listen to get a sense of what's going on. He does not appear to rethink things based on new data. You don't have to tune in to see how he's shifting emphasis to address a trend, or tacking to accommodate new winds. For him there is no new data, only determination.

He repeats old arguments because he believes they are right, because he has no choice--in for a penny, in for a pound--and because his people believe in the dogma of the magic of repetition: Say it, say it, to break through the clutter.

And while I would agree that this is the reason Bush doesn't reach the average american anymore, Peggy doesn't stop there. No, no, she points out why Republicans don't listen anymore:

Pundits and historians call Mr. Bush polarizing--and he is, but in some unusual ways. For one thing, he's not trying to polarize. He is not saying, "My team is for less government, your team is for more--my team, stand with me!"

Mr. Bush has muddied what his team stands for. He has made it all come down to him--not to philosophy but to him and his certitudes.

What is polarizing about him is the response he elicits from Americans just by being himself. They have deep questions about him, even as he is vivid to them.

That's it. Quite simply, I have no idea if I want to be on his team. Thus, I tune him out.

Since the astronauts appear to be dumping things overboard. Might I suggest George Allen?

I think the turning point on this one is going to be how public the information was. The Gov's people claim that the hacker accessed a password protected portion of the server. There's no question that goes beyond the line. The Angelides people say that they accessed a link which they used to access other information. This is just guesswork but it sounds like they may have used the URL in the link to access tapes not available through the link itself. To me, that's "hacking."

Either way, it looks bad for Phil that they didn't acknowledge the fact that they released the tape.

Recently, a new tension seems to be growing over whether we have been successful in our war against terror. In this respect, I am speaking not of the tension between pro- and anti-war partisans, but rather within the proactive group (whether this is a pro-Iraq group is debatable) itself.

What seems like a minority of voices have begun speaking out claiming that our war is being won because we have prevented attacks within the United States. This group appears to have grown substantially and vocally within the past month or so following the foiled British plan to attack cross-Atlantic flights. It is typified by the following today in the NY Post:

Islamist fanatics have not been able to stage a single additional attack on our homeland. For all its growing pains, our homeland-security effort worked. In this long war with religion-poisoned madmen, the most important proof of success is what doesn't happen - and we haven't been struck again. Wail as loudly as they can, the president's critics can't change that self-evident truth.

On the other side of this "debate" are statements such as Rudy Giuliani's article today in USA Today. Stoking the latent fear that remains from September 11, the Giuliani group claims that "[w]e are safer, but not safe enough" but points out that "[t]he attacks have continued unceasingly since 9/11 and include those on Bali, Indonesia; Madrid; Beslan, Russia; London." Rarely, and only mutedly, does this group discuss any successes in the war.

More and more, I have come to view this war on terror not as Mr. (too soon to say "President"?) Giuliani appears to see it--as a battle we appear to be losing and certainly not winning--but as those more inclined to a positive view. We are winning. We have not won this war but we are certainly winning. We have prevented attacks in the United States. We have the terrorists on the run. And it seems that so long as we continue to prosecute the war as we have, we should continue to see successes.

I'm not sure how long this feeling of mine will last but, for now at least, it's nice to feel good about something going on.