Over a million California citizens have signed a petition to once and for all eliminate the ability of the City Governments including that of National City to take property from ordinary people and give it to rich developers. This petition has become the Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, Proposition 98, which will remove the threat of eminent domain abuse. Learn more about Prop 98, The Best Yes! at YesProp98.com
The politicians and their agent the League of California Cities have created a counter measure, the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act, Proposition 99. The real purpose of Proposition 99, as described in the table below, is to stop Proposition 98. Proposition 99 only protects some homeowners and does not protect renters, workers, or other property owners.
| Summary of the Differences | |
| Proposition 98 | Proposition 99 |
|---|---|
| Private property may not be taken by eminent domain for private use under any circumstances. Proposition 98 protects: single family homes including owner-occupied homes, apartments, businesses, farms, churches, rentals, commercial property, residential property. | Private property can be taken in any circumstance other than that of being a single family residence that has been owners' principal place of residence for at least one year prior to the State or local government's initial written offer to purchase the property. |
| Property may be taken by eminent domain only for true public use (e.g.. freeway construction, parks, or schools). | No change in the present meanings to the terms: "taken," "damaged," "public use," and "just compensation. |
| Property may not be taken by government and used for the same purposes (e.g. residential housing cannot be used for government housing). | No protection from present excesses. |
| Family farms and open space are protected from seizures by government for the purpose of selling the natural resources. | No protection from present excesses |
| If a public agency takes property under false pretenses, or abandons its plans, the property must be offered for sale to the original owner at the original price and the property tax would be assessed at the value of the property when it was originally condemned. | No protection from present excesses |
| If farmers or business owners are evicted by eminent domain, they would be entitled to compensation for temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business reestablishment costs and other reasonable expenses. | No protection from present excesses |
| Government may not set the price at which property owners sell or lease their property. However, tenants who live in rent-regulated communities will continue to receive the benefit of those regulations as long as they live in their residences. | No mention. Please, ask the supporters of Prop. 99, if they plan to initiate or vote for a rent control ordinance in your area. |
| Does not prohibit or impair voluntary agreements between a property owner and a public agency to develop or rehabilitate affordable housing. | No mention. |
| Since Proposition 98 protects all single family residences, it includes the only worthwhile item in Proposition 99. | Proposition 99 contains nothing extra to benefit property owners and workers. If Proposition 99 receives a greater number of yes votes, each and every provision of Proposition 98 shall be null and void. |
On Tuesday April 1, 2008, The Council unanimously voted against Proposition 98, which is a shield to protect us from expropriation of our property by government and for Proposition 99, which is a wrecking ball, whose real purpose is to stop proposition 98. The only protection 99 affords is to home owners who have lived in a home for more than 1 year. It provides no protection for the majority of the citizens of National City. Proposition 98 protects all of us: renters, workers, and property owners. It will let us sleep without worrying what the CDC is up to and how we can protect ourselves. Proposition 98 will greatly aid intelligent, cost effective redevelopment because it will permit the property owners to spend their time maximizing the value of their properties. It will provide a basis for trust that will increase the cooperation between the government of National City and the property owners.
The Council also voted to deprive the Community Youth Athletic Center CYAC of its financial support. The CYAC had resisted being forced to move from its present location in order to permit construction of a condominium building. The CYAC also had the guts to file a law suit against the City for its fraudulent claim that the CYAC's building and two-thirds of National City are blighted.
In the coming elections, the incumbent Council members should be asked for their reason for putting the renters, workers, business owners, and property owners at risk of losing their livelihoods and/or properties.
Mayor Morrison's major argument was that Proposition 98 outlawed rent control, which is an oversimplification. Is he now going to add to National City's ills by introducing rent control? The Mayor also keeps mentioning absentee landlords. This suggests that investors, who are not residents should avoid real estate investments in National City!
If your property is in the dark area and is not a residence, the City will be able to use eminent domain to take it. The eminent domain area can be extended by the City Government at anytime to include the entire project area or any of its parts. They also have the power to include residential property at any time. The City can use eminent domain to take the building or by its threat force the owner to sell.
Please download and read the RSG report. It was written and paid for by the City to provide the necessary evidence of blight.
The source for the causes of blight employed by RSG are in the CALIFORNIA CODES HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33030-33039
The relevance of the text in
red to blight is questionable.
Comments on the individual paragraphs are shown in
italics.
Section 33030 of the Health and Safety Code states:
(b) A blighted area is one that contains both of
the following:
(1) An area that is predominantly urbanized, as that term is defined
in Section 33320.1, and is an area in which the combination of
conditions set forth in Section 33031 is so prevalent and so
substantial that it causes a reduction of, or lack of, proper
utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a
serious physical and economic burden on the community that cannot
reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment.
These conditions are not prevalent and substantial in National City. The RSG study is essentially worthless because there was no data from control areas, such as the “Old” part of La Jolla or even Mission Beach. These are areas, which no rational being would call blighted. The terms used by RSG to prove that an area is blighted include: dilapidation or deterioration, inadequate lots sizes, parking and setback requirements, subdivided lots that are under multiple ownership and whose physical development has been impaired by their irregular shapes or inadequate sizes
The real purpose of this declaration of blight is to collect more revenue!
The Real Blight that RSG omitted from their report
San Diego County is suing the City of San Diego, the City Council, and the City's Redevelopment Commission over the Granville redevelopment plan
Greg Cox, District 1 (National City) email: greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov
Dianne Jacob, District 2 email: dianne.jacob@sdcounty.ca.gov dianne.jacob@sdcounty.ca.gov
Pam Slater-Price, District 3 Chairwoman email: pam.slater@sdcounty.ca.gov pam.slater@sdcounty.ca.gov
Ron Roberts, District 4 email: ron-roberts@sdcounty.ca.gov ron-roberts@sdcounty.ca.gov
Bill Horn District 5 Vice-Chairman email: bill.horn@sdcounty.ca.gov bill.horn@sdcounty.ca.gov
If you believe that there is a real danger of
loosing your business, property or job, protest before they are
lost.
|
Send your letter to: |
Seek legal representation. We use |
|
Michael Dalla |
Karen Frostrom and Vincent Bartolotta |
|
City Clerk City of National City |
Thorsnes, Bartolotta, Mcguire |
|
Telephone: (619) 336-4226 |
(Telephone: 619) 236-9363 |
|
Fax: (619) 336-4229 |
|
The CDC has already used eminent domain to take a valuable property from us by condemnation and sold it to our neighbor! Even after the expense of suing, we had to settle out of court for about 85% of the fair market value, as the legal fees were mounting faster than the potential gains. Presently, they are attempting to take another. Fighting this has been and is expensive and painful. Cities have been corrupted by this access to easy money and the political power that goes with being the real owner of all of the property within their jurisdiction. Massive areas have been declared blighted when the only real blight was that placed on the title to these properties
The tax structure for the transfer of property from one private owner to another private owner in California handsomely rewards the cities. The city's share of the property tax is increased from 13% to 83%. Since the cities receive sales tax and do not receive any of the state income tax, their funding is increased when well paying manufacturing jobs, which often include benefits, are replaced by poorly paying retail jobs.
Webmaster: Robert C. Leif email: rleif@rleif.com.