California Proposition 90 (2006)
From Ballotpedia
| California Constitution |
|---|
|
| Articles |
| I • II • III • IV • V • VI VII • VIII • IX • X XA • XB • XI • XII XIII • XIII A • XIII B XIII C • XIII D • XIV XV • XVI • XVIII XIX • XIX A • XIX B XX • XXI • XXII XXXIV • XXXV |
Contents |
California Proposition 90 was on the November 7, 2006 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. It failed, with 3,932,043 votes (47.6%) for the measure versus 4,324,722 votes (52.4%) against it.[1]
Prop. 90 was supported by the Protect Our Homes Coalition, which spent $4 million on the measure, including approximately $1 million on a paid petition drive to qualify the proposition for the ballot. Americans for Limited Government gave $1 million to support Prop. 87, and the Fund for Democracy gave $1.5 million.[2]
Prop. 90 was opposed by "No on 90-Californians Against the Taxpayer Trap" and "No on 90-Conservationists for Taxpayer Protection". Together, those groups spend over $14 million to defeat the measure. The League of California Cities, an organization which is funded by taxpayer dollars through dues paid by cities to maintain memberships in the group, donated $4,085,000 to the "No on 90" campaign.[3]
Objectives of Prop 90
According to the official voter guide released by the California Attorney General's office, Proposition 90 would have:
- Barred state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects or uses.
- Limited government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve public health or safety.
- Voided unpublished eminent domain court decisions.
- Defined “just compensation.”
- Required that government must occupy condemned property or lease property for public use.
- Required that condemned private property must be offered for resale to prior owner or owner’s heir at current fair market value if government abandons condemnation’s objective.
- Exempted certain governmental actions.[4]
Opposition to Prop 90
Robert Redford was a prominent opponent, arguing in letter dated October 24, 2006 that "Prop 90 is the single most dangerous threat that has ever been leveled at our state's environment".[5]
Support for Prop 90
Campaign finance
Donors for the campaign for the measure:[6]
- CALIFORNIANS FOR FAIR ELECTIONS: YES ON 89 296 $5,441,842
- CLEAN MONEY NOW - YES ON 89: $357,655
- Total: $5,799,497
Donors for the campaign against the measure:
- TAXPAYERS FOR FAIR ELECTIONS: $5,663,511
- CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ELECTIONS: $30,000
- Total: $5,693,511
- Overall Total: $11,493,008
Notes
- ↑ http://vote.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm
- ↑ http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/ballot_committee.phtml?si=20065&c=432586
- ↑ http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/ballot_committee.phtml?si=20065&c=435057
- ↑ http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/props/prop90/prop90.html
- ↑ http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/65/23361
- ↑ Follow The Money, "Donors"
External links
- Official Voter Guide
- Proposition 90 isn't a trap, from the Reason Foundation.
