And they’re not exactly prone to hyperbole. So really? Who are you going to believe? To my fellow blogger Larry Gilbert: I know you mean well, but Prop 98 is the wrong measure at the wrong time.

Want to know more? Visit their blog. Please vote No on 98/Yes on 99 and help those who need it most, not wealthy real estate owners and developers.

And remember: this vote will mean we will need to demand better eminent domain protection from our leaders, so bear that in mind when making your other election selections or when the eminent domain angel puts a better initiative on a future ballot!


Tagged with:

22 Responses to Prop 99 Is Deceptive? AARP Doesn’t Think So…

  1. AARP is not a grass roots advocacy organization any longer, it is a marketing organization for insurance and other products it can make money on. An endorsement is probably something that for a fee is often handed out.

  2. avatar Andy Favor says:

    Well, if that does not clinch my vote, I don’t know what would have. AARP is a Bolshevik organization in my humble opinion.

    I really cannot believe any American would belong to such an organization as AARP. I really cannot believe that any American would vote in support of their agenda.

  3. Oh I see…

    OK you two, so take AARP out of it. You would deny that Prop 99 is better for seniors than 98? Your statements about the politics of the organization in question versus the merits of the debate on the initiative are very telling.


  4. avatar Vern Nelson says:

    AARP was great when they went against Bush’s social security privatization schemes 4 years ago, and became a bete noir of the right (like Andy Favor.)

    Last year they really irritated us single-payer advocates here in California by supporting Schwarzencare instead of SB840; this is when we noticed how tied in they and SEIU are with health insurance companies; I think “been there done that” is one of my healthcare allies.

    So they’re a mixed bag, doesn’t mean what they might say about 98/99 is right or not. Of course 98 sucks, the question is 99 even worth voting yes on? It doesn’t seem to accomplish much in the way of eminent domain reform, it seems to only be there to defeat 98. As such I guess I’ll “hold my nose and vote for it”, why must all sides be so sneaky and deceptive?

    Hey, next year can we have real eminent domain reform, without all kinds of goodies for the very wealthy property owners added in?

  5. avatar Andy Favor says:

    Mr. Nelson,

    I guess we will have to agree to disagree. On privatizing SS though, I guess I won’t have your vote in November. Offering California residents a private account option over the SS system is my number one campaign issue.

    Andy Favor
    73rd Assembly District Candidate

  6. avatar Thes Captain says:

    Why do you automatically assume all property owners are very wealthy? Many people might own one property to provide retirement income and are only a few months of no tenants away from foreclosure. Imagine what rent control would do to them.

    The Register did a three part series a few weeks ago on eviction – from a tenants perspect, from an owner’s perspective, and from the perspective of the a Sheriff’s deputy who processes evictions.

    The owner in that series was hardly very wealthy.

    Fortunately rent control isn’t that wide spread, but its effects can be devestating to all by the veery wealthy property owners because the very wealthy landlords are best suited to spread the loss among many different investments.

  7. Andy-

    While you and I disagree on 98/99, we agree on Social Security. As long as private accounts remain an option only, I think they’re a good idea. I’m all about choice… choice being the true meaning of freedom.


  8. avatar Andy Favor says:

    Sarah, If you ever get a chance to hear Jose Pinera speak, go hear him. He privatized SS in Chile and he is a fantastic spokesperson. In Chile it is a voluntary system.

    Jose worked out the transition issues once he had his mandate and the system was operation in less than six month. In fact he did it in less than six months. He noticed the the implementation date was going to be May 7th or whateve six months after the date Reagan got elected was. He changed the date to May 1st, the world day of the laborer, because he knew it was the biggest step forward for the average laborer in recent history.

    Years ago Chris Cox has Jose speak at Chapman. Chris invited a large group from Leisue World and they gave Jose a standing ovation at the end of the presentation.

  9. Oh, and Captain.

    Sorry I missed your comment. Since we already have rent control why would I need to ‘imagine what rent control would do…?’ Now, when the economy is down and those at the bottom of the economic ladder are the most vulnerable is not the time to tinker with it.

    It’s not like multi-unit real estate doesn’t sell in places with rent control and buyers know the score when they decide to purchase. That said, the rents are generally based on the market and the monthly mortgage payment. It’s not like property owners are being forced into rent control after purchase, so those whom you claim are not wealthy will certainly become so.

    Those who use the argument that there is low income housing available in areas both with and without rent control would be content to just shuffle all of our poor into a dark corner of the county or out of it entirely. Who needs gerrymandering when you have Prop 98?


    PS: I also know from experience what happens when you lift rent control. Condos. Lots and LOTS of condos.

  10. Andy-

    Funny you should bring up Leisure World when you’re anti-AARP and Prop 99. :P If Mr. Pinera comes back to the area please let me know. I’m strangely attracted to this topic, but alas I was always attracted to the third rail!


  11. avatar anonyms says:

    Art, this is why I love your blog! The AARP, God bless them, have taken questionable positions in recent years but my guess is that they were bullied into them and not that they have gone over to the other side. This could explain the diametrically opposed assessments early in the comments claiming that the AARP is both a pawn of the insurance companies and/or the Chamber of Commerce while also being a communist (“AARP is a Bolshevik organization in my humble opinion”)group right out of the 1950′s McCarthyism insanity. My support has gone to CARA the California Association mentored by Nan Brasmer former CSEA President and I encourage any disafected AARP members to look into them. They are a young organization but they draw upon wealth of knowledge and experience. Kind of a by Retirees for Retirees thing. As for the Social Security choice crowd, havent you heard a thing we’ve been saying about healthcare reform? Let me break it down for you (ooo that came out badly) we are going to take care of all the people within our borders all we can do is incentivise choices among the populace. We do this by making Public assistance restrictive and a pain in the ass, by making private schools cost more than public schools, by the whole capitalist scheme of supply and demand. What we as taxpayers have to look at is are we getting enough bang for our bucks? We need to look at Government spending through the eyes of the consumer and of the businessman. This way we see that the biggest bang in healthcare and in social security is through large numbers to spread the risk and purchase at the lowest cost. This means that every person you release from contributing both weakens the system from a contribution standpoint and from a risk standpoint because we will take care of everyone within our borders. Its in our oown best interest economically and socially to nationalize Healthcare and strengthen Social Security. Right now we are failing in healthcare and near to failing in Social Security and this is inflicting an intolerable level of misery and suffering. Of course we need reform but we need to do it straightforward not like Prop 98 rent control reform masquerading as eminent domain reform. We never seem to get down to straight talk because somebody has to insist on specious, fearmongering arguments that stifle any real dialog. And no this didnt push any buttons.

  12. OK, so everyone really wants to go into the AARP debate. Some think they’re insurance company pawns? OK, I’ll sum it up for you in one sentence (for those who criticize verbosity):

    Don’t senior citizens need insurance that’s hard to find elsewhere at their age?


  13. avatar Vern Nelson says:

    Had to jump in my car to run a choir rehearsal in Fullerton just after writing comment 4, and was remembering something important I left out, I’m back now and look at all I missed! Anyway I need to add that one of the worst things AARP did in recent years was back Medicare Part D, a total boondoggle for the pharmaceutical companies that screwed over seniors and taxpayers horribly. And I was going to mention that more progressive and politically aware seniors have left AARP to join CARA, but my friend “anonyms” has already mentioned that!

    BTW, anonyms, your comments are always great, but PLEASE USE PARAGRAPHS here and there! Not doing so makes it hard to read.

    Thes Captain (same as “The Captain” with a typo?) I did not say all property owners are very wealthy. Sarah and Andy, I will argue SS privatization with you … if that horrible idea ever comes up again in the real world! Ta for now!

  14. avatar anonyms says:

    Sarah, can you put spell check on the blog? I realize that my ranting isnt up to my normal standard of writing Vern, I’ll work on that.

  15. #14 -

    Spell check is in your browser, not on the site.


  16. avatar Art Pedroza says:


    Try using Mozilla Firefox as a browser instead of Internet Explorer. Firefox is far superior to Explorer. One of its features is that it automatically underlines, in red, any typos. Then you can fix them by right clicking or by overwriting and/or deleting and retyping.

  17. avatar Larry Gilbert says:

    Boy you go out of town for two days and your colleagues post ads from my opposition but not ours. Sorry folks but that is not fair and balanced nor anything close to investigative reporting. I am disappointed. Anyone can “cut and paste” a video to a blog.

    Do you notice that the Prop 99 ads attack Prop 98 yet have nothing to say about their Initiative?

    Well at least that’s accurate. There’s nothing to say. Even the Legislative Analyst agrees with us as they assess Prop 99. Don’t believe what I say. Instead read page 15 in your California Statewide Primary election ballot booklet that neither side wrote. It reads:

    “Under current law and practice, government seldom uses eminent domain to take single-family homes. Even when it does, the acquisition often is for a purpose that is permitted under the measure (such as construction of a road or school). Accordingly, this measure would not change significantly current goverment land acquisition practices.”

    Vern and Sarah. I have been making that statement for months. We do not object to valid public uses as defined above.
    Placing Prop 99 on the ballot made it easier for the opposition to fund their efforts to block our honest property rights protection. Having the Prop 99 Trojan Horse in our midst makes it a lot easier for them to build the multi million dollar warchest now being spent to confuse voters.

    Having Prop 99 on the Ballot also enables them to have a tool to block our measure if both pass and they end up with one more vote than our side.

    As I am fighting a flu/cold and just parked the car, I will read each of the above entries and respond tomorrow.

  18. Sorry Larry-

    I was wondering why I hadn’t seen anything from you on the topic… now I know. Sorry about that.

    The only comment I take exception to is the one about investigative reporting. Every piece we write on a subject does not have to be a factual report; personally, I’ve always considered myself more of a commentator even though I have experience with both writing styles.

    I’ve already written many pieces explaining my detailed position. This post was only intended to put the icing on the cake.

    Sorry you don’t feel well. I hope you get better soon. I’m sending some karmic chicken soup!


  19. avatar Vern Nelson says:

    Yo Juice-Bro LG! You know, You’re right about 99 I think, it’s damn near substanceless. All it really is is a chance to vote no a second time on 98. Both measures are marketed deceptively, as pro-98 property rights attorney and congressional candidate Ron St John explained to me and Art in our interview with him the other day — did you get a chance to read that?

    I’ll repeat what I wrote up above somewhere, because you might just be someone who could answer this — is it possible to have a serious eminent domain reform referendum some day, with protection for not just single-family homes like 99 but churches, commercial property etc… and not have all kinds of rent control and other nonsense thrown in?

  20. avatar annie nomis says:

    We already have good eminent domain protection in the state of California. Prop 98 is rent control elimination hidden within the guise of eminent domain. You need only have looked to the landlords’ convention last fall in L.A. where one of the workshops was “How to Eliminate Rent Control Forever in California.” These are the folks behind Prop. 98. Owners of large arpartment buildings and mobile parks.

  21. avatar Andy Favor says:

    What am I missing. Why is everyone so upset about loosing rent control. Should we not try to let the fruits of ownership go to the owner? For, example, lets say you own a building in Santa Monica. Everytime you go by the building and chat with the tennants you are told that the person who signed the lease in 1976 is away visiting her sick mother or some such thing. Ultimately you sell the building and the new owner is able to prove that the person who signed the lease in 1976 is married and living in Kansas. So, the new owner gets the benefits of the rent increase. If you can sell at 14 times gross that is a lot of money that should have gont to the former owner. I know there are a lot of investors who like rent control for this reason, but it just is not right in my humble opinion.

  22. Andy -

    Yes we should have owners making profits… after the recession. It’s all about the timing. Right now I think repealing rent control would be a disaster on our economy as the rich get richer. Reverse Robin Hood much?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.
Get Adobe Flash player