More on Proposition 90

Kevin Drum writes (somewhat belatedly) about the dire impact of Proposition 90. Besides failing to mention its backing, though, he also makes the mistake (IMO) of describing it as an anti-Kelo measure with a regulatory 'takings' provision tacked on. In reality, I think it's the other way around. Howie Rich may well believe eminent domain is wrong, but the 'takings' measure is the one that makes him and his contributors richer. The anti-Kelo part gets top billing not because it's the raison d'etre but because it's the bait with which they hope to hook Californians into hogtying their own government.

Because in its own right, the concept of regulatory 'takings' is simply absurd. The idea is that government regulations that limit what you can do with your property reduce the value of that property. The obvious problem is that this value is entirely speculative. Maybe--maybe--you could build a shopping mall on your land if the government didn't prevent you. That's assuming a whole lot of things that might or might not happen, though...and even if it could have been built, there's no guarantee you wouldn't lose your shirt. All investment is speculative. What the 'takings' ideologues want is concrete compensation for imaginary lost profit.

And consider the timing: if it passes in California, it does so just as the real estate bubble is bursting. I don't think they planned it that way, but it sure would work out nicely for a lot of people who own a lot of property that's losing a lot of value.

[That's all, folks]