Vote NO on 98 and Yes on 99
Original post made by Pat on May 15, 2008
• Prop. 98 attacks renters by eliminating renter protections and rent control.
• Prop. 98 guts important environmental protections like laws we need to combat global warming, and protect our land, air, water and coasts.
• Prop. 98 jeopardizes the quality of our drinking water and our ability to secure new water sources to protect our environment and fuel our economy.
• Prop. 98 will result in frivolous lawsuits, higher taxpayer costs, and hurt our economy.
That's why a broad coalition including AARP, League of Women Voters of California, the Coalition to Protect California Renters, Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League, Inc. (GSMOL), California Professional Firefighters, California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Teachers Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Chamber of Commerce and dozens of others all oppose Prop. 98.
Many of these same groups are also supporting a real eminent domain reform on the June 3rd ballot. Proposition 99 is the straightforward solution we need to protect against eminent domain abuse. Prop. 99 prohibits government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer. Unlike the landlords' Prop. 98, Prop. 99 is eminent domain reform with NO HIDDEN AGENDAS.
Please be sure you have the facts and vote NO on 98 and Yes on 99 on June 3rd.
Visit www.no98yes99.com for more information.
Please forward this e-mail to a friend and let everyone know what is at stake!
on May 15, 2008 at 4:05 pm
You gave me the facts; and my vote is a "yes." Thank you.
on May 15, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Are you sure you got all the facts?
Prop 99 doesn't appear to provide protection if you've only had the house for less than a year before a government agency sends an eminent domain letter.
Go read the proposed laws for yourself. You might just end up voting "no" on both of them.
on May 15, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I will read before I vote, and may change my mind. I only replied on the post; and personally, I do not like "rent control."
Global warming; not a concern, man is vain, thinking he has such huge impact on govt. Don't get me wrong, punish companies that dump waste into our land/water; but as for more stringent air control; should have set them from the start. It's like, start a business, are you happy, doing well? Great, now reduce your emissions, spend millions, pass the cost to consumer; sorry, no thank you.
The other two points, were very weak, no idea where Pat is getting at; hence, I will read the proposition myself. Frivolous lawsuits I do not like, but what in 98 would cause it; that is what I need to know.