On May 10, 9:51=A0pm, "OneTwoThree" <you...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In response to the Supreme Court decision that sup****ted the rights of
> government to use the process of eminent domain to seize private
property
> and turn it over to developers, the leftist California legislature
refused=
> to do anything to clarify or condemn this decision
>
> Fortunately, we in California have the right of initiative, meaning we
can=
> do what our legislature is to cowardly or corrupt to do themselves.
>
> This upcoming election, we are being presented with two initiatives
design=
ed
> to address this cowardly Supreme Court.and their idiotic eminent domain
> issue.
>
> Both propositions on our ballot limit the ability of government to seize
> private property in order to turn it over to private developers.
>
> One goes a step further, and throws rent control into the mix, making it
> unconstitutional (in California only) to impose rent control.
>
> I'll have to admit, I'm ambivalent on this one. As one who rented for
many=
> years, I have an innate and inborn resentment towards greedy landlords
who=
> fail to maintain their property with any regularity or alacrity yet
never
> fail to raise rents as often as possible.
>
> On the other hand, what is rent control but government telling a
property
> owner what he can and cannot do with his property?
>
> I truly have an open mind on this topic. I would appreciate cogent
argumen=
ts
> in favor of rent control.
>
> No, not the usual leftist crap about poor people, but a rationale which
> convinces me that rent control is justified where eminent domain seizure
o=
f
> property to give to developers is not.
>
> Any of you libs and leftists want to give it a shot?
>
> .
rent control should be legal in every state, poor people can work up
to 60 hrs. a week and still not be able to pay rent. in my rural state
you also have to have a car to work almost any where. greedy
landlords are creating homelessness. jenius
|
