"In response to your last question, property rights, as a fundamental right, deserve protection from those that would abuse that right whether they are elected or not.  We have a telling example of this in the 3^rd Ward where a non-elected, unaccountable 'individual that lacks independence voted to take a man’s land without compensating him for his loss."

Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. The fundamental right of being treated without abuse by an elected hack. The treatment of employees by a hack city leader is disguisting to this city and its citizens. This elected hack who makes the workers feel like they are nothing but a "four lettered word" by an elected individual who seriously lacks independence because he is on the wheel of the machine trying to further his own political future. Disguisting!

What doesn't Weir get about property owners gouging taxpayers for their property? Eminent domain gives them a fair market price. That's just fine.

Weir is supposed to be representing the public now. Not price gougers.

"I am often asked in business and other situations if it is necessary to follow an established rule or process or if a shortcut would be acceptable.  It is almost always more difficult, time consuming and sometimes expensive to follow the rules and do things the right way - in the short run.  But, in the long run, it almost always turns out that the shortcut caused new difficulties and became more expensive. "

One word:Johnson

The man should take his own advice

Wow, this guy is unbelievable. When he was elected was there no one else running? Or was he actually better at masking his insanity then?

I cannot believe he used this as, yet another chance, to attack Johnson. Since Johnson lacks independence, would the person handpicked by Weir to replace Johnson have indepedence? a person handpicked by a man who obviously has an agenda to get an oridinance changed to favor a former client of his?

I am so tired of him and his "property rights". If he is honestly concerned about property rights, then perhaps he should begin to think about the hard working homeowners who voted him in, not just the developers and wealthy landowners. Does he not see how the canyons project is not good for the community at this time? Does he not understand the potential problems that could arise on building homes on mountains that have been "remodeled"? If the canyons project was to go forward as Weir would like to see it, how concerned with property rights will he be when the land settles and homes fall apart? If all of these homes are built, how does he see them impacting a city already overrun with vacant homes with no buyers in sight?

What about the rights of the property owners in Westpark, where he agrees with homeowners losing their home in order to build a freeway. A freeway that should have been built YEARS ago before Bakersfield expanded to as large as it is today. Sure, their property won't be "stolen", the city will pay "fair market value" for it, after all the current market value on homes is less than many homeowners owe. The owners of the homes that would need to be destroyed for this freeway are having their memories and part of their lives "stolen", the residents who would have a freeway in their backyard will have their peace "stolen". The people who live in Westpark did not know that a freeway might run through their neighborhood one day, yet due to the city's lack of foresight, this now may become a reality. Weir approves of making a major impact on the lives of these property owners, yet he is having nothing less than a tantrum because his buddy, or ex-client, can't build as many houses on his land as he would like, even though this change was made to protect the rights and safety of future property owners who would buy those homes.

This many is a hypocritical, arrogant, crybaby. I know he could care less of my opinion on this matter, or anyone else that opposes him, after all we are all just a "special interest group".

To All Residents of Westpark:  Your Action Plan

1.  Draw up plans to have an apartment (or waterpark, skateboard park, concession stand, or outlet mall) constructed in your backyard.  It doesn't matter how infeasible, impractical, illogical, unsafe, or what the long-range impact of your project will be on the taxpayers of the City/County.

2.  Submit those plans to the Planning Commission.

3.  When the Commission denies your request, notify Mr. Weir that half of your property has been "stolen" from you, that your property rights have been taken away, and that you have not been "compensated" by the City for your loss.

4.  Blame this loss of huge future profits on one of the Commisioners who does not share your philosophy on property rights, on the biased reporting of the Bakersfield Californian, on Liberals, and don't forget to blame union members.  (What the heck, throw in those "environmental radicals" too).

5.  Sit back and be patient (although it may be helpful to channel funds to Mr. Weir through "facade" organizations to help him fight the recall).  This technique has been proven to create a political stalemate that will hold off any action for years and will definitely stall the Westside Parkway. 

I admit I know little about the workings of eminent domain, but do the targets really get fair market price Steve? I don't mean what they may want, after all, all of us want 2 million bucks for our property, but what defines, and who determines what is the fair market price? If the house being taken can easily be sold for more than a stated fair market price, is it really the fair market price?

Don't get me wrong, I think Weir is politically maneuvering, but...... if say all the houses that will be bulldozed for the new freeway are appraised at 170,000 bucks a piece, will each owner get that much? Like I said, I'm ignorant on the issue, but curious about how fair the sale is. That would be double bad news for someone that bought the property for 220,000 bucks, it devalued to 170,000, they got 120,000 for it, then they end up 100,000 Gs in the hole with no place to live. Educate me people. LOL

Ask Gary Crabtree, our local real estate expert on market values, what has happened to property values in West Park since the City Council failed to support those private property rights and turned the extension of SR58 over to CalTrans.  Even if the freeway doesn't go through  particular homes, the whole area has taken tremendous reduction in market value because of air polution and commercial traffic noise that CalTrans says will be "mitigated" when they erect monster block walls between adjacent homes and businesses and the freeway.  Of course, some, like Weir will blame it all on the out-of-control real estate and development mess.  When development does not pay its own way we all end up paying one way or another. 

Veritas:

I heard Crabtree was at the CalTrans forum at Westpark this week.

But the Westpark study is only four months old. Given the low turnover rate there, how can we know how property values have fallen? And how have other neighborhoods in Bakersfield with similar age, school quality and crime rates -- but not threatened by a freeway -- fared?

The market in general is very poor right now, you may have noticed.

Crabtree was at the "wonderfully orchestrated" primarily one-way meeting (forum-- "an assembly for the free discussion  of public affairs?"), probably to gather information on how much the SR58 alignment is going to impact his church, church school and church retirement residences.

c.b. -- 2-3 years ago, as soon as the thrust to push the Centennial Corridor with the Wide side Parkway, and later, the fact that the Bakersfield Systems Study's Alternate 15 was known to be beyond the City's ability to pay (in spite of the "gift" from former Congressman Thomas and his behind the scenes arm-twisting) an uneasiness, albeit even with the Council's promise to never turn the SR58 over to CalTrans, came into West Park.  Before the recent collapse of the market, I did hear about a couple of homeowners whose pending sales  were cancelled for rather vague reasons.  Could it be that someone "leaked" the City Administration's intent to get the Council to turncoat (except for David Couch).  Yeah, I know,  "Just the facts, maam, just the facts."

Weir: "The right to acquire, possess, protect, use and enjoy property is a fundamental right.  I believe that I have an obligation to protect that right both personally and as an elected representative. "
 

And the ability for the government to obtain the property is also firmly established. As is the "police powers" which gives the government the ability to "zone" uses for properties. Guess he forgot about that......

"I am often asked in business and other situations if it is necessary to follow an established rule or process or if a shortcut would be acceptable.  It is almost always more difficult, time consuming and sometimes expensive to follow the rules and do things the right way - in the short run.  But, in the long run, it almost always turns out that the shortcut caused new difficulties and became more expensive."

You mean like the "shortcut" of not reporting clients of your business on conflict-of-interest documents? Like sitting in on private legal meetings about clients? Like trying to remove a Planning Commissioner before his term is done, despite the fact that it has never been done that way before? At least when you're talking about "shortcuts", you actually do know what you're talking about....

"I know for certain that Ms. Kunz is a capable and competent individual.  As she stated, Prop 98 would not make her job impossible, but may make it harder.  It would be harder only in those cases where the city would like to acquire a person's property for less than the person is willing to accept. Otherwise it will be no harder and may actually, in some cases, be easier because all efforts by the city and the property owner will be focused on increasing the value of the property."

It isn't the government's job to increase people's property values, nor is it government's job to try to pay more for a property than it is worth. (If this was the case, everybody's property would be zoned for apartments, or heavy industrial uses, since those are the highest intensity uses allowed.) What happened to the Republican credo of "saving the taxpayer's money"? Oh, right, the exception of the rule (when it can enrich friends and clients of those in government). What if the person believes that the property is worth far more than fair market value? Should the government pay the outrageous fee? Should they work to raise everyone else's property values to the outrageous level? Should a single property owner be able to hold a large government project hostage while demanding unreasonable compensation? (Last person to sell out makes the most money. So everybody wants to be the last to sell out. So nobody sells. And the project doesn't get done.) Mr. Weir thinks so.....

"As to the vacant buildings on Chester Avenue, property owners, whether they live in town or out of town, want to do something with their property to generate income or value.  The very essence of property rights is that the owner is in control of his or her property.  Downtown properties will be filled, improved and brimming with business when the right market conditions and incentives are there, not when the right threats are there."

Oh really Mr. Weir? What makes you think that those owning property on Chester aren't waiting for their property to be worth more because everyone else works hard to increase the value of the neighborhood? What do you think the value of the Padre would be worth without the government's parking structure across the street? Who wants to live in a building with no parking? What if the "right market conditions" never occur? More specifically, what if the government wants to be the first to improve the area, by building, say, a swimming pool, or a baseball diamond? Or what if they want to improve traffic circulation? And what if the property owners believe their property is worth more than fair market value? What then?

"In response to your last question, property rights, as a fundamental right, deserve protection from those that would abuse that right whether they are elected or not.  We have a telling example of this in the 3^rd Ward where a non-elected, unaccountable individual that lacks independence voted to take a man’s land without compensating him for his loss."

We also have the situation where the elected official lacks independence, and that person is facing a recall. Should that person be allowed to continue his destructive behavior until removed? No matter the costs? Seems to me that every argument you make against certain "individuals" goes double for you. And we have a name for that. We also have a name for people who believe the government should work on corporation's (or corporate owners) behalf, at the costs of regular citizens.

By the way, Mr. Weir really does need a refresher course on regulatory takings. A property owner is not due "compensation" when they are denied less than full use of their property due to regulations such as zoning. The fact that he does not know this speaks volumes about his motivation.

98 is a great prop and 99 is horrible, well at least if your a conservative and don't like the Government taking your land. The thing is if you vote for 99 and it passes, it will nullify 98 if it were passed

Wier sounds like he is on track to me. Eminent domain under Kelo allows for the taking of private property without a real public use. Prop 98 is in respose to that, a protection of private property.

-Ace

Weir is smart for supporting prop 98.  Despite my support of his recall, he is definitely right on 98.  I'm with you superman, 99 is weak.

BS: 99 actually has to have *more* votes than 98. If they both pass, whichever one wins defeats the other. Since 99 is so narrow, 98 also does what 99 would do.

No on both.

A little info on eminent domain.

It's true that the city has rarely used eminent domain.

But the council has often (I'll bet even during Weir's time) voted to pass a "resolution of necessity" which basically says "We plan to take your land if you don't come to the table and negotiate a price with us."

If the deal isn't made, then the city can file ED.

Through the whole process there are land appraisers involved — the city hires an "independent" appraiser. The property owner hires their own. Somehow the two appraisers never seem to agree on the value of the property. I would hazard a guess that the fair market value is somewhere in between.

If all else fails the property owner has the right to fight the taking (and the price they're getting for their property) in court.

Perhaps the most interesting example of the process may be a bunch of land around the Ice and Aquatics Center that the city of Bakersfield bought (using resolutions of necessity) and then sold to developers Ray Olmschied and Dennis Sivers for the City Center project on California Avenue.

The city even cleared the land for the project, I believe.

To date there has been no activity to build the project.

Two notes to the above:

The present city council has indeed passed resolutions of necessity. I don't think any were for acquiring the property for transfer to other private parties, though; most have been for traditional public uses.

The purchase of the land for the city center was pretty much an instant transfer; the city bought it and sold it at one meeting.