Penalver on Prop 98 & Prop 99:
Over at Prawfs, Eduardo Penalver has an interesting post on California's recent Propositions 98 and 99. An excerpt:
  Insofar as the backlash against Kelo was rooted in the popular views about the special status of residential property, . . . it seemed strange to me that the proposed legislative responses have tended to sweep much more broadly, encompassing all privately owned land. It has always seemed to me that property rights groups were trading on the rhetorical and cultural power of homeownership in the service of a much more expansive agenda than the public reaction to Kelo merited on its own terms.
  You can see this manipulation of Kelo not only in the attempt to protect all private land from redevelopment takings, but also in the tendency of property-rights groups to bundle anti-Kelo initiatives with other elements of the property rights agenda, such as the anti-rent control provision of Prop. 98. Of course, to the property rights libertarian, all of these things (Kelo, rent control, regulatory takings, etc.) are related to broader principles about the nature and scope of private property rights, but most voters do not accept those underlying libertarian principles — their reaction to Kelo rested on grounds that were much narrower, grounds having to do with the special status of the home. I suppose in politics there's nothing wrong about running with a backlash for all it's worth, but it has always seemed to me that there was room for more targeted legislative responses to Kelo.
  I would have voted for Prop 98 myself, but I think Eduardo is probably right that the public opposition to Kelo is largely rooted in the importance of personal home ownership rather than on a broader view of property rights.
MarkField (mail):
As a CA voter, I think this captures very well the public view.
6.5.2008 1:25pm
Crunchy Frog:
Due to the inclusion of rent control as an issue, I ended up voting completely opposite from how I would have without the poison pill.

Yes, I am a mobile home resident. No tornado jokes, please.

The threat of an economically motivated eviction is appropriately terrifying to your average mobile home owner. An apartment dweller can simply move to another apartment - a mobile home is an enormous sunk cost, and costs thousands of dollars to move, provided that space in another park is even available.
6.5.2008 1:47pm
Dan Weber (www):
other elements of the property rights agenda

That might be all you need to know right there.
6.5.2008 2:34pm
Ted F (www):
Crunchy Frog, has it occurred to you that there would be more mobile home parks with lower rents if a landlord knew that the decision to rent to a mobile-home owner wasn't necessarily permanent? You're paying for those costs now, they're just hidden.
6.5.2008 2:53pm
Perseus (mail):
As a CA voter, I also agree that (unfortunately) it captures the public view. As a college professor, I'm doing my part to educate my students in the broader principles about the nature and scope of private property rights (which are routinely attacked by my colleagues).
6.5.2008 4:32pm
Crunchy Frog:
Ted F: In a libertarian fantasy world, possibly, but that doesn't figure in the active hostility that local municipal zoning boards (who are essentially owned by Big Construction) have for MH parks in general.

Even so, none of that is of any help to the retirees on fixed income whom you want to price out of their homes.
6.5.2008 10:00pm
Joe Bingham (mail):
In a libertarian fantasy world, possibly,

Supply + demand = libertarian fantasy world.
6.6.2008 10:17am