"Good" Eminent Domain: Yes on 99, No on 98

As a longtime Democrat, I get a kick out of the irony of the Pacifica Democrats holding their regular monthly breakfast meetings at Sharp Park Golf Course. When I was a kid growing up in the Eisenhower era, only Republicans were associated with that white-shoe-wearing country club sport. All that has changed now, of course, especially ever since Bill Clinton publicly hobnobbed with other big-time Democratic politicians on golf courses. In essence, the links have been democratized.

But I digress. The point of this piece is to tell you that the party of orneriness and free thinking just met May 17 at the golf course to debate Propositions 98 and 99, the competing state measures that both claim to address the need for eminent domain. Personally, I have already absentee-voted no on 98 and yes on 99 (the Pacifica Democrats also endorse this position).

As Pacifica Democrats newsletter editor Jim Heldberg explains, "Eminent domain is the legal process [that] governments use to take private property for...roads, schools, airports, etc. Owners are reimbursed in a manner established by law."

So again, my friends, YES ON 99, NO ON 98.

JOHN MAYBURY
Editor and Publisher
Pacifica Riptide

Comments

[Butch Larroche]

John, as you may have seen at Sharp Park, golf at Sharp Park is not a rich white man's sport. We have many groups that tee off weekly and are not white, or rich. Golf in the 2000s has turned into a very diverse sport. The Tiger Woods factor has opened the game up to all ethnicities and classes, which is a very good thing.

[Scotty]

Butch is right -- the links were democratized long before Clinton took office. It was the introduction of municipal courses like Sharp Park that allowed the average golfer to enjoy the sport without paying the rumored $40K+ annual fees that secretive private clubs like the Olympic Club use to keep the riffraff out (and by riffraff, I think they mean anyone who isn't an extremely wealthy Protestant Caucasian male).