|
TV ads running statewide feature strong opposition of AARP, the nation’s leading senior organization, who calls Prop. 98 a “Deceptive Scheme”
Sacramento, CA -- The No on Proposition 98 campaign began airing television advertisements statewide today, featuring the opposition of AARP, the nation’s leading senior organization (script below). The ads, which can be viewed on the campaign website at www.No98Yes99.com, warn voters of the deceptive nature of Proposition 98 and alert voters about the measure’s impact on seniors, renters and all Californians. “Proposition 98 is the worst kind of special interest proposition,” said Jeannine English, AARP California State President. “It would benefit a few wealthy landlords at the expense of millions of California seniors, renters, homeowners and our environment. AARP is strongly opposed to this deceptive measure. We are working with a very broad and diverse coalition to get our message out to California voters so they reject this scheme on Election Day.” Landlords and associations that represent them have provided 87% of the funding in support of Prop. 98, raising more than $6.5 million to date. The landlords are trying to trick voters into believing 98 is only about eminent domain. But the landlords don’t care about eminent domain. They only care about hidden provisions in Prop 98 that would jeopardize renter protections, eliminate rent control and threaten protections for our environment. Following is the script of “AARP 30”, along with backup to the claims made in the advertisement. | AARP 30: No on 98 | | Script | Proof | | “AARP, the Nation’s leading senior organization, strongly opposes Proposition 98.” | AARP represents more than 3 million California seniors. The organization took a formal position in opposition to Proposition 98 in February 2008. The organization has been actively involved in the No on 98 campaign, signing ballot arguments, and participating in grassroots activities and media events. The organization is also featured in No on 98 radio and television advertisements as well as direct mail. | | “Prop. 98 is a deceptive scheme, by a few wealthy landlords to eliminate rent control.” | Landlords and associations that represent them have provided 87% of the funding in support of Prop. 98 -- raising more than $6.5 million to date. The landlords are trying to trick voters into believing 98 is only about eminent domain. In fact, the landlords have been running advertisements for more than a month, and neither their radio nor television advertisements mention one word about rent control, only eminent domain. But the landlords don’t care about eminent domain. They only care about hidden provisions in Prop 98 that would eliminate rent control. | | “98 also enables unfair evictions of seniors and other renters, so that rents can be raised without limits.” | Proposition 98 would amend Section 19 of Article I of the California constitution to prohibit “regulation of ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner”. According to an analysis of Proposition 98 by the Western Center on Law and Poverty (found here), this provision “could undo centuries of real property law and consumer/tenant protections”, including likely eliminating tenant protection laws, including:o Laws governing return of rental deposits. o Tenant notice periods, such as 60-day notice requirement prior to forcing renters out of unit. o Protections regarding terminations of tenancy.o “Just Cause” protections against unfair evictions | | “And 98 creates loopholes for landlords, so they can get around laws that protect our environment.” | Every leading environmental organization in California opposes Prop. 98 Specifically, the measure prohibits laws and regulations that "transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner." The courts have ruled that virtually all environmental regulations and land-use decisions are likely to impose costs on the affected party, while transferring economic benefits to another private party. Thus, the measure will jeopardize all manner of laws and regulations that protect our environment and regulate growth and development. According to a legal review of Proposition 98 by the respected environmental and land-use law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger: “there is a substantial risk… that (the initiative) would be broadly construed to prevent the enforcement of many existing environmental regulations as well as the adoption of new laws and policies to protect the environment”. | | “Stop this shameful deceptive scheme…. Vote NO on 98.” | |
|
