Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Property Rights Questionnaire

Below are the answers to my Property Rights Questionnaire from the California Alliance to Protect Property Rights. You can visit their website at .

2012 Property Rights Protection Questionnaire

1. Do you support the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo vs. New London decision which granted local government an easier path and greater authority by which they can seize private property (homes, businesses, farms, and places of worship) for economic development?

Phil Jennerjahn: No! Kelo is one of my most-hated Supreme Court decisions! I believe that this ruling violates the spirit of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. The reason we fought King George was to get away from oppressive government behaviors like this. In Kelo, the Court ruled that New London had the right to seize private property based on the perceived benefits of the potential re-development... which never happened and blew up in everyones face. Another point to make here is that the government giving these obscure reasons gives them more self-serving intentions to do land-grabs that they think are in their best financial interests. Kelo is a horror show, and we need better judges on that court to get rid of it. Kagan and Sotomayor are freedom-hating liberals who will inflict more harm in years to come.

2. Over 40 states since the Kelo vs. New London decision have passed meaningful and complete eminent domain reform. Would you support and/or author legislation that would bring about much needed reforms to California?

Phil Jennerjahn: Yes. But as an elected Federal legislator, my reforms would be rather broad and nationally effective, not just reaching the lives of Californians only.

3. Do you support limiting the Government's power of eminent domain to public projects (ex. schools, roads) and not for private purposes?

Phil Jennerjahn: Yes. I am for restraining our government wherever possible.

4. Do you think it is appropriate for Government to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize private development, such as sports facilities, retail projects, and other commercial uses?

Phil Jennerjahn: No. These activities are best left to the invisible hand of the free market. Having Government involved usually leads to corruption. Mayor Villaraigosa, in Los Angeles, was fined by the City Ethics Department for taking kickbacks and goodies from developers who did business with the City.

5. Did you support the California Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the State Legislature's abolition of Redevelopment Agencies? If not, why?

Phil Jennerjahn: Yes, but I am leery of the intentions of this State Legislature -- who were originally trying to pilfer money from these Agencies, not shut them down altogether.