« Some Conservative Republicans Circle The Wagon For Schwarzenshriver | Main | 69th AD Mailbox: Lou Correa For Assembly? »

June 05, 2006




You mention Measure A is crucial, however it has no new power or influence. The county has already banned eminent domain in all of their redveopment areas, which are the only areas in which eminent domain could even be used. So Measure A is far from crucial and I would even dare to say it is essentially moot and useless, however it is a great feather for Norby to place in his cap.


"Presumably, Anaheim didn't see the need to spend money on a special June election to amend the city's charter,"

Roark, what special election? Why couldn't Anaheim have used the Primary Election tomorrow just like the County is doing? Please explain the special election issue.

John Parrot

You don't say that Norby plagiarized Measure A from Anaheim.

Why does that surprise anyone? The only thing I've seen from him that has any original thought is his extensive knowledge of high school mascots.

He should be happy he has a hapless foe as an opponent. Someone with some sense (like Lynn Daucher) would have kicked him all over the district.

The reason that the primary would be considered a special election for Anaheim is because unless there is an election already occuring (like for city council as will happen in November for Anaheim), you have to pay an extra fee to put your city initiative on the ballot. As such it would be a "special election" for Anaheim.


11:28, thanks for the explanation. I hadn't though about it.

To Tangerine: where is it codified that the County can't use eminent domain in redevelopment areas? I've never heard that.

Jeff Flint

11:28 is correct...June would be a special municipal election for Anaheim. The cost is less when consolidated with a regular election, but Anaheim would have had to pay to put their eminent domain mesaure on June.

I don't think Mayor Pringle has any problem with the County and Supervisor Norby doing this. The old Reagan adage (never knew if it was real, but it's a good one) applies:

"It's amazing how much you can get done if you don't care who gets the credit."

By the way, Curt hosted a fundraiser for Chris last week.

john lewis


Your comments are disappointing and display a lack of historical perspective. Your analyses betrays your namesake.

For openers nobody in California politics has done more or fought longer against both eminent domain abuse and redevelopment abuse than Chris Norby. This has been his passion since he lobbied against a taking in his home city of Fullerton in 1974. A Hispanic homowner's domicile was deemed worthy to be sacificed for a Gemco parking lot expansion. Since that time Chris Norby has been a lonely voice in this fight for property rights.

What you fail to understand was that the county's timing is dicated by this being the first "county election" since the Kelo decision. Norby planned to lobby his colleagues to put this on the ballot long before Anaheim planned anything. Norby did in fact replicate the Anaheim language but not in the nepharious way you describe. In his mind it was better to have uniformity in the language and put something on the ballot that Mayor Pringle and others would support. You are trying to create controversy where none exists. Mayor Pringle supports A and Norby supports the Anaheim measure.

Your comment that Norby needed a campaign issue against his opponent, the highly feared Rose Espinoza. is even more laughable.

The only thing that one is left to conclude is that you have some axe to grind against Norby. Chris has been a leader on this issue. Mayor Pringle deserves credit for joining the fight as well. You need to pick better fights.



The Board of Supervisors themselves have banned eminent domain in all redevlopment areas, which are the only areas where it can be used. Such designations were made by the board prior to designated an area a redevlopment area. This can be verified through OC LAFCO.


John Lewis-

Supervisor Norby's intentions may be well placed, however nobody has seemed to pick up on the fact that this measure is useless in practice, since the board has already banned the use of eminent domain in all county redelopment areas (Santa Ana heights and NDAP). So while it is symbolically great that Supervisor Norby would like to flaunt his anti eminent domain stance on a ballot issue, wouldnt it have been more effective to simply highlight how eminent domain has already been banned in every area in which it could legally be applied in the County's jurisdiction? I would expect a bit more background research by my OC Blog comment posting collegues.

john lewis


You are half right. The current Board of Sups has a policy of not using eminent domain in this fashion. That is merely their current political will. Measure A would codify this and tie the hands of future Boards.
That being said, the greatest value of Measure A passing would be the PR value for other cities to follow the lead as well as helping jump start the capaign for the statewide initiative that will presumably be on the November ballot.


If you intend to quote Ronald Reagan than let me provide his exact words. "We can accomplish anything together, if we do not concern ourselves with the question of who might receive the credit."

I have recently used that quote in reference to our April 22nd MORR/CURE conference on "eminent domain" abuse where I took a photo of Tom McClintock standing side by side with our keynote speaker, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who is joining us in the fight to protect property rights.

Eminent domain is a cancer that can hit anyone regardless of our political party affiliation.

Larry Gilbert, Orange County Co-chairman Californians United for Redevelopment Education (CURE)


PS: Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle will be one of our speakers at Castle Coalition's 2006 Eminent Domain Conference in Arlington, VA this Saturday. His presentation is entitled: "Developing a Freedom-Friendly City." Our Keynote speaker on Saturday evening will be Susette Kelo, lead plaintiff in Kelo v. City of New London.
Larry Gilbert, OC CURE


Mr. Lewis,

This really shouldn't escalate into a shouting match between should-be political allies, but here a few points in reply:

1) Your suggestion I have an axe to grind is simply incorrect. Indeed, I support Norby's Measure A and have stated so twice here before. In both instances I even encouraged readers to contribute to the initiative.

2) The sprawling account in paragraph 3 of your post serves not to rebut my account, but to confirm it. Any honest reader can see the spin at work in your essay.

3) Perhaps next time you post you should disclose your professional interest in the issue you discuss.

I stand 100% by my account, harsh as you may have found it to be.

Aptly named,

john lewis


If you were indeed aptly named I would burn my first edition of the Fountainhead. Thankfully you are an imposter therefore my collection is safe.

It is you who chose to impugn Chris Norby's motive for whatever reason you have. By contrast I salute both Norby and Pringle and anyone else who defends private property rights.


Since you've chosen to hit me again and spin your reply--indeed, I've never personally been party to such spin-- I have no choice but to reply in the following manner:

Mr. Lewis is a professional political consultant, with both Mr. Norby and Measure A among his clients.

Now, simply go back and read my original story as well as the follow-up posts from Mr. Lewis and myself to decide whom you believe.

Again, I stand by my account 100%.

Zona Joe

alright i've read it. i buy what roark's selling

a friend


I know John Lewis
I have worked with John Lewis
You, Mr. Roark, are no John Lewis

OC Voter

Tough call. Why would the campaign manager chime in though? That seems pretty dumb.

Who cares as long as it passes.

Roark your probably right but you could have waited until Wednesday to tell us since you want Measure A to pass too.

The comments to this entry are closed.