In
the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, how many single-family homes damaged by the
storm surge will be rebuilt as high density dwellings? This is after all, the
Smart Growth trend across the country – destroy traditional homes in the suburbs
because they are “unsustainable” and build high rises in inner cities.
Smart
Growth meetings across the country at the local level tout “consensus building”
where the outcome has already been decided by a small group of “visioning”
experts paid by non-governmental organizations with funds to burn from various
federal government agencies, including the U.S. Park Service.
The
method used by the “visioning” experts is the Delphi technique developed by the
Rand Corporation during the Cold War era as a mind-controlling tool, a
“consensive process.” The technique was
used to lead a targeted group to a pre-determined outcome, while maintaining
the illusion that the public had open input.
The
state of Virginia passed an Amendment to restrict eminent domain abuse, the
taking of private property and single-family dwellings in order to develop the
same land into high density complexes that are more profitable for counties,
bringing in much more revenue. The Democrat’s sample ballot showed that they
were against the measure – they preferred to demolish low density traditional
middle class homes in order to make room for their UN Agenda 21 goals. Builders
are eager to satisfy government demanded UN land development as the consumer
driven free enterprise system is killed by regulations and by government fiat. One
fourth of a conservative county with single family homes voted that it was a
good idea to relinquish property to the government. This begged the following
questions:
1.
Did
they vote out of ignorance?
2.
Did
they not understand the issue on the ballot?
3.
Did
they strongly believe that the government has the right to take your property
with compensation, and then sell it to the highest bidder who would then develop
it into high density habitation, resulting in much higher tax revenue for the
government?
Sustainable
development economists and UN promoters have one goal in mind, replacing the
current capitalist system with sustainable development, a form of global
economics for the “common good,” a communist world society in which the United
Nations will play the role of benevolent dictator.
The
root of the word communist is the Latin word “communis,” shared, common.
Stalin’s communist Five Year Plan (1932-1933), to strip landowners of property,
organize citizens into communes, control agriculture centrally, and increase
industry (steel, iron, electric) resulted in the death of almost 10 million
Ukrainians from famine.
Mao
Tse Tung’s Great Leap Forward (1959-1961) plan to strip landowners of property,
organize citizens into communes, centrally control agriculture, and increase
industry (steel, iron, massive building projects) resulted in the death of 40
million people from starvation.
President
Obama’s Rural Council executive order passed in 2011 encourages “public-private
partnerships,” “helps rural communities connect regionally to collaborate,”
“expands markets for agriculture,” and “increases renewable energy and
conservation.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/09/obama-administration-establishes-white-house-rural-council-strengthen-ru)
John
Adams said in defense of private property, “The moment the idea is admitted
into society that property is not sacred as the laws of God, and that there is
not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny
commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and “Thou shalt not steal’ were not
commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society
before it can be civilized or made free.” (A Defense of American Constitutions)
At
the other end of the spectrum, Thomas Paine wrote in “Agrarian Justice” in
1797, “There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not
make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no
right to locate as his property in perpetuity on any part of it.”
Daniel
Webster said in his address to the Massachusetts Convention, “Power naturally
and necessarily follows property.”
A
growing number of property rights advocates that oppose government land grab in
any form are also opposing the seemingly innocent move by the U.S. Park Service
to designate more and more areas as National Heritage sites. Property owners
see the increased designation as predatory federal bureaucracy, a covert land
grab.
The
Park Service allocates funds to a local group designated as a managing body
composed of local government officials and environmental groups who in turn set
up non-elected boards, councils and regional coordinating agencies to oversee
land use in the heritage area via specific planning and zoning. The managing
group, once entrenched in the area, receives operating funds from the Park
Service to direct all business to be conducted in a way that they do not
consider harmful to the heritage area. Property owners and businessmen are
never consulted or given a voice in these non-elected managing bodies. (Tom
Deweese, American Policy Center, Warrenton, Virginia)
National
Heritage Area Act of 2012, sponsored by Rep. Charles Dent (R-PA15) is the
proposed HR 4099 that would grant open-ended powers to local management bodies,
empowering them to regulate human activities inside the heritage area, with the
potential to affect the lives of millions of Americans without public debate. The
management body would operate in the best interest of their organization,
disregarding the interests of the property owners in the heritage area.
Americans
love to preserve their history and their heritage. They certainly did not
object to the idea, many years ago, that certain sites need to be protected for
future generations. “There are 49 such sites across the country, West Virginia,
Virginia, Iowa, Florida, Colorado, the entire state of Tennessee, the entire
city of Baltimore” and many more to come. (Tom DeWeese, in an interview to WHDN
Boston, posted on YouTube on Nov. 7, 2012)
The
problem is that we have already secured preservation for our monuments, parks,
and historical sites. HR 4099 would confiscate huge tracts of land that hold a
historical site within a large perimeter of land. This land, whether
agricultural or residential, would no longer be allowed to be developed unless
the government gives permission.
Non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) such as the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, National
Audubon Society, National Historic Preservation, and Scenic America receive
millions from the federal government to fund “cleverly designed schemes” that
stop land development.
The
Crooked Road, Virginia’s Historic Music Trail, preserves blue grass and Blue Ridge
mountain music. (http://thecrookedroad.org/) There are
auditoriums in the area where the music is already played and preserved. The
trail encompasses 15 counties. Why is it necessary to create an extensive
boundary around 15 counties? In the Florida Everglades people were moved off
the land after generations of ownership. The Bull Run (Manassas Battle Field)
is already extensively preserved yet, because of the National Heritage designation,
people cannot put a cell tower on private land because “Robert E. Lee did
not see a cell tower and we won’t see one now.” (Tom DeWeese)
When
Congressman Wolf of Virginia was asked by Tom DeWeese if citizens were notified
about the buffer zones around their properties and the boundary zones of the Heritage
site, the answer was no because there was language in the bill that allowed
people to opt out. DeWeese described the scenario where a citizen would go to
City Hall requesting to opt out of a zoning regulation and how he/she would be
laughed out of the room.
Martha
Boneta of Loudon County, Virginia, could not use 20 acres of her agriculture
designated land to farm because it was considered “Hallowed Grounds.” There was
indeed an encampment in the area during the Civil War but nobody died there.
For two years, her cattle could not even seek shade in the oak grove and her
children could not play there. She was also fined for selling agricultural
products on her property and for having a children’s birthday party on her
farm. Three lawsuits were filed in August 2012 against a new ordinance that
imposes strict limits on hours and activities at 13 local vineyards. (http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/virginia_watchdog_fauquier_wineries_say_county_is_stomping_on_their_assets/)
These
well-crafted environmental buffer zones that are designated in the National
Heritage Area seem innocuous and unrelated until citizen’s rights to free use
of their private properties clash with their rules. The NGOs indirectly control
land zoning and activities by putting pressure on local boards. It is expensive
to fight NGOs flush with taxpayer and private cash. As Gary Franchi of WHDN 9
Boston says, “The NGOs syphon off taxpayer dollars to fulfill agendas that they
themselves create.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGQM3_4jt-c)
No comments:
Post a Comment