If you ask the government,
land belongs to the proprietor as long as the required taxes are paid in full each
year and the government does not confiscate the property through eminent domain
or deem it environmentally endangered and in need of protection. If you ask
progressives, land belongs equally to everyone and nobody should be allowed to “own”
anything, it should be communal property.
The painful lesson in
communal property (communism) at Jamestown has been forgotten or never learned.
When people worked the land together, some worked harder and some were lazier,
yet everyone ate the same. The entire settlement almost starved to death. The
following year, when the communal property was divided into individual parcels,
everyone prospered.
Humans understood then that
individual freedom and cooperation on smaller scale are much more successful
than domination by a few in an exclusively government-run society.
The idea of Sustainable
Development that emerged in 1987 from a conference by the World Commission on
Environment and Development, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, seemed innocuous.
It was defined as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It sounded lofty
except for the nagging questions: who decides what the needs are, how are they
going to parcel out the needs, how are they going to implement them, and who
will police the decision-makers?
This call to Sustainable
Development became the blueprint of a myriad of rules and regulations
incorporated in the 1992 document called Agenda 21 signed by 179 nations at the
U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. This 40-chapter
document addresses every aspect of human life, not the least of which is
property.
According to Henry Lamb, Bill
Clinton’s creation of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development
(Executive Order #12852, June 29, 1993) “was responsible for instilling
sustainable development consciousness throughout every agency of the federal
government,” using enormous grant powers. These “vision” and “challenge” grants
were given to state and local governments, to NGOs such as the American
Planning Association, Sierra Club, and to HUD, DOE, and EPA to develop and implement
community plans around the nation.
County-wide or region-wide
plans by the years 2020, 2025, or 2030, contain 129 “visions” included in eight
categories. These visions were developed at the first Glades County, Florida
visioning meeting in February 2, 2006.
They are eerily similar to the recommendations in the Agenda 21 document
and in any sustainable development pamphlets. (Henry Lamb, Sustainable
Development or Sustainable Freedom? pp. 5-6)
-
Preserve natural
environment
-
Save/improve the
wetlands
-
Restrict development
in sensitive areas
-
Sustainable agriculture
and farming
-
Comprehensive resource
preservation
-
Never compromise
wetlands or wildlife
-
Preservation of
scenic views
-
Designation of
scenic highways
-
Development should
be clustered
-
Rural village
concept
-
Smart growth
planned developments
-
Increase density,
increase walkability
-
Impact fees that
limit mobile homes
-
Zoning should
encourage infill
-
More codes to be
enforced
-
Conservation easements
on agricultural land
-
Sidewalks, bike
paths, and walking paths
-
Multi-use trails
and corridors that are landscaped
Villages, towns, and
cities developed as the result of the wishes of the people in a free market.
Then local zoning ordinances were developed based on existing land use,
initiated by the land owners who, from time to time changed the zoning
designations. Such changes were only made by locally elected officials,
balancing the wishes of the landowners with the rights of other constituents.
The “comprehensive
planning” required by sustainable development in Agenda 21 is initiated by a
coalition of international organizations such as ICLEI (International Council
on Local Environmental Initiatives) who decide in their “visioning consensus”
how and where everyone should live.
ICLEI infiltrated over 600
county and local governments in the U.S. who became members of this
organization that recently changed its name to ICLEI Local Governments for
Sustainability USA to avoid the stigma of an international organization
meddling in American zoning affairs. http://www.icleiusa.org/
The top-down unelected government
develops comprehensive master plans that form “urban boundary zones.” Municipal
services such as water, sewer, fire, and police protection are not provided
beyond these zones. The comprehensive master plan serves the purpose to create “sustainable
communities,” the vision of the globalists who created Agenda 21.
It is not a coincidence
that “every county’s comprehensive master plan contains the same elements, the
same goals, the same processes,” spelled out in Agenda 21. Citizens participate
in local visioning meetings and consensus-building stakeholder meetings under
the false promise and understanding that they do have input in their
communities. In reality, the decisions have been made for them in advance.
Henry Lamb said, “Such
comprehensive land use plans adopted by government gives the government, not the
owner, the superior right to decide how the land may be used.” Elected
officials were convinced by “the promoters of sustainable development that private
property rights are not as important as the proposed benefits of sustainable
development, individual freedom is not as important.” (p. 23)
The first lawsuit filed on
October 15, 2013 against Agenda 21 promoters is the lawsuit against the comprehensive
plan called Plan Bay Area. The legal challenge was launched by the Post
Sustainability Institute/Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 and Freedom Advocates,
spearheaded by Michael Shaw and Rosa Koire. http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/lawsuit-against-a21.html
Alleged violations
include:
-
Plan Bay Area
violates voter-approved urban growth boundary ordinances, “nullifying these
boundaries by restricting development to very small locations in just some
cities”
-
Plan Bay Area “violates
the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by taking property rights
without just compensation”
-
Plan Bay Area “violates
the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Equal Protection
Clause” (Priority Development Areas land owners will receive permits 80 times
more than owners outside of the PDA)
-
Plan Bay Area “permanently
strips all development rights from rural properties in the nine county Bay
Area, effectively taking conservation easements on all rural lands without
paying for them”
-
Plan Bay Area “restricts
development rights within the Priority Development Areas,” limiting
construction to mixed-use, high density Smart Growth development.
“Plan Maryland” is a statewide
blueprint of land use that maintains 400,000 acres as agricultural or forest
land and spares it from development in the next 20 years. Governor O’Malley’s
executive order allows development only in “approved” growth areas along the
Baltimore-Washington corridor. Homes on two-acre plots with septic system were
deemed urban sprawl. Homes built within city limits on half-acre plots in range
of sewer hookups were not deemed urban sprawl. I discussed this comprehensive land
use plan in my best seller book, U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy. http://www.amazon.com/U-N-Agenda-21-Environmental-Piracy/dp/0615716474/ref=sr_1_1/181-0010595-4429868?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393867105&sr=1-1&keywords=UN+Agenda+21%3A+Environmental+Piracy
The comprehensive plan for
Baldwin County, Alabama, called Horizon 2025, was rejected by the Baldwin
County Commission as a “massive land grab.” Additionally, Gov. Robert Bentley
signed a law forbidding policies connected to Agenda 21, barring any private
property confiscation without due process. This decision drew strong criticism
from the Smart Growth proponents who used psychological “projection” to paint
Americans who are discovering the truth about Agenda 21 as right-wingers who
see “smart” environmental planning as an “Agenda of Fear.”
In the fishing community
of King Cove Alaska, an 11-mile gravel trail connecting the Aleut community to
a life-saving airport has been denied by the Department of Interior Secretary
Jewell because the road would jeopardize the waterfowl. “The people of King
Cove want a small road through what was their backyard,” using less than 1
percent of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. But giving up refuge land would be a bad
precedent. “I’ve listened to your stories, now I have to listen to the animals,”
said Sec. Jewell.
Residents of Riverton,
Wyoming (pop. 10,000) found out in horror one day that the EPA had given their
town to an Indian reservation. Their deeds of trust could be tossed unless the
Indian reservation recognized them. The EPA declared Riverton
part of the Wind River Indian Reservation, nullifying a 1905 law passed by
Congress. http://freepatriot.org/2014/01/08/epa-takes-entire-town-away-wyoming-gives-indians-disenfranchises-american-citizens/
A WWII veteran in New York
is fighting local government attempts to confiscate his grocery store via
eminent domain in order to open a municipality-owned market.
Some local governments
confiscated land under eminent domain in order to preserve it. Most famous is
the seizure of 572 acres in Telluride. The owner wanted to develop the land
along the San Miguel River. The town set the land aside as open space. The
confiscation by the state Supreme Court was upheld on grounds that overcrowded
mountain towns need to preserve their recreational and natural assets.
Andy and Ceil Barrie may
lose 10 acres near Breckenridge, Colorado because they ride an ATV on a
1.2-mile mining road from their 3-bedroom home in a subdivision to the 10 acres
they purchased surrounding a hundred year old cabin in the middle of the White
River National Forest. Summit County is using eminent domain to preserve open
space instead of the usual economic development. (Becket Adams)
In 2012 the EPA threatened
Lois Alt, a chicken farmer from West Virginia, with $37,500 fine every time it
rained on or near her property. The fine, mandated under the Clean Water Act,
was levied because “storm water near her farm would come in contact with dust,
feathers, and manure before entering a local waterway.” High levels of nitrogen
were found in the chicken waste which could also threaten the water supply.
Property rights can be
taken away under the guise of protecting the environment. American Policy
Center identified cases of such abuse.
-
Mud puddles become
wetlands that must be protected
-
Improving land by
planting trees, bushes, filling a ditch with dirt, or building a fence can
result in arrest and fine of the property owner under the Clean Water Act
-
Building on one’s
land can be blocked
-
If the area is
deemed wetland, the owner can no longer use it or sell it
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced
a bill, the Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2013 (S 890), which would
attempt to reign in the EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service,
National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, agencies of our
federal government that infringe on Americans’ private property. The bill is in the Committee on Environment and Public
Works. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s890/text
In Virginia, the House
passed SB 578 on February 26, 2014. The Senate bill, sponsored by Senator
Obenshain, had already passed unanimously, entitling landowners to compensatory
damages and
reasonable attorney fees when successfully challenging a local land use
decision based on an “unconstitutional condition.”
“When property owners run up against City Hall, it doesn’t always seem like
a fair fight,” said Obenshain. “No matter what the merits of a property rights
challenge, any property owner at odds with local government feels like David
taking on Goliath.”
Once the governor signs it, SB 578 will discourage localities from abusing their authority by imposing unconstitutional restrictions on the property owner’s ability to use his/her land.
Once the governor signs it, SB 578 will discourage localities from abusing their authority by imposing unconstitutional restrictions on the property owner’s ability to use his/her land.
Private property must be
guarded as priceless freedom. Land
owners should reject the sustainable development idea that only government can
protect nature, air, soil, water, open spaces, and the poor. All societies run
by totalitarian governments have severe environmental degradation, little or no
private property and misuse of resources, a chasm between the haves and have-nots,
and no hope for the future of individual citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment