Smart Growth and Green Growth - It Is Not What You Think

 

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption, and set levels of mortality control.”   -  Professor Maurice King

Progressives (regressives) have been educating (indoctrinating) our American children for decades, inculcating (forcing) ideas such as political correctness (approved speech), globalism (one world government), global warming/climate change (redistribution of wealth), income equality (confiscation of wealth), resistance (anarchy), social justice (reverse discrimination), and tolerance (intolerance).

Progressivism has generally succeeded in creating a few generations of snowflakes (melting babies given to tantrums) and college graduates whose degrees were expensive and useless. But nobody is complaining about higher education escalating costs and globalist indoctrination.

Progressives have been urging their followers to make everything smart (U.N. compliant), to learn to deal with water shortages (water usage control) and to plan for green growth (control and destruction of property rights).

Progressives and their U.N.-affiliated organizations have preached to impressionable youth that it is for the common good (collectivism) and advanced the cause of global citizenship (U.N.-dependent global migrant). Teachers have been quite busy attacking patriotism, nationalism, and sovereignty while promoting destruction of one’s culture and history. https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/23333-un-global-citizenship-education-plan-pushes-social-justice

Smart growth/green growth (controlling and destroying property rights) has been pushed in local communities unaware of the globalist “sustainable visioning” (global communism) and “nudged” (forced) under the guise that the community had actually demanded it and voted for it.

Free grant money from the federal and state government came with sustainability strings attached to preserve farm land (take it out of production via conservation easements). Once the farmers received free money, they were not allowed to develop their own land or produce crops on it.

Smart Growth imposed population diversity (government-mandated race and ethnic balance), encouraged in every neighborhood through HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). https://www.huduser.gov/portal/affht_pt.html

Obama’s administration combed neighborhoods to record income levels, religious affiliations, and racial and ethnic composition. If a neighborhood was not diverse enough for their liking, policies were put in place to diversify it.

Local government’s social engineering plans forced people to live in denser populated mixed-use communities on smaller tracts of land per unit in order to eliminate the need to commute to work, school, shopping, or play.

The idea behind such social engineering was that areas more densely populated have less mobility and are easier to control. It is exactly what communists did during decades of forced Stalinization, with disastrous results for the population forced off their lands into high-rise concrete block apartments.

Social engineering was amply addressed in U.N. Agenda 21 (1992) which morphed into Agenda 2030 (2015). This newer version expanded the idea that urban sprawl (suburbia) is dangerous to the environment and the planet. Their Smart Growth/Green Growth plans emphasized the implementation of walkable communities, rail trails, bike paths, “complete streets,” “strong communities,” and other visions of utopia, using various organizations such as the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the American Planning Association (APA). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

NAR is part of the Smart Growth Network which also includes the EPA, National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), American Farmland Trust, Rails to Trails Conservancy, and the State of Maryland. http://smartgrowth.org/category/partner-spotlight-archives-page/

What would Smart Growth/Green Growth do? The euphemisms behind the real concepts sound placid enough. The propaganda materials say that the community will be beautiful, well-controlled, with high-rises and shopping within biking and walking distance, a quaint ride on a trolley to the market, “wind turbines turning lazily in the background to supply all energy needs,” solar panels on every roof, no “dirty smokestacks, no cars, no parking nightmares, no gridlock, no urban sprawl, no crime, everyone lives in perfect harmony.”

As our own county advertised, “The Potomac Community Design Guidelines and Vision of a New Woodbridge have long called for mixed-use developments based on Smart Growth principles, such as transit-oriented development and connecting neighborhoods to amenities such as parks and entertainment hubs.”

The advertised “Principles of Smart Growth” happen to coincide with those of U.N. Agenda 21:

-         Mixed land use

-         Compact building design

-         Walkable neighborhoods

-         Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas (if farmland is preserved, who is going to grow food?)

-         Varied transportation choices (rail, buses, bikes, all reducing mobility for Americans who are in love with their roads and cars)

-         Less or no parking, thus forcing people to give up their cars (many “stack and pack” high-rise tiny apartments have no elevators and no parking)

-         Segregate the rich who can afford to buy expensive homes in Eco-Villages, away from “stack and pack” high rises where the poor will be housed.

Globalists want to make “holistic” decisions with land use and transportation using Smart Scale Grants, promising to alleviate congestion. All the problems in our county could be easily solved if highway 1 and I-95 would be enlarged; they are the only major roads that carry traffic for locals and for those in transit between states.

The “stack-and-pack” living in a 200 square foot aPodments high-rise in Sammamish, Washington is described by a resident who “shares the kitchen with seven other tenants on the second floor.” To get to a loft cubicle, she must climb six flights of stairs in the absence of elevators. Cars are not allowed because of global warming. The micro-apartments are smaller than a hotel room, rent for $600-900 per month, and contribute to the population density rise in the area.

According to Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center, The American Planning Association (APA) commissioned a study of Smart Growth policies and it concluded that they do not work. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944360903409584?journalCode=rjpa20

But the Smart Growth planners in your area keep telling you that you live the wrong way, you are not living the green and smart way.  And there is the nagging question, why exactly do we have to “harmonize” our local, regional, state, and federal Smart Growth development plans to fit the United Nation’s Agenda 2030? Why must we live the way the third world U.N. bureaucrats dictate?

The state and local planners receive ample grants to entice and convince them that “cities and human settlements must be made inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.”

The U.N. Agenda 2030’s sustainable goal number 11.7 supports “positive economic, social, and environmental links between urban, peri-urban, and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning.” https://una-gp.org/clancyt/files/goals/goal11.pdf

How are these global directives translating into smart growth regional or urban planning in your area? As Tom DeWeese pointed out, all you have to do is look at Portland to see the “stack and pack” smart growth results where the “complete street,” “traffic calming,” and “strong communities” are in full effect, “on one side is a vast, dense development,” with high-rise, mixed-use buildings, and “on the other side is nothing but open land.”

“The result of Portland’s grand plan is that its increased density destroyed the entire livable atmosphere of the community. Congestion is worse, housing and consumer costs are higher, and urban services, including fire, police, and schools, have declined as the city took money from these programs to subsidize high-density developers.” https://americanpolicy.org/2015/01/05/private-property-rights-and-socialism-do-not-mix/

In our county more and more apartments are crowded per acre despite the scarce highways and traffic bottlenecks; the entire area is significantly congested by condos and apartments which fill every available space that is not occupied by wildlife and state parks.

Preserving the farmland, not for agriculture purposes but placing it in private environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) trusts’ control for future generations, is locking it in “conservation easements” in perpetuity in which the landowner, according to a specific contract, must ask permission to do anything on his property.

As Tom DeWeese described, “if the Smart Growth plans are fully implemented, as advocated by the APA and NAR, density in American cities will be as much as three times higher than those currently in New York City.”

 

 

Conservation Easements in Ohio and in Montana 17 Years Ago

Amish Country, Ohio
Photo: Ileana Johnson 2015

United Nations agencies working against the economic needs and wishes of U.S. citizens compiled a blueprint for achieving Sustainable Development called U.N. Agenda 21. This 40-chapter document (about 300 pages) addresses every facet of human life and how Sustainable Development should be implemented through local, state, and federal government.

With its grant-making power (‘visioning grants’ and ‘challenge grants’) and conservation easements, the federal government promoted the Sustainable Development idea and policies to the state and local levels with the creation of an army of new community of Sustainable Development NGOs (non-government organizations) such as the American Planning Association, the Sustainable Resource Center, and the Institute for Sustainable Development.

Conservation easements, known also as conservation covenants, agricultural easements, and conservation restrictions are contracts between a landowner and a conservation organization, giving the conservation trust power over the use of the land for years or in perpetuity. Such easements “run with the land,” and present and future landowners must abide by this conservation contract which is recorded in the local land records as the easement becomes part of the title for the property.

Conservations easements include a laundry list of objectives established by the land trust and agreed to by the farmer:

-          Maintain and improve water quality (this may include onerous conditions to the farmer’s use or collection of water, including rain puddles and snowmelt)

-          Grow healthy forests

-          Maintain and improve wildlife habitat and migration corridors

-          Protect scenic views; anything the farmer may desire to build or plant/grow cannot interfere with the view shed

-          Land must be managed for sustainable agriculture and forestry as determined by the trust that holds the farmer’s conservation easement and is subject to rigorous and frequent inspections.

Real estate development and subdivisions are strictly forbidden in a conservation easement. The decision to place land under conservation easement for tax benefits is voluntary but the land can become locked in perpetuity, no matter who inherits or buys the land in question.  The restrictions placed on the land become permanent and it can reduce the resale value of the property.

In every state, the actual conservation easement contract is kept private between the land owner and the land trust.

The Ohio Department of Agriculture announced its local agricultural easements approved for purchase on June 4, 2015 for “local sponsors to purchase agricultural easements on 54 family farms representing 7,512 acres in 26 counties.”

The local sponsors included land trusts, counties, a township, and local Soil and Water Conservation Districts. They received funds to make the purchase from the Clean Ohio Fund and to manage the Local Agricultural Easement Purchase Program (LAEPP). The easement purchases are advertised as insurance that “farms remain permanently in agricultural production.” The ulterior motives are much divorced from this public statement.

Farmers who want to lock their land in such conservation easement contracts are financially rewarded and must meet certain criteria:

-          Farm must be larger than 40 acres or next to an already “preserved” farm

-          Must actively engage in farming

-          Participate in the Current Agricultural Use Valuation program

-          Prove good stewardship of the land (Farmers already take good care of their land because it represents their livelihood.)

-          Be supported by local government

-          Not be in close proximity to real estate development

-          The money received from the conservation easement purchase can be spent any way the farmer wishes; however, “most reinvest it in their farm operation.”

The Ohio Farmland Preservation program derives its funds from the Clean Ohio Conservation Fund, approved by voters in 2008. The purchase of conservation easements is made through a “competitive process” from “willing sellers.”

According to its website, there are 55,947 acres of land locked in conservation perpetuity, “preserved” under permanent easements. “From 2002-2014, 247 family farms in 53 counties have collectively preserved 45,576 acres in agricultural production.”  A list of counties approved for easements in 2015 is included here. http://www.agri.ohio.gov/public_docs/news/2015/06.04.15%20Local%20Agricultural%20Easements%20Approved%20for%20Purchase.pdf

The Office of Farmland Preservation lists the 2015 Clean Ohio LAEPP recipients by county, the specific local sponsoring land trust, the name of the farmer, Tier I or Tier II, acreage per farm, ODA’s contribution to the purchase offer in dollars, and the actual final offer. Who is supplying the difference? http://www.agri.ohio.gov/divs/FarmLand/docs/Farm_LAEPP_Final2015.pdf

I imagine that it would be hard for a farmer to turn down an offer of $500,000 to “preserve” his farming land, especially if they were strapped for cash. Often, it is difficult to see the bigger picture in the future, beyond one’s farm, and to understand that such conservation easement contracts are not just about being a good steward of your farm and of the environment. They also represent control of private property and its use.

As a matter of fact, the sample deed for the federal government states on page 18, “To HAVE AND TO HOLD the above-described Agricultural Easement to the use, benefit, and behalf of the Grantees, and the United States and their successors and assigns forever.” http://www.agri.ohio.gov/divs/FarmLand/docs/Farm_LAEPP_Approved_Sample_Deed_Federal.pdf

Here is the Local Agricultural Easement Purchase Program (LAEPP) approved sample deed for the state of Ohio. http://www.agri.ohio.gov/divs/FarmLand/docs/Farm_LAEPP_Approved_Sample_Deed_State.pdf

The Ohio Farmland Preservation Map can be found here, including agricultural easements held by ODA and Agricultural Security Areas. http://www.agri.ohio.gov/divs/FarmLand/docs/Farm_ASA_AgMap.pdf

Agricultural Security Areas (ASA) are part of a voluntary program for farmers and landowners, administered at the state level as a tool to protect farmland from the “urbanization of rural areas.” Township supervisors handle the petitions for ASA designation status. http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_24476_10297_0_43/AgWebsite/ProgramDetail.aspx?palid=10&

Sheila Stanifer, Perry Township Trustee, has a problem with these conservation easements.  According to the Ohio Revised Code 901-2-01 definitions, “‘local sponsor’ or ‘applicant’ means a municipal corporation, county, township, soil and water conservation district, or charitable organization that applies for a matching grant on behalf of the landowner.” The problem arises from the fact that ‘soil and water’ are taking the place of elected officials; charitable trusts (namely land trusts) are not elected officials either, they are land brokers working for the state government as a so-called ‘sponsor.’”

In the first and second paragraphs of the federal deed contract mentions are made of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), a government-owned and operated organization created to “stabilize, support, and protect farm income and prices, maintain balanced and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities and aids in their orderly distribution.” CCC has no operating personnel; its activity is carried out by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). The Natural Resources Conservation Service administers several conservation programs under the auspices of CCC.

CCC has an authorized capital stock of $100 million, held by the United States, with the authority to have outstanding borrowing of up to $30 billion at any one time. The 1988 Appropriation Act increased the statutory borrowing authority to $30 billion. The funds are borrowed from the U.S. Treasury and from private lending agencies. CCC reserves borrowing authority to purchase at any time all notes and other obligations made by such agencies and others. That is a lot of power over farm activities! http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsReleases?area=newsroom&subject=landing&topic=pfs&newstype=prfactsheet&type=detail&item=pf_19991101_comop_en_ccc.html

Many of these land trusts are also staffed with environmental activists who have never farmed in their lives nor have ever entertained the idea. They want the land preserved for wilderness. Additionally, it is much cheaper and easier to control densely populated urban areas than it is to control rural populations spread over vast areas.

Seventeen years ago on July 1, 1998, David F. Latham, editor of The Montanian, published a front page article titled “FWP plans big changes in hunting and rural living, Social engineering is in the works.”  The Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP) in Montana had prepared a document called the Wildlife Program Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement at a cost of $600,000.

Lincoln County commissioner at the time, Rita Windom, said that only seven meetings took place in Montana to inform citizens about the “big changes planned for the way it (FWP) manages wildlife, hunting, and rural living patterns” and she happened to have attended one of these meetings in 1992. Incidentally, 1992 is the year when U.N. Agenda 21 was signed in Rio by 179 countries, including the U.S.

Even though limited public input was permitted during poorly advertised meetings, some of which had only nine people in attendance, the ultimate decision-maker was the FWP. Windom added that the FWP document “includes plans to manipulate human populations in rural areas.”

“They are saying they want social changes. They talk about the increasing importance of environmental concerns nationally, and the increasing reliance on referendums and grass-roots politics for political change. They [FWP] say that social and economic values towards natural resources are becoming less consumptive… nationally. The emergence of the animal rights movement exemplifies national pressure to shift to a less consumptive use at state and local levels,” Windom said, referring to the FWP environmental impact statement plan.

As quoted in the front page article, Windom added that [FWP] “is going to change the use of the land and take the personal property off the land on conservation easements, which would mean ranchers and farmers could no longer use the land the way it is currently being used. That is a big departure to the way we have known conservation easements in the past.” Windom explained that “the plan would in essence tax rural property owners for the wildlife on their property.”

David F. Latham wrote that Commissioner Windom recalled how “one employee of FWP told her the plan is designed to push rural residents into urban areas.” As many residents asked hard questions, the FWP state land manager, Darlene Edge, told Lincoln County commissioner Rita Windom, “Can’t you see we are doing you a favor by forcing people to move from the rural areas into the urban areas. That way you can close roads… Why don’t you work with us and move these people out of the rural areas and into the urban areas so cities can shoulder more of the responsibilities and the county can save money?”

A quick check of the Wildlands Project Map reveals the “simulated reserve and corridor system to protect biodiversity as mandated by the Convention on Biological Diversity, The Wildland Project, U.N. and U.S. Man and Biosphere Program, and Various U.N., U.S. Heritage Programs, and Nafta.” The vast majority of U.S. land is pictured in red, with “little to no human use,” and in yellow, “buffer zones with highly regulated use.” http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/images/wildlands_map.jpg

The Convention on Biological Diversity passed the Senate Foreign Relation Committee by a vote of 16-3 on June 29, 1994. However, one hour before a scheduled vote by the Senate, “the treaty was pulled from the calendar and a vote on the treaty was never taken.”  But the Clinton administration implemented the treaty anyway through a policy called “Ecosystem Management.”  (A Short Course in Global Governance, Henry Lamb, Sovereignty International, Inc., p. 12, 2010)

David Latham wrote in the Montanian that FWP sent letters to the Amish community in the West Kootenai and had an ‘informational meeting’ to “show them that conservation easements weren’t all that bad,” said Windom. Windom expressed her frustration with the secrecy of FWP, “in my opinion they purposely didn’t disseminate these documents.”

As more and more farmers are voluntarily trapped in conservation easements for years or in perpetuity, they are finding out that the terms of the contract can be draconian, with little recourse or defense from state and local governments.

Few states like Virginia were successful in passing laws to protect farmers from the intrusion of government with U.N. Sustainable Development plans, but these laws do not go far enough. U.N. Agenda 21 goals through its Sustainable Development lynchpin have encroached private property rights like kudzu.

Note

I am grateful to David F. Latham, editor of the Montanian, who had to search his pre-digital archives to accommodate my request on such a short notice.

I am also grateful to Sheila Stanifer, Perry Township Trustee from Ohio , for her valuable research contribution (links).

COPYRIGHT: Ileana Johnson 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earth System Global Governance, The Earth Charter, and Sustainable Development

One of the influential voices of the progressive environmentalist movement is The Earth Charter. This organization emphasizes global control of everything. Here is a sampling of its charter with direct quotations.

“Respect and care for the community of life”

-          Respect Earth and life in all its diversity (Protect the delta smelt in California by dumping fresh water into the ocean while an entire state is experiencing drought?)

-          Care for the community of life with understanding, compassion, and love 

-          Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful (Is it statistically true that democratic societies are peaceful, just, and do not go to war but constitutional republic do? Where is the evidence?)

-          Secure Earth’s bounty and beauty for present and future generations (Would that be accomplished by taking arable land out of production, re-wild it, and then restrict human habitation to designated urban areas as evidenced by the Biodiversity map also known as the Wildlands Project map?) http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/images/wildlands_map.jpg

“Ecological integrity”

-          Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives (This is definitely in full swing in all the Green Growth, Smart Growth Initiatives of Agenda 21 that restrict zoning to multi-purpose high rise living, particularly in the U.S.)

-          Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being (Would U.N. decide the patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction?)

-          Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction (Who exactly decides what is responsible reproduction and what is not and how will it be enforced?)

-          Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world (Who becomes the arbiter of lifestyle and what constitute material sufficiency?)

-          Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy, and rely increasingly on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind” (Who decides what ‘restraint’ is in using energy and what is the cutoff when use is disallowed?)

 “Social and Economic Justice”

-        Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative

-        Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations (Redistribution of wealth is already underway, from producers to non-producers.)

-         Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity (This gender equality and equity seems to be working well in the Muslim world dictatorships.)

-        Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities” (If it’s universal access, isn’t it discriminatory to give special attention to certain groups? What kind of ‘right of all’ are they talking about?)

“Democracy, Nonviolence, and Peace”

-        Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development (Empower youth to do what with sustainable development?)

-        Treat all living beings with respect and consideration (Would animals receive lawyers to make sure humans treat animals with ‘respect and consideration?’)

-        Demilitarize national security system to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration (Who decides what constitutes levels of non-provocative defense posture and how military resources will be converted to peaceful purposes?)

-        Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html

And who is going to do all this global governance (control) of the Earth through sustainable development, the lynchpin of U.N. Agenda 21? United Nations, of course, run by none other than third world nations, the very beneficiaries of this wealth redistribution through “justice and peace” scheme.

I would not exactly call wealth confiscation from the producers to the non-producers “justice” or “peaceful.” I would call it unjust and coercive seizure of earned wealth under the guise of saving the planet from a non-existent   environmental meltdown. The constant loud rhetoric coming from the progressive main stream media, academia, and crony capitalists has created a very rich and lucrative climate change industry worth trillions.

“In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.”

On the occasion of the Earth Charter’s 15 years of sustainable global governance indoctrination, the Earth Charter is planning activities and propaganda around the globe to push further its “universal ethical principles of sustainable development under the slogan, “One Earth Community, One Common Destiny” and the banner “Earth Charter +15.”

The Earth Charter was launched on June 29, 2000 in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. The partners of the Earth Charter are listed here. http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Partners.html Council members listed oversee the work of the Earth Charter Secretariat. http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Council.html The Earth Charter Secretariat staff is listed here. http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Secretariat%20Staff

Mikhail Gorbachev, the co-author of The Earth Charter wrote, “I envisage the principles of The Earth Charter to be a new form of the Ten Commandments. They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community.” The citizens of various countries who believe in the Biblical Ten Commandments must reorient their entire lives to fit this new directive of progressive global governance.

According to the United Nations Commission on Global Governance, “Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions, and up through to the United Nations itself.” What a neat Ponzi scheme of wealth redistribution in the name of saving the Earth from man-made Armageddon!

If you wonder about this new world order, here is a simple explanation how they are doing it. “The alternative to the existing world order can only emerge as a result of a new human dimension of progress. We envision a revolution of the mind, a new way of thinking,” said Mikhail Gorbachev at the State of the World Forum. Schools have been quite busy in the last forty years indoctrinating children into the global governance new way of thinking and the global citizen mindset.

The 2015 Canberra Conference on Earth System Governance, “Democracy and Resilience in the Anthropocene,”  will offer a Summer School on Earth System Governance (December 9-12, 2015) and an excursion to Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve (December 13, 2015).

According to the Smithsonian, “Anthropocene has become an environmental buzzword ever since the atmospheric chemist and Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen popularized it in 2000.” Environmental activists have blamed “man” (anthropo) and “new” (cene) for causing extinction of plants and animals and polluting the planet through man’s industrial revolution, having changed the atmosphere and the climate irreversibly.  http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-is-the-anthropocene-and-are-we-in-it-164801414/#RApVwdO4tHMSkqrT.99

The newest title in the Earth System Governance series is available from MIT Press, “Consensus and Global Environmental Governance: Deliberative Democracy in Nature’s Regime,” exploring “the practical and conceptual implications of juristic democracy as a new approach to international environmental governance.” More global governance publications and abstracts can be found at www.earthsystemgovernance.org/publications

If you are wondering what “juristic democracy” is and what it has to do with the environment, you are not alone. I don’t think that “consensus” has a place in science and science reasoning; “consensus” means general agreement of opinion, it is not a scientific fact.

According to its website, “The Earth System Governance Project is the largest social science research network in the area of governance and global environmental change.”  The researchers include “social and natural scientists.” http://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/

The Sustainable Development buzz word that is now used in every facet of our lives has been defined in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development (also known as the Brundtland Commission) report titled ‘Our Common Future.’ Sustainable Development is “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

United Nations agencies working against the economic needs and wishes of U.S. citizens compiled a blueprint for achieving sustainable development called U.N. Agenda 21. This 40 chapter document (about 300 pages) addresses every facet of human life and how sustainable development should be implemented through local, state, and federal government. With its grant-making power (‘visioning grants’ and ‘challenge grants’) and conservation easements (lower taxes in exchange for taking land out of agricultural use or any use for several years or in perpetuity) , the federal government promoted the sustainable development idea and policies to the state and local levels with the creation of an army of new community of sustainable development NGOs (non-government organizations) such as the American Planning Association, the Sustainable Resource Center, and the Institute for Sustainable Development. There is not one level of government left in the U.S. or university that does not have a Sustainable Development plan in place or a degree program that involves the phrase Sustainable Development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freedom to Farm or Bust

Martha Boneta at Liberty Farm
Photo credit: Susan Lider

Virginia, like many other states, offers land preservation tax credits of $100 million a year.  Land preservation tax credits are tied to conservation easements which are binding agreements between a land preservation trust (usually a NGO) and a farmer who receives tax breaks in exchange for “legally restricting future development of their property” for a number of years or in perpetuity, as specified in the contract.

Martha Boneta, who was instrumental in passing the two bills now dubbed Boneta Bill-1 and Boneta Bill-2, bought a farm that had a conservation easement which was administered by the Piedmont Environmental Council, a non-governmental organization, and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, a state government agency.

The Piedmont Environmental Council is a conservation group that holds 51 easements on 7,600 acres of land in Virginia. According to Kevin Mooney, when Boneta bought her farm in 2006, “she did not receive either tax breaks or money.”

Boneta purchased her 64-acre Liberty Farm in Paris, Virginia, from the Piedmont Environmental Council with the easement already in place from the previous owner. For eight years, Boneta fought the PEC’s frequent farm and intrusive closet inspections, video and photographic surveillance, and other forms of excessive harassment.

Bryant Osborn wrote in Culpeper Star Exponent, “Martha has charged that PEC has trespassed repeatedly on her farm and has attempted to drive her off the farm through unwarranted and overly invasive conservation easement inspections, and an IRS audit she says was instigated by one of PEC’s board members.”

Susan Lider said in a press release, “PEC was caught on video engaging in abusive inspections that involved interrogations and demands to inspect closets, attics, and even photographing the farmer’s laundry.”

The Boneta Bill 1, HB 268, which became law in Virginia with bipartisan support on July 1, 2014, protects “certain activities at agricultural operations from local regulation in the absence of substantial impacts on the public welfare.” This is meant to protect farmers like Martha from intrusive local governments that can go to excessive lengths to harass and prevent an honest farmer from engaging in simple farm activities such as growing organic vegetables, selling sheared wool, and jars of honey.

The Boneta Bill 2, HB 1488, which passed both houses in February 2015, and is awaiting the governor’s action by March 29, 2015, “allows a landowner or other party to a conservation easement to request that the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation use the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act to resolve a dispute relating to the interpretation of the easement.” If and when the bill is signed by the governor, it would control land trusts that currently have few standards, predictability, accountability, consistency, or transparency.

Martha Boneta’s farm has been in the crosshairs of PEC from the beginning but she has not given up. After a November 6, 2014 hearing in front of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, a motion to take over all easement enforcement, if both Martha Boneta and PEC agreed, resulted in a trustee vote of 6-0 to approve a resolution. The VOF was chartered by the Virginia General Assembly in 1966 to promote land conservation and to monitor easements.

If you might think that Boneta’s troubles are over, you would be wrong.  Kevin Mooney reported that, on December 10, 2014, the PEC’s attorney sent an email to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation declining the amendment proposed by VOF on grounds that it “would likely confer improper private benefits” to Martha Boneta.

In the face of this “preposterous” claim, Bonner Cohen of the National Center for Public Policy said, “For eight years, she has been subjected to harassment and humiliation by the PEC’s reckless enforcement of the easement, and she has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending herself. Whatever the original intent of Virginia’s conservation easement statute, the PEC’s well-documented deplorable behavior calls out for the General Assembly to reform the program, lest other landowners be subjected to the hell she has gone through.”

Back to square one, Martha Boneta refiled a lawsuit in Fauquier County Circuit Court on March 4, 2015 against PEC, the non-profit land trust in which she alleges that “PEC colluded with realtors and government officials to issue zoning citations against her property in order to force her into selling her farm.” Martha Boneta had withdrawn the original lawsuit in order to allow the opportunity of mediation. Since the mediation has failed, she refiled her lawsuit.

According to a press release of March 5, 2015, “Martha also is considering filing a second lawsuit at the federal level against PEC, based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, commonly known as RICO.”



Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson portrait taken at a Spotsylvania County farm on April 26, 1863, seven days before his mortal wounding at the Battle of Chancellorsville, Virginia   Photo: Wikipedia image

New evidence emerged that constitutes the basis of the federal RICO lawsuit. In the signed and filed versions of the easement, PEC makes the claim that Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, the Confederate War General, encamped on Martha’s property on the evening of July 18, 1861. According to the press release, “Historical accounts of Jackson’s movements in Fauquier County place the encampment at another location.” https://books.google.com/books?id=IZI_y8Td5HUC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=%22STonewall+Jackson%22+Paris%2c+Virginia%22&source=bl&ots=2fmgq8IkxJ&sig=CWgTBXszYAzp-eejTIl_M-OHFC8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ujzTVMbZLMehgwTAkYPQBw&ved=0CGgQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=%22STonewall%20Jackson&f=false

The press release continues, PEC “makes a similar historical claim about Jackson’s whereabouts in the easement documents it has associated with Ovoka Farm, also located in Paris, but on a separate parcel of land from Liberty Farm.”  https://vof.app.box.com/s/tycexiapro4vhkl9smsvflfwp7oae7kd/1/2913997329/24711587393/1

This historical connection with Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson hyped the price of Liberty Farm beyond its actual value, thus Boneta paid $425,000 in 2006. She lost revenue for two years when she was told to fence off 18 acres of the Oak Grove section of the property where no farming was allowed because of the stated connection with the now-debunked historical encampment.

Stay tuned for the next development from Liberty Farm, Virginia, where a determined American is fighting for her farming rights and indirectly ours against a well-funded environmental goliath.

Copyright: Ileana Johnson 2015

Time to Counter Land Trust Abuse Against Farmers

A chapter is dedicated to Martha's story.

Tired of land trust agents frequently abusing the public trust and the rights of property owners, Tom DeWeese, President of the American Policy Center, Martha Boneta, owner of Liberty Farm in Paris, Virginia and other major property rights advocates are organizing a property rights rally, conference, and an early morning hearing before the Virginia Outdoors Federation on November 6, 2014 in Richmond, Virginia at the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

“It’s time to counter the powerful Green voices that are dictating policy and harassing property owners,” said Tom DeWeese in an open letter to the American public.

Farmers are demanding land trust reform to stop abusive practices of land trust agents who often disregard the rights of property owners and use local officials to intimidate and harass farmers with onerous fines and audits. A glaring example is the video showing a Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) agent who, in a German Stasi police manner, demands to inspect Martha Boneta’s closets.  http://youtube.com/watch?v=LAywKw93ucs

According to Tom DeWeese, “The Piedmont Environmental Council, an elitist cabal masquerading as a conservation group, has repeatedly overstepped its authority under the Virginia Conservation Easement Act.”

The fact that PEC was successful in bullying for eight years Fauquier County farmer Martha Boneta in spite of the well-publicized and well-documented “transgressions” against her farm is an indication that other “control and power-hungry groups” could violate property rights of Virginians across the Commonwealth and of Americans across the country.

Allowing the public trust to be violated in one area is setting a bad precedent for other well-funded groups like PEC to impose their control and will through underhanded venues on farmers, landowners and businesses in general as has been the case around the country.

Preserving private property and the rule of law in our nation is essential to safeguarding liberty.  If the rule of law is no longer respected, the Founding Fathers’ America is in jeopardy. “The first act of a tyrant is to take away your property rights,” said DeWeese.

Virginians and the American Policy Center are calling for:

-          The General Assembly to enact Land Trust Reforms “to end welfare to the rich in the form of sale of tax credits”

-          Virginia General Assembly to create Land Trust “fair business practices, consumer protections, and sanctions when Land Trust abuse occurs”

-          Virginia General Assembly to develop a “framework” to safeguard the public interest against Land Trust agents who engage in malicious and counterproductive business practices

-          Legislation enactment by the Virginia General Assembly to curb and “reign” in abuses of the Piedmont Environmental Council and other analogous land trusts.

I dedicated a chapter to Martha Boneta’s story in my book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy.” http://www.amazon.com/U-N-Agenda-21-Environmental-Piracy-ebook/dp/B009WC6JXO/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2/186-3038350-6259617?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414163958&sr=1-1&keywords=UN+Agenda+21%3A+Environmental+Piracy

The glaring, behind closed doors collusion is evident in Martha’s ordeal which has stretched for eight years. The Daily Signal ran her story recently. http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/20/farmers-harassment-claim-against-green-group-to-get-airing/

It is vitally important to protect our property rights in a Constitutional Republic. Unfortunately, the left brainwashed our society into believing that we live in a democracy where the will of the leftist majority is forcing the rest to comply. But we live more and more in a corporatist atmosphere where the international bankers have stripped individuals of their rights bit by bit with the help of “green” legislators and environmentalist NGOs.

As John Adams so eloquently said, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as 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.” (John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787)