Humans have always desired to own a piece of land that could be passed on to their heirs. Once they acquired property for homestead or farming, men labored on their land under the assumption that it was theirs to keep in perpetuity.
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 in 1992. 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.
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 by Dr. Ileana
Johnson Paugh <http://www.amazon.com/U-N-Agenda-21-Environmental-Piracy/dp/0615716474/ref=sr_1_1/181-00
105954429868?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,
Colorado. 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 a $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.
The 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.
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.
Source: Canada Free Press, Private
Property Rights Under Attack by Comprehensive Land Use Plans by Dr.
Ileana Johnson Paugh, March 4, 2014. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/61542
http://canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/ileana030414.jpg
Comments:
In all States, Agenda 21 federal bribes and threats
encouraged States to created Regional Commissions, with appointed board
members. In California, these
commissions were legally authorized by hapless environmentally brainwashed
voters decades ago. Now they are doing their damage.
In Alabama, the legislature banned Agenda 21
implementation when they discovered how damaging it was.
In Georgia, we voters didn’t take the bait and voted NO
on the T-SPLOST in 2012 in 9 of 12 regions, but Gov. Deal has refused to
entertain legislation to remove tyrannical powers for regional commissions
offered in HB 195.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment