Smart Growth, destroy traditional homes
National Heritage Sites and Agenda 21
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
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:
- Did they vote out of ignorance?
- Did they not understand the issue on the ballot?
- 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.”
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. 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 can not 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.
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.”