Our Region/Our Plan Will Need Some “Useful Idiots”

Every power grab in history enlisted legions of ‘useful idiots.’ So, too, is it that those who would diminish the right to private property, in particular, and capitalism, in general, recruit the feeble-minded to support their cause.

---

Those who would diminish the U.S. as a bastion of liberty and wealth creation, have a new tool --- Agenda 21. Agenda 21 was underwritten by the United Nations as part of their 1992 Earth Summit, when they adopted this concept developed by G. H. Brundtland, a vice president of the World Socialist Party. The concept espouses the side-stepping of federal governments at the outset, and enticement of state and local groups and municipalities to impose severe changes to building restrictions and property ownership in the name of “Protecting Mother Earth.” Sounds innocent and worthy, doesn’t it? The current administration in Washington, as well as those past, have supported Agenda 21 in one way or another, either knowingly or without clear knowledge of what is at play.

---

---

Here are a couple of examples of how ‘useful idiots’ have aided and abetted those activists who would do harm to our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness:

I. Delta Smelt vs. Joaquin Valley farmers

A 2006 lawsuit by the Natural Resource Defense Council found a useful idiot judge who ruled that a small fish, called the Delta Smelt, needed protection. In the spring of 2007, they found a useful idiot in the California Department of Water Resources who severely limited the use of water pumps to prevent the Smelt from being sucked up in large numbers. This dramatically reduced the amount of water available to the Joaquin Valley farmers. The result has been:

1. the loss of billions of dollars in farm products,
2. the disappearance of countless thousands of jobs from the most vulnerable segment of our population,
3. the evaporation of many millions of dollars in wealth held by farmers ( land values),
4. the loss of significant amounts of tax revenues to the state and local municipalities.

Spotted Owl vs. Northwest Lumber Industry

Another erstwhile environmental group found a useful idiot group of lawyers who lobbied the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to put the Spotted Owl on the endangered species list. The restrictions which followed in their name, destroyed the lumber industry in the Northwest. That area had shipped 86 million board feet per year in the 1980s and employed upwards of 28,000 people. Only 100,000 board feet were shipped in 1992, and the area has recovered to only 12 million board feet since. Many thousands of families in related industries have been displaced and financially ruined. Also, tens of millions of dollars in wealth have been destroyed through the loss of leasehold values. Local tax revenues have likewise disappeared. These are just two examples of past abuses. The results they have in common are the trampling of constitutional liberties, deprivation of civil rights and the theft of personal wealth, all through the misuse of government power. All these are results one should expect from Agenda 21 activities. The avowed grand scheme of Agenda 21 is to rescue Mother Earth from Humankind, by restricting development to very limited spaces and returning most property to Mother Earth in ‘protected areas’ (i.e., wilderness areas). This will be done by useful idiots who sign on to implement plans under the banners of environmentalism, smart growth, sustainable development, efficient transportation use, energy conservation, alternative fuels promotion, water quality protection and a few more friendly-sounding terms.

South Carolina's Tri-county “Our Region/Our Plan” proposal

Now, to South Carolina comes the tri-county “Our Region/Our Plan” proposal, covering Berkeley, Dorchester and Charleston counties. Clearly, a step-child of Agenda 21. At the intellectual level, one has to wonder why three different counties, which occasionally compete for population, jobs and resources, would want to cede the planning for their individual futures, to one super-ordinate planning organization. In my opinion, this could be interpreted as an abdication of the responsibility to seek the best futures for their respective populations. If his first exposure to this plan were the 8/23 meeting in Mount Pleasant, one would be appalled by how centrally-controlled the session was. Tables of 7 or 8 with a plan facilitator at each, ensured a careful steering of comments and conclusions. Absolutely no public questions of any substance were permitted, so critics of the plan were effectively muzzled. Confidence in the plan’s community participation was, therefore, undermined. Confidence was further undermined after reading that the key community input was limited to only 100 persons. A study encompassing the futures of nearly 700,000 current, and an additional 200,000 future region residents should have involved many more, randomly selected participants as a representative sample from different sectors, interacting in an open forum of give and take. The small number of participants in the study should reasonably raise concerns of the independence and reliability of the study’s results. The plan proposes limiting economic development to areas with existing infrastructure for transportation, utilities, water and public services, while discouraging commuting trips. It further proposes the development of regulations consistent with the vision for predictable outcomes. In essence, the plan proposes little, if any, expansion beyond areas already developed. If such types of proposals were implemented in the past, we might not have Highway 526 or North Charleston and probably many other economics-driven developments, not to mention, the many jobs which go along with such expansion. Lest there by any doubt about the true objectives of the plan sponsors, look at some of the primary goals listed in the plan:

• protect water resources
• protect air quality
• promote sustainable communities
• promote use of green technology
• reduce reliance on carbon fuels
• encourage use of renewable energy
• create transfer of development rights to protect rural areas and open space.

This last one should raise the hairs on the back of any local official’s neck. In plain English, the right to develop private property will be transferred to some central authority. This is worse than eminent domain, in that owners will still be obliged to pay taxes and see to the proper care of their land, but will not be able to legally develop it as they see fit. That would mean a loss of wealth and capital creation for the individual and his/her family, as the limitation of development options, of necessity, reduces property values. Think about it! Why would any thinking individual or organization want to commit capital to an area which puts such limits on property rights and business expansion? I don’t see how the planners can forecast 69,000 new households (about 210,000 in population) with a clearly unfriendly business environment in the future that they propose. The plan suggests four possible development paths. On reading the plan, the core proposals for each plan are the same, save the amount of acreage to be ‘protected.’ Make no mistake, if the planning and implementation group gets agreement on any of the four, the end result will be mission creep and ultimate implementation of the most aggressive scenario. The “green” content suggests that the plan is the creation of environmental (Agenda 21) zealots. As we see from the examples provided above, the beat of such zealots is relentless. Plans of this ilk require useful idiots to promote them and to allow for the usurpation of local authority as well as the abdication of local planning responsibility before they can be successfully moved forward, Let’s all hope that we do not have any such types in our several government levels within the 3 counties and that we will not elect any in the future. Roger O’Sullivan, Mount Pleasant, S.C.

---