ALLIANCE FOR CITIZENS RIGHTS

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING:
A series of articles for The Beacon newspaper covering Shelby and other Alabama Counties' move toward Comprehensive Planning and what it means for the long term.
by Don Casey

Article 1- Does God have a "comprehensive plan?"

If Second Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works," is true then it would behoove every citizen to relate state and local "comprehensive planning" to First Samuel chapter eight. In that chapter the representatives of the people informed Samuel that a new policy shall be instituted. They called for a new "common vision" for the "future," an "earthly king" to rule over them.

Samuel responded, informing them that an earthly king "will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to till his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive groves, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your best young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and you shall be his servants. And you shall cry out in that day because of your king which you shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day." (1 Samuel 8:11-18)

From Samuel's time until the shot heard 'round the world in 1776, the earth was ruled by earthly kings. That shot signified a new "policy statement," refuting the earthly standard. The colonist declared that Jesus was the only true King, hence the slogan of that period: "No King But King Jesus." American society in the 1700's recognized that when Jesus is on the Throne, government becomes a servant of the people. Its new role was to protect the inalienable (God given) rights of the people. Maintaining that high plateau established in 1776 requires vigilance. Unfortunately, vigilance has waned over the years taking a decided nosedive since 1945.

"Comprehensive planning" at the local and state level is accelerating this downward spiral. "Comprehensive planning" is a "policy statement" of the State or community. To confirm the validity of that statement submit the phrase "comprehensive plan" and "policy statement" to any search engine. The internet search engine "Google" was used for this query. The search confirmed that town after town across this country is in the process of instituting a new "policy statement" through the "planning process".

Webster defines "policy" in the following statement: "policy is now more generally used to denote what is included under legislation and administration, and may be defined, the art or manner of governing a nation; or that system of measures which the sovereign of a country adopts and pursues, as best adapted to the interests of the nation. Thus we speak of domestic policy, or the system of internal regulations in a nation;..."

Thus it is established that a community's "comprehensive plan" is an important document. The Declaration of Independence was merely a piece of paper until the rebellion threw off the yoke of tyranny. The meeting between Samuel and the elders probably began with a written declaration. Both were "statements" of the people expressing a desired objective.

In similar fashion the Athens, Alabama "comprehensive plan on page 1-2 expresses the desires of the community - "...this Plan is intended to be a guide in decision making by providing goals, policies and maps which identify a vision, and then set forth tools that can be used to implement this vision." The "Plan provides a common vision for the community."[1] This should leave no doubt that the community intends to set a new course.

This course will strip the residents of Athens and other communities that follow them of their inalienable rights.

Hobbling the rights of property owners is the first order of business for the Athens "Plan". Page 2-4 paragraph 2.5.1 says the city through the plan will "reserve sufficient land areas in appropriate locations" for "residential and non residential growth that is 'forecast' in this plan." Growth will occur when and where the city government determines.

How many people will be allowed to live in each section of town is covered under "Carrying capacity" as spelled out in this quote from paragraph B on page 4-12:

"The intensity of residential development should be appropriately related to the ability of the land to accommodate that development without jeopardizing the health of safety of future occupants, and without adversely affecting the surrounding built and natural environments. Specifically, the developer proposals should correspond and be consistent with the sustainability policies..."

The community assumed the role of soothsayer - providing for the "health" and "safety" of "future occupants". Determining "the ability of the land to accommodate" development is not the responsibility of government. The course set by the Athens Plan deviates from the 1901 Alabama Constitution Article 1 Section 35 and ultimately leads to oppression and tyranny.

How man interacts with the environment: Section 2.5.2 page 2-5 will regulate and control actions that are determined by the city to adversely effect the environment.

Example: "The use of native plant materials is encouraged. The planting heights and sizes of various materials shall be sufficient to insure their sense of presence and mitigate the micro climate impacts caused by the proposed development." [page 4-33]

The Athens plan, as well as others in communities across the country, that have not included social and moral issues in their "plan" will change as society progresses towards the new vision. House Bill 309, introduced by Representative Dukes from Decatur, Alabama, would ensure that all "comprehensive plans" in the State of Alabama include such standards.

That Bill mandates that a community's comprehensive plan: "promote morals and order". Neither "morals" nor "order" can be defined without a religious doctrine of some kind as a foundation. An atheistic society such as the Soviet Union elevated the mind of man to the status of religion establishing "morals and order" from the end of a gun barrel. Turning our collective backs on the wisdom in the first two paragraphs will put us at the wrong end to that gun.
Footnotes:
1. page 1-1 of the Athens Comprehensive Plan
Article 1

Article 2 - Reader responds to Legislative Update

A recently published legislative update for Alabama House Bill 309, sponsored by Representative Dukes from Decatur, states the bill would require city councils across Alabama to officially adopt a "policy statement" commonly referred to as a "comprehensive plan".

The following is a brief overview of the bill:

For communities - "The plan at a minimum, shall include:

Ø      a land use element,

Ø      a public and community facilities element, and

Ø      a transportation element."

"Additional elements which may be considered for inclusion in the comprehensive plan include, but are not limited to:

Ø      elements for community design,

Ø      housing,

Ø      parks and recreation,

Ø      solid waste,

Ø      economic development,

Ø      redevelopment,

Ø      environmental protection, and

Ø      utilities."

[line 26 through 6 pages 9 and 10]

"The (comprehensive) plan shall be made with the general purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the community and its environs which will, in accordance with present and future needs, best promote:

Ø      health,

Ø      safety,

Ø      morals,

Ø      order,

Ø      convenience,

Ø      prosperity and general welfare as well as....

Ø      adequate provision for light and air,....

Ø      and convenient distribution of population,"

[line 1 through 11 page 11] (format added)

Also affecting counties with large population the proposed bill provides the following:

"(b) No map or plat of any subdivision shall be recorded, and no property shall be sold referenced to such the map or plat, until and unless it has been first submitted to and approved by the county engineer...." [lines 20 through 9 pages 14 and 15]

The article prompted the following from a real estate professional in north Florida:

"If you want to see what this leads to I suggest that you get copies of the rules and regulations that govern GROWTH MANAGEMENT in Florida. You can't remove a tree, clear any land, or anything without a permit. We are trying to develop a small tract of land. We have had to hire an environmental specialist to go over the land looking for endangered species, then we had to pay another one to go through the property to see if there were any protected trees. We have been five years getting the plan through the county red-tape and this is a rural subdivision of acre lots with paved streets. The last flap was over building sidewalks on both sides of the street. But to show you how the graft and coercion comes into play, they would have given us permission to build the subdivision without sidewalks, IF WE WOULD CONTRIBUTE ONE-HALF THE COST TO A SIDEWALK FUND they have. These funds are then used to put sidewalks in other areas that do not have them, areas where they allowed development but did not require sidewalks. In my opinion, the government agencies are the biggest extortionist going and the regulations being proposed for Alabama will put the landowners right up to their necks in battles with the NO GROWTH PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS.

"In 1990, CITIZENS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS was formed in an effort to combat the restrictive land use laws. We were very successful in fighting them, but were not able to stop them. In 1993 the Private Property Protection Act of Florida was submitted to the State legislature. This would have protected private property to a very large extent. It passed both houses of the Florida Legislature, but was vetoed by then Governor, Lawton Chiles. He appointed a study commission that went around the state in 1994 getting opinions, but the commission was made up, primarily by anti-growth and environmentalists from Florida Audubon, Sierra Club, 1000 Friends of Florida, etc.

"It was no wonder that the recommendations that came out of the commission was to restrain growth by imposing increasing restrictions that would become more and more expensive to meet. This pushed land values from around $800 an acre in 10 acre tracts to the current price of about $5,000 per acre. Of course most people, particularly young people starting out could not afford these prices. But the real purpose was RURAL CLEANSING. The proponents admitted that 'THEY WANTED TO GET PEOPLE OFF THE LAND AND PUT THEM IN CITIES.' This usually means subsidized housing that turns into ghettos and havens for crime. Take a look at some of the cities in Florida for what you are in for.

"Fortunately, by 1995 we had pushed property rights to the forefront of the debate and we had some friends in the Legislature. Bert Harris, who had helped us in 1993, agreed to take the bill and push it. In 1995 a watered down version of the 1993 bill was passed as the Bert Harris Property Rights Act. While it did provide some protection, it was a far cry from what we needed. But in his words, the original bill would not pass in the Legislature due to the political power of its opponents, we should take what we could get and try to expand on it in future years. We got behind him and passed the bill, but we have tried to amend it every year since. We have been successful in getting only minor changes to it. Now I wish we had held out and marshaled all our forces to push the original bill. But that is hindsight.

"If you are not familiar with the UN Agenda 21 proposals for control of land use, and both the Socialist and Communist planks, you need to read up on them. If you can get the members of the Legislature to understand this is just one step in the overall effort to take control of land-use in America, you might be able to defeat the bill. But understand, this is part of the SUSTAINABLE AMERICA agenda, and the PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT that was created by President Clinton are hard at work to implement this throughout America. I am a little surprised that has not been targeted before now. You might also dig up a copy of the proposed Land Use Regulations developed by the American Planners Association and adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development two years ago. It spells out the methods they plan to use for FEDERAL LAND USE AND ZONING. It appears to me that state and local planning organizations are to be used only as IMPLEMENTERS to do the bidding of the federal government and they will have little to say about what happens in their states and counties. That is how it works, land control incrementally."

Just a reminder that under the new reality "freedom of choice" will mean: "People should be able to choose where they live and do business, as long as they pay the identifiable costs of those choices and do not impose unaccounted for cost on other people or nature, now or in the future"[1]

Please contact Representative Dukes and express your views regarding his bill. Home phone 256 353 1725. Montgomery phone 334 242 7689
Footnotes:
1. Page 73 of "Under Construction Tools and Techniques for Local Planning". The publication is available on line at the following website sponsored by the State of Minnesota -
http://server.admin.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=2910. Free copies are available.
Article 2

Article 3 - An Oregon man reports on Comprehensive Planning

Comprehensive planning, the policy statement for future development and redevelopment for communities, is moving across Alabama and gaining momentum. Birmingham, Athens and Cullman have adopted or are in the process of adopting an official "comprehensive plan". Residents of Alabama have the advantage of reading first hand accounts from communities in other parts of the country that have developed and officially adopted their "plans" and are now forced to live with the "implementation ordinances". The following is from an Oregon reader describing what "central planning/comprehensive planning" has done for his community.

"Regionalism exists around Portland, which is 370 miles from where I live. We live in a different time zone and have no media connection to the Portland area. I do know that they have combined some counties and formed a regional taxing and planning zone, with elected regional government. It probably exists elsewhere in the state but to lesser degrees. Land use planning and light rail transportation coordination were used as the grab issues in Portland. They have the most restrictive laws in the Nation, I believe. They have planned communities that kind of put all the peons in their place while the kings live in the penthouses. They have priced most people out of homes and created a mammoth need for public housing. All part of the game, I suppose.

"I live in a remote part of the state. There have been regional committees formed for economic development; there are some mutual support regions for public safety issues and there are education regions, of which Oregon has nine, I believe. Funds flow from the state to the regions to individual school districts. Local school boards only do what they are told to do and handle personnel matters. There is no local control at all. The school board is actually an enforcer of regional and state policy."

"It all started with the land use laws passed in 1973. It took a couple years for the laws to be implemented and to get the local governments to comply with them. In thirty years, I've been in court three times over land use issues and have lost each time, once having taken my case all the way to the top cop in the state."

"Not only do we have serious restrictions on urban growth, farmland cannot be divided. Only one dwelling allowed on a farm, unless the other housing is for farm labor. A farm is only a farm, if it can produce $80,000 in revenue (this figure changes each year). There are acreage restrictions also. One house per 160 acres unless it is rangeland, in which case it is one residence per 360 acres. These are general terms, because when local planning officials and boards get a hold of an issue, they always make use as restrictive as the law allows, rather than interpret the laws to grant the owner the greater use and value of their land. Appeals take years and can cost tens of thousand of dollars. More recently, they have made appeal possible by e-mail because of time distance from our side of the state to the capital. However, I know of no one who has successfully appealed a decision by a local board.

"I'm hoping for a change if our economy continues to sour. If it gets bad enough that the politicians start to suffer, I'm thinking there might be some changes.

"To say regionalism is Communism is probably correct. It could be said that Oregon is Communism as well."
Alabama residents would do well to listen to this voice of experience.
Article 3

Article 4 - A South Carolinian reports on the devastating effects of Comprehensive Planning

The following summarizes this columnist's last two articles - eyewitness accounts from Florida and Oregon residents describing how local "comprehensive planning" is effecting their way of life:

Ø      local elected government has been replaced with regional government.

Ø      regional transportation authorities mandate land control.

Ø      artificial land shortage created by local or regional zoning laws escalated the price of land to the point where only the rich can afford property - the dwindling middle class are forced into public housing.

Ø      require local school boards to answer to higher governmental authority rather than local citizen control.

Enacted zoning laws that:

Ø      prevent subdividing farmland, thus preventing the property owner from utilizing his property to his benefit.

Ø      restrict farms to 160 acres and one house.

Ø      require farms to earn a minimum of $80,000 per year. This figure can be changed by an appointed board and must be 70% of the landowners income.

Ø      restrict land use that is not classified as a farm (160 acres) to one house per 360 acres.

Ø      prevent cutting a tree on your own property without a permit.

Ø      require the land owner to hire a certified environmental specialist to inventory your property for endangered or threatened species. If any are found you may be required to mitigate - pay for any damage that may occur to the plant or animal. An appointed committed or quasi-governmental body will set the fee.

Ø      From the Gulf coast to the Pacific coast the results are the same - a loss of inalienable rights. The following account from South Carolina rounds out the eyewitness accounts of this wholesale giveaway.

"Just Follow the Green"
By Bill McClanahan

"When my wife and I retired, we finally realized our lifelong dream - to have a farm in 'Lower' Richland County, SC, where we could grow baby horses and hay, and nurture any little critter that happens to be passing by. We were ready because our only big debt, our land, was also our greatest asset.

"Then downzoning came along. Suddenly, we are painfully aware that our life savings - the equity in our land - is at risk. Richland County Council is finalizing our new Land Development Code to implement our "Town and Country 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Vision Plan," which will place our only investment, our farm, squarely in a Preservation/Agricultural Zoning District, and our taxes have been raised sky-high. Most of our neighbors are in the same boat.

"A Conservation Commission has been created to manage land we want to 'voluntarily' conserve, by giving ownership or control of it to the County, and a 'Hospitality' tax was passed to provide funding for it. A local land trust, Palmetto Conservation Foundation (PCF), was hired to advise the Conservation Commission which of our properties they find the most desirable, and they were also paid to do the land use study for the new zoning that will make us easy prey.

"Downzoned land has little value, and tough times will create many 'willing sellers.' Most farmers have only their property as their 401-K. They're already struggling to make a living on land that has not had rain for years, and to pay for sick children without health insurance.

"Non-profit groups like PCF, Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, American Farmland Trust, and Sierra Club all over this country are helping craft zoning laws that will rob our heirs of their inheritance and rob us and our friends of our rights. These groups want our land, or at least control of it, in the name of conservation, and County Councils like ours are giving it to them.

"The state of SC made this all possible, and is still helping them. In 1994, our legislature passed a Comprehensive Planning Act which, on the face of it, did not alarm our elected officials. It encouraged each county to write a comprehensive land use plan which included certain elements, such as population, natural resources, transportation, and housing statistics. Now, of course, when we read it, it is glaringly obvious that it embraces a concept called "Smart Growth," which essentially forces all the people into areas that already have infrastructure, and downzones everything outside those areas to a near-valueless status.

"Next came the Conservation Bank Act, which will take as much as a million dollars a week for ten years from our state funds, and give it to these same land trusts who are writing all the laws, so they can buy rights or title cheaply to our downzoned land. Once acquired, the land will belong to these private trusts, even though the taxpayers paid for it, and can be sold or developed by them, with a simple majority vote of the Bank Board. Funding this bank takes what little hope is left from struggling rural families who are fighting land grabs like Town and Country, and dashes it on the rocks of the nearest 'preservation area.' Ten years from now, when it's all over, most beloved country folk will be gone, and their land may well have been developed by the people who 'conserved' it.

"Now that the economy has fallen on hard times, the legislature is trying to take out this money and apply it where it's really needed. But these powerful, rich, land trusts are lobbying heavily, using our money (non-profits don't pay taxes), and its going to be very hard to undo what is already done. The Nature Conservancy, the Conservation Bank's most vocal supporter, reported an annual revenue of over $784 million to the SC Secretary of State, with expenditures of $393 million.

"Farmers can't afford high-dollar lobbyists, but they're the strength of this nation. They love their God, families, country, land, and each other. Many are war veterans. Most are senior citizens. I am one of them.

"America needs to allow us to continue to be the stewards of our own land, as we have been for generations, and let the private 'land protection' groups raise their own money and cut their own deals, without the help of stifling 'comprehensive' zoning restrictions. That will be fair, and it is the financially responsible thing to do."

[Bill McClanahan is a retired corporate accountant and the owner of Homestead Farms in Richland County, SC, where the state capital, Columbia, is located. He and his wife, Kay, are cofounders of the Richland Landowners Association/SC Property Rights Watch.]

Next week a look at Alabama "comprehensive planning".
Article 4

Article 5 - Efforts at Comprehensive Planning in Alabama

This article, detailing some of the detrimental aspects of "comprehensive planning" in Alabama, is the final in a series of articles that provided the reader with eyewitness accounts from Florida, Oregon and South Carolina.

Athens, Alabama has adopted an official policy statement (comprehensive plan) that alters the purpose of government. Instead of protecting the rights of individual citizens, it imposes upon them a policy that will eventually dictate how they live their daily lives. The "Plan" lays out a rough outline of regulations to be imposed upon Athens citizens, providing definitions that can be broadly interpreted.

Sound ridiculous? Read the following about the seemingly unimportant task of planting shrubs in your yard. It is typical of the ordinances to come.

"The use of native plant materials is encouraged. The planting heights and sizes of various materials shall be sufficient to ensure their sense of presence and mitigate the micro climate impacts caused by the proposed development." [1]

In other words, plants used in landscaping are to be indigenous to the region, should be of sufficient size and quantity to present a presence and to offset the climatic impact caused by the development. If tree removal has changed the oxygen replenishment composition of the area and perhaps the moisture evaporation content, having micro climatic impact, landscaping must take this into account and try to return the area to its original balance. We are, in essence, having to mitigate the normal impact of human habitation upon the natural environment. Potentially harming the habitat of an endangered species might require a "mitigation fee," as happened to a farmer charged with murdering a field mouse while plowing his field. [2]

The following questions come to mind:

· Who will determine the micro climate change, what is required to offset its effect and who will pay for this service?

· If a mitigation fee is involved how will it be assessed, who will be the recipients?

· Would this fee be a one-time charge or an annual fee?

Consider - If the governing authority has the right to enforce compliance with the above stipulation, is it reasonable to assume they have a right to alter, amended or institute new regulation at their discretion? Athens, planning to soon adopt it's implementation ordinances, is not alone in this drive for greater authority. Cullman already has adopted a "comprehensive plan" and its implementation ordinances. Section 92 of the Cullman code says: It shall be unlawful to commence repair to any structure in the city until the Building Department has issued a building permit for such work. This includes painting and wallpapering that exceed $100.00 in cost.

Comprehensive planning is national. Two excellent, free primers from the State of Minnesota are available in electronic and printed format. "From Policy to Reality: Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development" [3] and "Under Construction Tools and Techniques for Local Planning" [4] The latter defines "freedom of choice: People should be able to choose where they live and do business, as long as they pay the identifiable costs of those choices and do not impose unaccounted-for costs on other people or nature, now or in the future."
End notes:
1. The Athens Plan: page 5-50 available on the Athens website.
2. Video tape of the major network broadcast of this story is available upon request.
3. http://server.admin.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=1927
4. http://server.admin.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=2910
Article 5

Article 6 - The Shelby County Plan

Todd McDonald, Planning Services Supervisor, estimates that the Shelby County Draft Comprehensive Plan will be adopted during the May/June time period. The adoption will be the first official effort by a county in Alabama to create "sustainable communities," a socialist's dream come true and a page right out of the U. N. Agenda 21.

"Through various 'out of the box' implementation methods as discussed below, the County seeks to influence market trends to effect development patterns to create sustainable communities. Rather than responding to development pressures, we can actively influence the where and how development occurs in the County consistent with the goals and vision of the Plan." [1]

Professional planners, with the assistance of local elected officials who do not understand the impact of what is being done, will use "out of the box" implementation methods" i. e. zoning laws and tax incentives and disincentives etc. to prevent the exercise of free choice by the residents of Shelby County, thereby fulfilling the "goals and vision of the Plan". Merging the rights of private ownership of property into the socialist scheme, the "Plan" states: "Recognize the private property rights of the individual within a balanced framework that considers the public interest and shared values of the community" [2]

Don't miss the point local elected officials and professional planners have determined that private property will benefit the owner as long as he accommodates "the public interest and shared values of the community" as expressed by the state. This system under Hitler and Mussolini was known as Fascism. Today it is called "sustainable communities".

The "Plan" divides Shelby County into three types of land use; "distinct communities, transition areas and rural landscapes". [3] The term "green infrastructure" will be the criteria that "will provide the basis for where and how development and redevelopment should occur" [4]

"The County recognizes its Green Infrastructure as a collection of natural, cultural, heritage, environmental, protected, passive and active resources that are integrated into a related system." [5]

With the phrase, "The County recognizes its," there is a declaration of ownership. This is consistent with the quote that private property will be used to benefit the state. Next, notice that the above quote is specific in its definition of "Green Infrastructure". This declaration of ownership, left unchallenged, will grant to greedy politicians and leftist social planners the ability to redefine their ownership of your property at their discretion.

The shape of things to come!

"The strategy for residential densities is to start with higher densities around the Community Core and centers in the municipalities, moving to lower clustered suburban densities in the Transition Areas and then to still lower rural by right densities in the Rural Landscape."

The "Plan" on page 50 of Part 2 contains a map, which depicts the "Community Core" with red dots. Through regulations, tax incentives and disincentives the majority of Shelby County residents will likely relocate into the "Core" areas. Concentrating large numbers of "human resources" (people) in small areas makes viable the "planner" concept of "efficient transportation" "The County's transportation system serves two important functions. First, it affects where growth occurs by providing access to land. In addition, it also affects the local economy by providing for the movement of people, goods, and materials. This dual role of controlling and promoting development makes transportation planning an important part of a growth management program. A well planned and properly constructed transportation system is essential to the orderly and efficient development of the County and its individual municipalities." [7]

To recap what we have said, ownership of private property is to benefit the state not the individual, county residents will be relocated into population zones, transportation system will be used to help "control" where residents reside.

Some readers may consider that there is a certain "edge" to the author's comments. Acknowledging this, the author believes that "doing nothing" while greedy politicians allow socialist planners to reorganize society is aiding and abetting our own demise as free individuals. What can the reader do? Get a copy of the "Plan". It is available on the County's web site or call the County Commissioners office to verify the content of this article. Then! - express your opinion. To do nothing will ensure enactment of this "policy".

Next week the continuing saga of socializing Shelby County.
Footnotes:
1. page 126 of part 3
2. page 51 of part two
3. page 55 of part two
4. page 52 of part two
6. page 53 of part two
7. page 63 of part two
Article 6

Article 7 - The Shelby County Plan (continued)

This article continues the saga of Shelby County, Alabama efforts to change the structure of society from "inalienable rights" granted by God to one in which rights are allocated according to the dictates of the State. The legalization of the change rest in the County's "policy statement", commonly referred to as a "comprehensive plan". Once approved, the county will balance the rights of privately owned land against that of the States' declared "public interest and shared community values."[1]

Several implementation tools (regulations) have been written to enforce the pleasant sounding Draconian system described in "comprehensive plans". Typically the "plans" do not describe in any great detail "enforcement regulations" or offer examples that allow the reader to readily understand what compliance will mean when enforcement is mandated. Shelby County is typical in this respect.

"Performance zoning/standards"[2] - A term referenced a minimum of three time in the Shelby County Draft Comprehensive Plan does not convey to the average reader a sense of foreboding of things to come. Once the reader understands the implications of the phrase "performance zoning/standard" it will be easily understood why the standard is undefined and unexplained.

Professor John R. Ottensman, School of Public and Environmental Affairs at the University of Indiana wrote - "Market Based Exchanges of Rights within a System of Performance Zoning."[3] The publication provides the examples that enable the reader to understand the foreboding implications of "performance zoning."

Recalling that local government intends to grant "rights," rights that can only be attributed to God as affirmed by the Declaration of Independence, Professor Ottensman states "The rights created within a system of performance zoning could be exchanged among property owners...". When government believes this to be a truth - "rights" may be at their discretion - voided, altered, and or allocated to whomever and whenever the state decides.

What "rights" may be created under this system? - Professor Ottensman suggests granting a "trip-generation-per-acre". It would, he asserts, be the intent of "performance zoning" ordinances to allocate "trips" (travel to and from your property) with the purchase of a parcel of land. The allocation by local government could be based on distance traveled or the total number of "trips", the option of course is left to the socialist planners. Tenets formerly referred to as property owners could, if granted the right by government, buy and sell the newly created "right."

Creating a market in the method of how an individual may travel is a step away from granting the "right to travel." This may sound unbelievable but the following quotes will hopefully confirm the preceding.

"Statutory provisions would be required to authorize and recognize the exchanges of the rights established under the performance standards. These provisions would need to specify those standards for which the exchanges of rights would be allowed, which parties could be involved in such transfers, and any limitations associated with the exchanges. Procedures would also need to be established for the recording of rights exchanges and for the interpretation of such exchanges in the event of modifications to the performance standards.

"A system of performance zoning would create a series of rights or entitlements associated with the various performance standards.... Some of these rights would accrue to the owners of properties governed by the standards. These would involve rights to develop and use the properties and create impacts up to the levels provided for by the standards. For example, a property owner would have the right to develop the property and its associated travel up to the trip-generation-per-acre standard.

"Under a maximum trip-generation-per-acre standard, every landowner would gain the rights to use their land in such a manner as to create a certain number of trips, which would depend upon the standard and upon the size of the landowner's parcel. One landowner could transfer the rights to generate some portion of those trips to another landowner within the area. The landowner giving up some of the rights would then have reduced options in terms of the use of the land, for any allowable use would now have to generate fewer trips. On the other hand, the landowner receiving the rights would now be allowed to generate more trips. That landowner's options in terms of development and the use of the land would be increased. The landowner would be allowed to undertake more intensive development that produces a greater number of trips. In terms of the original objective, however, the transfer of the rights would have no effects. The increased number of trips that could be produced by the second landowner would have been exactly offset by the reduction in the number of allowable trips for the original landowner. The total number of trips that could be generated within the area would not have been increased. The achievement of the original objectives would therefore not be affected.[2]

"Once again, the exchange of the rights could take place pursuant to cash or noncash compensation."[2]

Next week the saga continues
Footnotes:
1. page 51 part two middle column last bulleted item
2. pages, 52, 58 and 97
3. "Market Based Exchanges of Rights within a System of Performance Zoning" available at http//www-pam.usc.edu/volume1/v1i1a4s1.html
Article 7

Article 8 - The Shelby County Plan (continued)

Summarizing last week's article - Shelby County, Alabama through their official policy statement (Comprehensive Plan) expected to be adopted in the May - June time period intend to utilize "performance zoning" as a means to enforce county edicts.[1] "Performance zoning" was not defined in the "Plan" nor were examples sited to inform the reader of the draconian aspects of the new regulations. "Market Based Exchanges of Rights within a System of Performance Zoning,"[2] a paper written by Professor John R. Ottensman, School of Public and Environmental Affairs at the University of Indiana left little doubt that the intent of the regulation program would:

Allow local government the right to "create rights".

According to the Declaration of Independence it is "self evident" that God is the Creator of rights. Apparently this point has gone unnoticed in Shelby County.

Under Professor Ottensman's example allow local government to allocate the right to travel by automobile to and from your property.

Allow the landowner that exceeds his allotment of trips to and from his property the authority to purchase from a fellow development landowner additional "right to travel" credits.

Limit the total number of trips for the development area to the number specified by the local government.

The lamenting saga of Shelby County's Comprehensive Plan continues with "strip commercial development". Referenced several times[3] in the "Plan" the County intends to "discourage strip development of any type and development zoning performance standards to discourage this pattern of development". Again the regulatory process is cited but ill defined.

In the following quote a developer from Gulf Breeze, Florida describes some of the difficulties associated with developing and renting a "strip mall" under scrutiny of a "smart growth/sustainable development program."

"I am just completing another strip center, of 20,000 ft. here in Gulf Breeze (it was an error). I have gotten an education. Although it is complete and passed all inspections every tenant must now go thru a full planning and permitting sequence at great cost and delays for the unit they lease with plans in detail even if all they are doing is putting in a desk and telephone. Until they do that they can't even turn the power on... and all has to be inspected before they begin work...of any kind... The people in charge are not very swift? Stupid is more like it...worse...from some other world... and love their power. Cost of regulations are at least 40% of the cost with large costly delays. (I had one lady regulator advise me that all business is evil and no profits or markups should be allowed??? Also that schools have a thing where the kids can get school credit for reporting violations to regulators...happened on our site...)

"One area that caught me by surprise and totally shocked me had to do with landscaping... it seemed mindless what they wanted me to put in... so I managed by accident to get a copy of the full regulatory requirements and was shocked to discover that the insane rules that apply to a small commercial development like mine (costing many many thousands of dollars...of nonsense plants) also apply to residential for the whole state for what plants they are allowed to have and how the plants are to be maintained.

"It is a State level law or code that directs that one can only have native species on your property...and they have a list you can choose from. It applies to both commercial and residential... and the only difference is they have not fully enforced the residential aspect. No...it is not just about new construction but all construction old and new and evidently they have a right on the books to inspect periodically... your home... and force you to remove non native species (as well as anything else they feel like)...

"....Native Species... Meaning, anything not here when Columbus arrived is an invasive species and needs to be killed and destroyed... Grapes...Rose Bushes are illegal as not native... as with Tomato plants ... wheat ...rice ...most flowers bushes...fruit trees as none are on the list as native. They have just not yet decided to enforce such... I try to tell people this and they can't imagine it....they think I am making it up.... Native Species only....Native Species Only!

"It is clearly stated... it is about 'sustainable development'.... Remember the Rio Conference ...Agenda 21... The UN... the central planners... a concept from Soviet Russia and Karl Marx.

"It is about Green Cross... the end of every freedom we have....."

Next week the saga continues.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Pages 52, 58 and 97 of Part Two of the County's Comprehensive Plan
2. "Market Based Exchanges of Rights within a System of Performance Zoning" available at:
http://www-pam.usc.edu/volume1/v1i1a4s1.html
3. Pages 56, 58, and 66 of Part Two of the County's Comprehensive Plan
Article 8

Article 9 - The Shelby County Plan (continued)

Summarizing last week's article - Shelby County, Alabama through their official policy statement (Comprehensive Plan) expected to be adopted in the May - June time period intend to utilize "performance zoning" as a means to enforce county edicts.[1] "Performance zoning" was not defined in the "Plan" nor were examples sited to inform the reader of the draconian aspects of the new regulations. "Market Based Exchanges of Rights within a System of Performance Zoning,"[2] a paper written by Professor John R. Ottensman, School of Public and Environmental Affairs at the University of Indiana left little doubt that the intent of the regulation program would:

Allow local government the right to "create rights".

According to the Declaration of Independence it is "self evident" that God is the Creator of rights. Apparently this point has gone unnoticed in Shelby County.

Under Professor Ottensman's example allow local government to allocate the right to travel by automobile to and from your property.

Allow the landowner that exceeds his allotment of trips to and from his property the authority to purchase from a fellow development landowner additional "right to travel" credits.

Limit the total number of trips for the development area to the number specified by the local government.

The lamenting saga of Shelby County's Comprehensive Plan continues with "strip commercial development". Referenced several times[3] in the "Plan" the County intends to "discourage strip development of any type and development zoning performance standards to discourage this pattern of development". Again the regulatory process is cited but ill defined.

In the following quote a developer from Gulf Breeze, Florida describes some of the difficulties associated with developing and renting a "strip mall" under scrutiny of a "smart growth/sustainable development program."

"I am just completing another strip center, of 20,000 ft. here in Gulf Breeze (it was an error). I have gotten an education. Although it is complete and passed all inspections every tenant must now go thru a full planning and permitting sequence at great cost and delays for the unit they lease with plans in detail even if all they are doing is putting in a desk and telephone. Until they do that they can't even turn the power on... and all has to be inspected before they begin work...of any kind... The people in charge are not very swift? Stupid is more like it...worse...from some other world... and love their power. Cost of regulations are at least 40% of the cost with large costly delays. (I had one lady regulator advise me that all business is evil and no profits or markups should be allowed??? Also that schools have a thing where the kids can get school credit for reporting violations to regulators...happened on our site...)

"One area that caught me by surprise and totally shocked me had to do with landscaping... it seemed mindless what they wanted me to put in... so I managed by accident to get a copy of the full regulatory requirements and was shocked to discover that the insane rules that apply to a small commercial development like mine (costing many many thousands of dollars...of nonsense plants) also apply to residential for the whole state for what plants they are allowed to have and how the plants are to be maintained.

"It is a State level law or code that directs that one can only have native species on your property...and they have a list you can choose from. It applies to both commercial and residential... and the only difference is they have not fully enforced the residential aspect. No...it is not just about new construction but all construction old and new and evidently they have a right on the books to inspect periodically... your home... and force you to remove non native species (as well as anything else they feel like)...

"....Native Species... Meaning, anything not here when Columbus arrived is an invasive species and needs to be killed and destroyed... Grapes...Rose Bushes are illegal as not native... as with Tomato plants ... wheat ...rice ...most flowers bushes...fruit trees as none are on the list as native. They have just not yet decided to enforce such... I try to tell people this and they can't imagine it....they think I am making it up.... Native Species only....Native Species Only!

"It is clearly stated... it is about 'sustainable development'.... Remember the Rio Conference ...Agenda 21... The UN... the central planners... a concept from Soviet Russia and Karl Marx.

"It is about Green Cross... the end of every freedom we have....."

Next week the saga continues.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Pages 52, 58 and 97 of Part Two of the County's Comprehensive Plan
2. "Market Based Exchanges of Rights within a System of Performance Zoning" available at:
http://www-pam.usc.edu/volume1/v1i1a4s1.html
3. Pages 56, 58, and 66 of Part Two of the County's Comprehensive Plan
Article 8

Article 10 - The Shelby County Plan (continued)

Shelby County, Alabama the fastest growing area in the State will, under the scalpel of social planners become a county divided into four designated areas - "the core, the focus area, the transition area, and the rural landscape."[1] The plan is expected to be officially adopted in the May - June time period. Each area designated as a unique community will begin their transformation with the County's "proactive" commitment to mold the county communities to its vision of the future.

"The County values the character of each of the established communities and will be proactive in working to assure a vibrant future for them.... To that end, the County is committed to a new era of partnership with the municipalities."[2]

The mother hen approach extends to the spiritual side of life in the next quote just one aspect of life listed in the series that cities in Shelby County are expected to "provide".

"Encourage communities to require a recognized community core, provide a full range of housing types, and provide for a diverse, stimulating social, cultural, recreational and spiritual environment."[3]

"Through various "out-of-the-box" implementation methods.....the County seeks to influence market trends to effect development patterns to create sustainable communities."[4]

"The strategy for residential densities is to start with higher densities around the Community Core and centers in the municipalities, moving to lower clustered suburban densities in the Transition Areas and then to still lower rural by right densities in the Rural Landscape."[5]

".....the County must limit the number of houses in the Rural Landscape and direct new residential development, there and countywide, to locations that are consistent with County goals."[6]

"The County's strategy for maintaining the viability and sense of place associated with the existing rural communities is to limit growth in and around them.[7]

A regulation utilized to implement the concept described in the preceding quoted text is commonly referred to as an Urban Growth Boundary UGB. "From Policy to Reality: Model Ordinance for Sustainable Development"[8] published by the State of Minnesota is a compilation of local ordinances from across the United States designed to implement the principles of "smart growth" and "sustainable development". The following quote from that publication defines a UGB:

"Establishing an urban growth boundary (UGB) is critical to the success of an integrated growth management strategy. A UGB is an established line beyond which urban services such as public sewer and water and transportation improvements will not occur."

When government establishes this line an artificial shortage of desirable land occurs - automatically inflating the price of land. Portland, Oregon, the socialist icon for social engineering, is the shining example of a UGB. Land prices from 1996 demonstrate the results of this social engineering. An acre of land in close proximity to the outside edge of the UGB was $18,000. The inflated price was caused by the speculation that the UGB would be moved outward allowing the land to be used for purposes other than agriculture. Moving outward from the UGB land prices drastically decrease as the number of potential buyers decrease. Land on the inside of the UGB ranged from $120,000 to $150,000 per acre.[9] The rise in land prices forces those that could under prior circumstances afford to own a home into subsidized housing programs.

The method devised to protect rural Oregon by socialist planners is described in the following quote from a local Oregon resident:

"...farmland cannot be divided. Only one dwelling allowed on a farm, unless the other housing is for farm labor. A farm is only a farm, if it can produce $80,000 in revenue (this figure changes each year). There are acreage restrictions also. One house per 160 acres unless it is rangeland, in which case it is one residence per 360 acres. These are general terms, because when local planning officials and boards get a hold of an issue, they always make use as restrictive as the law allows, rather than interpret the laws to grant the owner the greater use and value of their land. Appeals take years and can cost tens of thousand of dollars. More recently, they have made appeal possible by e-mail because of time distance from our side of the state to the capital. However, I know of no one who has successfully appealed a decision by a local board."

The governmental structure described to protect rural land in Oregon would fit the general concept found in the Shelby County Comprehensive Plan.

"Such programs as a Purchase of Development Rights program and the formation of conservation tax districts will be used to encourage landowners to use their land to expand the rural economy rather than to convert it to residential use."[10]

"The Plan recognizes the failure of pervious efforts to control rural residential growth and proposes new policies, incentives and supporting regulations that will lower overall densities and will help maintain the rural landscape by providing for the clustering of residential development."[10]

"As a matter of policy, the Plan calls for the preservation of unpaved rural roads in their present condition.....The major expenditures necessary to upgrade rural roads and the limited funds available further justify the significant reduction in rural densities."[10]

Next week more to come.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Page 69 of Part Two
2. Page 55 left column second paragraph Part Two
3. Page 55 middle column fifth bulleted item Part Two
4. Page 126 left column first paragraph Part Three
5. Page 59 left column second paragraph Part Two
6. Page 60 right column first paragraph Part Two
7. Page 61 middle column middle paragraph Part Two
8. Page 2 of the Growth Management section of From Policy to Reality: Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development" available on the net at: http://server.admin.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=1927
9. Beyond Zoning: Land Use Controls in the Digital Economy. Page 6
10. Page 61 - Shelby County Comprehensive Plan - Part Two
Article 9

Article 10 - The Shelby County Plan (continued)

In Review - last week’s article dealt with Shelby County, Alabama’s proposed "Comprehensive Plan" to organize Shelby County into four definable districts: the core area, the focus area, the transition area, and the rural landscape.[1]

"The strategy for residential densities (ed note: total number of people per square foot of land) is to start with higher densities around the Community Core and centers in the municipalities, moving to lower clustered suburban densities in the Transition Areas and then to still lower rural by right densities in the Rural Landscape."[2]

"The strategy" to enforce this plan involves various "out-of-the-box" implementation methods.[3] One method used to implement the new "policy" in other sections of the country is an "Urban Growth Boundary" (UGB) - a regulatory concept described on page 58 of Part Two of the Shelby County proposed Comprehensive Plan. In some cases where this requirement has been enacted lawsuits have resulted from landowners claiming property rights violations. Violations of this nature are commonly referred to as a "taking."

A "taking" occurs when actions by government, acting alone or in partnership with other organizations, prevents the property owner from utilizing "rights" to personal property for his benefit. The landowner usually takes the position that a restriction on any "right" to his property is a "taking" and therefore compensation or removal of the restriction must be forthcoming to restore his property rights. Typically, government, on the other hand, takes the position that the landowner must prove that ALL USEFULNESS to the owner's property has to be eliminated by governmental actions before the landowner may claim a "taking."

A proposed law under consideration in the Alabama legislature[4] carries this a step further. The proposed law would require landowners who request a zoning variance to prove that four criteria listed in the legislation exist before the property owner is granted a hearing on the requested zoning variance. The first of these criteria requires the property owner to prove that ALL RIGHTS to his property have been eliminated.

Shelby County Planners, recognizing that legal complications from the "taking" issue might obstruct or slow their socialist "Plans," have proposed a remedy often utilized with the implementation of a "UGB" "Transfer of Development Rights" (TDR).

John B. Bredin, Esquire, speaker at the American Planning Association Conference 2000, stated that TDR programs have legal standing in nine[7] states. If the Shelby County Comprehensive Plan is adopted the concept will have firm footing in Alabama. A TDR is the TRANSFER to local government of the PROPERTY OWNER’S RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT!!!! build a house, subdivide your property and give your children a parcel to live on, etc. Under the program the county will designate two zones within the county "sending" and "receiving".

SENDING ZONE: Land designated under this category will restrict the property owners from building structures (houses, barns, utility buildings, etc) or developing their land. Any proposed alteration to the property must be submitted to and approved by the appropriate appointed government board.

RECEIVING ZONE: Residential neighborhoods within a UGB thus designated will be allowed to develop or redevelop above the density level normally associated with residential dwellings if the developer acquires the government authorized credits from a seller in a "sending zone".

Typically, local government establishes a "bank" where "sending zone" property owners may register their "right to development" claims. If the bank determines the property warrants certification under the TDR program, the bank issues the appropriate credits. Example: 1 credit per 5 acres or 1.5 credits per acre for wetland is allowable under Georgia law.[8] Wetland is considered to be of more value by government and therefore receives more credits. The "credits" may then be sold to anyone in the "receiving zone" (urban area) for development or redevelopment. TDR programs very from State to State. In King County, Washington the purchase of credits under the TDR program will allow "a property to be developed to a density that is up to 200% of the base density depending on the program and its criteria. The base density is a density established by the zoning classification assigned to the property and is expressed in dwelling units per acre."[9]

A two paragraph description is on page 127 of Part Three Implementation.

Refer to our FLYER elsewhere on this website: the first set of pictures allows the reader to visualize the drastic alteration of neighborhoods that is underway where UGBs have been enforced. The house on the left due to the government created land shortage, sold for an inflated price of $171,000. Encouraging the utilization of property under "smart growth/sustainable development principles" five new houses were built in its place.

INFILL: the appropriate number of people per square foot is mentioned on page 51 of Part Two of the Shelby County proposed Comprehensive Plan and relates to the second set of pictures shown on our FLYER which provides the viewer a firm idea of this abstract concept. The small strip of land between two houses provides room for proper "infill!"

Visit the following website to view additional photos of Portland that typify a community after enforcement of a Comprehensive Plan.
http://home.comcast.net/~r5zone/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

Shelby County will certainly be "unique" after the Comprehensive Plan is implemented!

More to come next week!

Footnotes:

1. Page 69 of Part Two
2. Page 59, left column, second paragraph, Part Two
3. Page 126 of Part Three Implementation
4. State of Alabama House Bill 309
5. Page 129, left column, second paragraph, Part Three of the Comp. Plan
6. Page 52 and 53 of Part Two
7. 2000 APA Planning Conference "Transfer of Development Rights: Cases, Statutes, Examples and a Model:
http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings00/BREDIN/bredin.htm
8. "Tools for Quality Growth" published by the University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology and Alliance for Quality Growth page 2, http://outreach.ecology.uga.edu/tools/tdr/tdr.pdf (note www. Not required).
9. "Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program Receiving Site Review Process" King County, Washington http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/acrobat/cib/49.pdf

Article 10

Article 11 - The Shelby County Plan (continued)

In this series of articles published in the Beacon we have clearly demonstrated the intent of socialist planners to reorganize Shelby County, Alabama into four human population zones: "core", "focus area", "transition area," and "rural landscape"[1] through quotes from their proposed Comprehensive Plan.

"The strategy for residential densities (total number of people per square foot of land) is to start with higher densities around the Community Core and centers in the municipalities, moving to lower clustered suburban densities in the Transition Areas and then to still lower rural by right densities in the Rural Landscape."[2]

Relocating Shelby County's population through "out of the box implementation methods"[1A] is merely one aspect of a total reorganization of society under the guise of "Comprehensive Planning". The following quote shows that budgets for every department in county government will be tied directly to the implementation of the County's Comprehensive Plan:

"When adopted, the Comprehensive Plan is an expression of public policy. The adopted plan clearly states the County's vision for the future, articulates various objectives and policies intended to guide decision making and to direct the development of an action plan designed to achieve the stated vision. Once adopted, all County departments and agencies must adjust their programs and budgets accordingly. The implementation tool for managing and coordinating the activities of county departments and agencies with the mandates of the adopted plan, is the capital improvements plan (CIP) and budget (CIB)."[3]

Central planning for the Soviet Union utilized twenty year segments with five year updates.[4] In similar fashion, Shelby County's proposed "Plan" calls for these same time constraints. Notice that all budgeted appropriation must further the "Plan's" agenda.

"CIPs/CIBs are structured in 5-year increments over a 20-or 25 year planning horizon, allowing for periodic revisions and re-prioritization of capital expenditures based on changes in conditions and priorities as reflected in the comprehensive plan." "Once fully implemented, departments must justify funding requested in their CIBs by relating them to the mandates of the Comp Plan. For departmental funding requests having no adopted mandate in the Comp Plan, a process will be available through which departments may amend the plan, contingent upon demonstrating how such request advances the goals of the plan."[5]

Funding for the socialist plan is not to limited of taxpayer's dollars. "Shelby County will pursue funds from outside grant sources, such as grants offered through various federal and state programs as well as foundations and non-profits to fund activities that promote good planning practice, smart growth, sustainable development practices, etc."[6]

Which organizations will join in a "public private partnership" to help reorganize society and implement the agenda under the Comprehensive Plan's "smart growth" and "sustainable development" criteria?

"Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, the Alabama Land Trust, the American Farmland Trust, the Trust for Public Land, the Alabama Historical Commission and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Adopted implementation action items should direct staff to seek funding and partnership arrangements from such organizations to assist in plan implementation."[7]

Sad to say that through "public private partnerships" and professional planners controlling appointed boards, the people gradually lose control of their own government.

Next week the tax system and regional government!
FOOTNOTES:
1. Page 69 of Part Two
1A. Page 126 Part Three
2. Page 59 left column second paragraph Part Two
3. Page 129 Part Three left column second paragraph
4. Oral interview - President Truman May 21, 1969
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/snyder39.htm
5. Page 129 Part Three
6. Page 131 Part Three left column second paragraph
7. Page 131 Part Three middle column top paragraph
Article 11

Article 12 - The Shelby County Plan (continued)

Quotes from the Shelby County’s proposed Comprehensive Plan in last week’s article described how the budget for every department in Shelby County must be utilized to implement "smart growth/sustainable development" principles in the County. If the department’s funding request has "no adopted mandate in the Comp Plan, a process will be available through which departments may amend the plan, contingent upon demonstrating how such request advances the goals of the plan."[1] In other words not one penny will be spent that does not further the aims of the socialist plan.

Socialization of Shelby County’s society includes of the tax system. "...Staff has discussed the idea of seeking an interjurisdictional agreement among any and all local governments in Shelby County that would provide for some type of revenue sharing among the signatories of such an agreement. Such an agreement would also be a first step towards establishing greater regional coordination and planning efforts, "As envisioned by staff, such an agreement would involve the pooling of some portion of member governments' sales taxes (and perhaps commercial property taxes), and redistribute those revenues based upon some agreed upon formula that promotes equalizing some of the forces and inequities that lead to contentious interjurisdictional relations that prevent the type of cooperation and coordination needed to full realize the benefits of compact place making for all of Shelby County’s residents."[2]

"Staff", in the preceding quote, "envisions" "agreements" between county and city governments with the power of the taxpayers pocketbook to help all Shelby County residents "realize the benefits of compact place making." It is likely that "Staff" also "envisions" a "regional government" of appointed professionals rather than "elected officials."

Once adopted, socialist planners have no intention of allowing their plan to face public scrutiny and possible change:

"The plan will describe a process for its own amendment, to include procedures for amendments emanating from the evaluation report or other internally initiated amendment proposals, as well as any amendments that may be proposed from an appropriate stakeholder such as a County Commissioner or property owner. This process should also establish who has standing to propose amendments, how frequently amendments should be considered as well as what criteria are to be used to evaluate the merits of proposed amendments. Staff recommends that the plan be open for amendment no more than twice a year (whether internally or privately initiated), through an established, date certain amendment cycle, though the first cycle should not be scheduled sooner than one year. Once adopted, the plan becomes public policy, a mandate for action by the Shelby County Commission in pursuit of its adopted vision, and therefore is presumed to be correct. As such, the burden of proof for amendment falls to those proposing to amend the plan. Plan amendment must require a clear demonstration that the plan errs or is flawed and that such flaw undermines progress toward achieving the vision, and/or, how the proposed change remedies that flaw or otherwise advances the adopted vision."[3]

It is apparent from the preceding quote that requesting and receiving "Standing," the privilege granted to someone that wishes to speak to the committee implementing the Shelby County Comp. Plan will be difficult to obtain. A prime example of "Standing" denied is Dred Scott, a Negro slave, who during the 1850s appealed to the United States Supreme Court for freedom from legalized slavery. In essence the Court ruled that he did not have "STANDING," sealing Dred Scott’s fate in a system designed to maintain society’s shackles. This document, Shelby County’s proposed Comprehensive Plan, is the equivalent of the 1850s shackles. A comparison to the Feudal system of the middle ages may also be made. In that system serf residential densities started "with higher densities around the Community Core and centers in the municipalities, moving to lower clustered suburban densities in the Transition Areas and then to still lower rural by right densities in the Rural Landscape."[4] The serfs had no control over the system that governed them unless they were recognized as a person with "standing". Their birthright was stolen by a system created for their protection.

The same conceptual creation is in the Shelby County proposed Comprehensive Plan. Will the overseer again be allowed to pick up the whip?

Next week: The merger of Church and State It has already happened!

FOOTNOTES:
1. Page 129 left column second paragraph Part Three of the Comp. Plan
2. Page 131 Part Three middle column
3. Page 133 Part Three
4. Page 59 left column second paragraph Part Two

Article 12

Article 13 - Read it here first! - America proclaims a merger of Church and state!

It is necessary to establish a common frame of reference for religion before presenting evidence that a church-state merger has officially occurred.

Religion is a philosophical framework based on perceived truths or facts. Individuals, believing that they have selected a truthful framework, fashion their lifestyle to conform to the concepts and principles that reflect their selection. The philosophical framework is used to determine how the individual interacts with the environment and society. Societies differ greatly when declaring a philosophy.

Example:
} Russia proclaimed a philosophy that there is no God. The atheistic religion is commonly referred to as
   Humanism.
} Middle eastern countries generally accept a philosophy based on the Muslim faith.
In both examples their respective philosophy proclaims that their selection is a truism for all times. Neither example cited affords its citizens liberty of the mind and freedoms of religion or expression outside the party-line.

In Biblical days, as accounted in Acts chapter 17, Paul proclaimed a new religion to the great philosophers of the day on Mars Hill in Athens. The religion of which Paul spoke would produce a society of free man whose labor has produced the strongest nation in the history of man.

Today, a new religion has found favor with US Government officials. Respect and adherences to this new religion by officials is such that edicts issued by government will force compliance with the new morality. A prime example is the United States Department of Agriculture Directive 9500-6. This directive was reported by the United States to the United Nations as part of the U.S. compliance in implementing "sustainable development/agenda 21."[1] Section 4c of the directive directs all responsible officers to implement the tenets of the new religion:

"The philosophy, concepts and principles of sustainable development, involving the balancing of environmental quality, economic development, and the vitality of rural communities, shall be incorporated, as appropriate, into all appropriate Department regulations, policies, and programs, including strategic planning documents, work plans, and performance appraisals."[2]

If you are skeptical that this is truly a new religion, suppose the preceding quote was altered to read:

"The philosophy, concepts and principles of the Christian Faith, involving the balancing of environmental quality, economic development, and the vitality of rural communities, shall be incorporated, as appropriate, into all appropriate Department regulations, policies, and programs, including strategic planning documents, work plans, and performance appraisals."

A Directive from the USDA requiring Christian principles be implemented utilizing "Department regulations, policies, and programs," would, as most would acknowledge, violate society's viewpoint that "church and state" must remain separate. But when "sustainable principles" as a base for ethical values is written into government regulation silence can be heard throughout the land.

Any true religion will have missionaries, individuals dedicated to spreading the "philosophy, concepts and principles" of their newfound truth. The church of "sustainable development" is in compliance, graduating able missionaries (or facilitators) from "government schools". Finding "government schools" that certify "missionaries/facilitators is easily accomplished with the internet search engine Google. The following search criterion was utilized: syllabus theology "sustainable development". The search produced numerous college course descriptions from across the globe. North Carolina University at Chapel Hill[3] (UNC) has, based on an examination of the search results, had the longest running college course used to spread the "sustainable development" gospel.

Graduates from the UNC course... "will focus on the social and cultural aspects of communities that are relevant for sustainable development facilitators. Facilitators are teachers, trainers and organizers who serve as "cultivators" and "midwives" for community change. They may be social workers, planners, administrators, public health workers or educators."[3b]

"Students will analyze their own strengths for this work and the strengths of a community in which they plan to develop a real or hypothetical sustainable development project. Near the end of the semester students will present a participatory plan for engaging with the community for sustainable development work." Included in the course is a list of assigned reading includes books which "...represent ideas from a spiritual/ecological perspective,..."[3b]

It cannot be said with certainty that the authors of the Shelby County, Alabama Comprehensive Plan graduated from the University of North Carolina, but training from a similar course is virtually certain. In part three, page 126 - Implementation of the Shelby County Plan the missionary/facilitator/planner states: "...the County seeks to influence market trends to effect development patterns to create sustainable communities." Details of the County's plan are similar to numerous
communities in Alabama and across America.

"Cultivators" and "midwives" have learned their lessons well. Through their efforts the transformation of the United States to the new religion of "sustainable development" is well underway.

Right will be wrong and wrong will be right.

FOOTNOTES:
1. http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/usa/natur.htm
2. The Directive may be read at: http://www.usda.gov/sustainable
3 A. - syllabus from 1998 - http://www.ucis.unc.edu/Resources/UCIS_funded_courses/sowo238.html
3 B. - syllabus from 2002 - http://comm-org.utoledo.edu/syllabi/gamblesd.htm

Article 13

Article 14 - The New Gospel - Sustainable Development

New words and phrases creep into our vocabulary with uncanny regularity. “Weapons of Mass Destruction” a new phrase in short order became WMD. TV and print media use the initials WMD without relating it to the complete phrase because it is so recognizable. Sustainable Development SD is another new phrase that is quickly gaining acceptance. It is literally everywhere and has devotees from all walks of life that religiously tout its benefits though it is philosophically empty. Spreading their new gospel, our society has without question, accepted the new worldview. The new system includes every aspect of our lives – social, economic and environmental and has pushed the remnant of the Christian system aside. In some cases the two have been merged to produce a new version of Christian principles with a different set of goals. Hopefully the following will allow some to see the emerging new system. This article begins with a simple question relating to Christianity, which should demonstrate the difficulty involved in explaining a philosophy - its concepts and principles.

What is Christianity? The simplistic answer is - Christ died for my sins and therefore I have eternal life.   If queried further the typical Christian would likely respond with a list of conditions that a Christian is expected to live by.   The list in most cases provides a mental picture of that lifestyle. The same descriptive method that would describe a Christian lifestyle will be used to define and or describe “sustainable development”.

Touting the primary principle upon which the philosophy is based, sustainable development begins with a “commission” - the Brundtland Commission funded by the United Nations, which coined the phrase for “Sustainable Development” and wrote the initial definition.

"the capacity to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."¹

This false statement is the philosophical bedrock for SD and every individual is expected to accept the basic tenets of the philosophy. When all three aspects of SD (social, economic and environmental) are merged under governmental guidelines “sustainable development” is said to be in the offering. “Development” points to the fact that “sustainability” is never attained, it is always in the “development” stage, which is always under the watchful “development” eye of government. Constant monitoring is therefore required to determine if every individual and every community is moving toward the goal. The first phase for local “sustainability” begins with community comprehensive planning which generally defines the look and feel of the community’s appearance. Warm and fuzzy names like – “Traditional Neighborhood Development” TND are use to describe a new land use designation that requires among other aspects small narrow lots - less than 50 foot wide. In Boise, Idaho lots in a TND are as small as 16 foot wide².   In Portland, Oregon 15 foot wide houses are sold for $175,000. In Athens, Alabama lots must be smaller than 50 feet wide (the actual width has yet to be determined). A shortage of available real estate, due to “sustainable” governmental regulations artificially inflates land value. Hence the $175,000 price tag for an entry level house in Portland. Artificially inflated land value is another downside of the new religion.

Residents of “sustainable communities” can look forward to:

Ø      family diversity training - a necessity. Includes denying one religion is superior to others

Ø      Offer volunteer time from the state authorized charity list. Increases the worth of your money credits in the new system.

Ø      Report any hate sermons that label homosexual activity an abomination before God. Also report all in attendance that did not object to the sermon.

Ø      Acknowledge that the state can create jobs, certify workers, determine a living wage and where the jobs and workers are to be located.

Ø      Understand that your deeded property is yours on a “permitted” bases only – stakeholder evaluation is critical for continued “permitted” use!

Ø      As primary care givers of the state’s children parents must ensure their attendance in an authorize school

Ø      Acknowledge that abortion (murder) is a medical procedure

Ø      Accept the new money system, which credits your account in accordance with your interaction with the environment and the community.

Ø      Regularly evaluate your lifestyle to determine if further sacrifices can be made to benefit nature and society – submitting reports to appropriate authorities. The process is generally referred to as your “ecological footprint”. Go to http://www.lead.org/leadnet/footprint/intro.htm to fill out an on line form that will give you an idea of your current ecological standing. The course material is part of the government school curriculum.

Of course, the points that have been raised are indicators that measure progress towards “sustainable development”. They do not explain the “philosophical framework” of “sustainable development” any more than observing the lifestyle of a Christian explains the teachings of Christ. But, they should offer a glimpse of life in the new “sustainable” community.

In the following quote from the Shelby County Comprehensive Plan notice how the warm and fuzzy feeling is expressed in the first sentence, which cushions the “bottom line” in the second sentence.

“These new communities will be planned as vibrant, attractive places to live, work and play. They will be planned as comprehensive, sustainable communities, featuring all the goods, services, civic functions and housing choices required to serve the population.”³

Yes, the citizens of “sustainable communities” can relax while government provides everything including a choice in housing. As Henry Ford use to say: “the customer can have any color he wants as long as its black.”

1. http://vienna.usembassy.gov/en/policy/sust_dev.htm
2. http://www.cityofboise.org/pds/Comp-Plan/New-Urbanism.pdf
3. Shelby County Comprehensive Plan - page 68 of part two – Implementation
Article 14

Article 15 - Pledging Allegiance to "Sustainable Devleopment"

The United States Department of Agriculture in directive 9500-6 requires every “Responsible line officers” to incorporate the essence of religion - “philosophy, concepts and principles” into all regulations written by their department. The new religion commonly referred to as “sustainable development”.   Pledging allegiance to the concept of “sustainable development” high ranking officials from 11 Federal agencies created “a collaborative network of Federal Agencies”^A1. Signing the documen