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 document on Earth Day 2000 officials of the United States government pledged to “act as a catalyst for change”.A1

 At the local level the new religion has gained favor and is now officially endorsed in local policy statements/comprehensive plans for cities and counties across the country, completing the merger of church and state.  

 It is too early to determine if Shelby County, Alabama will become know as the “Free Will Baptist” or the “Hard Shell Baptist of the “Sustainable Development” movement.  The following quotes from the Shelby County, Alabama’s Comprehensive Plan may help the reader formulate an opinion:

 “Green Infrastructure – The major underlying tenant of the plan is green infrastructure.  It is the foundation for where and how development occurs and should be the principal factor determining where growth should be directed to achieve a sustainable development pattern.”1 emphasis added

 “Shelby County recognizes that this current trend is not a sustainable development pattern.”2   Meaning – society must change in order to become sustainable

 “….new communities will be planned…They will be planned as comprehensive, sustainable communities, featuring all the goods, services, civic functions and housing choices required to serve the population”3 emphasis added

 “Through various “out of the box” implementation methods…the County seeks to influence market trends to effect development patterns to create sustainable communities.”4 emphasis added

 Shelby County’s sustainable gurus intend to “…provide for a diverse, stimulating social, cultural, recreation and spiritual environment.”5

 Indeed Mt. Laurel located in the northeast section of the county was designed as a “Traditional Neighborhood Development” - a development concept of a sustainable community6.  As such it may soon see “performance teams” PT consisting of two or more volunteers surveying a section or sections of their community.  Shelby County’s PTs may be patterned after “sustainable” programs in communities across the country - Seattle, Washington,7A many communities in Iowa7B, Worcester, Mass.7C, Minneapolis, Minn.7D and New York7E.  Performance Teams are part of “Computerized Neighborhood Environment Tracking” or ComNET.   

 Monitoring neighborhoods in “sustainable communities”, the ComNET program provides a Palm Pilot or similar PDA (personal digital assistant), which has a built in digital camera with wireless internet connection.  Performance Teams typically consist of three members and are assigned a territory of several blocks.  During the walking inspection two “Team” members observe violation and or infrastructure problems.  The information is reported to the third “team” member assigned to enter the data in the PDA’s preinstalled software.  Pictures of violations accompany standardized reports that are immediately transmitted via the internet to the appropriate government agency7.  

 “Performance measures” published in the “Neighborhood Sustainability Indicators Guidebook”8 written by Crossroads Resource Center9, a partnership of government and private organizations are likely typical measurements that could be used as a guide to determine a community’s “sustainability index”.  Information from randomly selected residents in the targeted neighborhood would be logged into the PDA and immediately sent to the government agency delegated the overseeing responsibility.  The first set of measurements could be a benchmark.  Data from future surveys would provide comparison data to determine if the targeted community was moving toward “sustainability”.

 The following is a sample from the “Guidebook”.

 “Percent of residents who have regular contact with ten or more of their immediate neighbors.  This is a measure of social cohesion of the neighborhood.”

 “Percent of residents who walk to local stores to purchase most life essentials.” 

 “Percent of food consumed in neighborhood that is grown within 50 miles of neighborhood (with a separate reporting for food grown inside neighborhood).”

 “Ecological footprint of neighborhood population.  This is essentially a measure of the number of acres of land required to support a person’s lifestyle.”

 “Percent of neighbor hood organization budget spent for R&D.”

 “Percent of residents who regularly celebrate their cultural heritage.”

 “Percent of loans obtained by residents from local credit sources (including individual lenders, credit union, and local lending institutions).”

 This writer believes that one “measurement” was missing from the “Guidebook” – the attitude of the resident.  After all happy “sustainable communities” should have happy “sustainable residents”. 

A1. http://www.federalsustainability.org/about/statement-of-unity.pdf

Footnote 1 – 4 Shelby County Comprehensive Plan available on the following website:

1.  part three page 127

2. part two page 67

3. part two page 68

4. part three page 126

5. part two page 55

6. http://www.mtlaurel.com/ Also check http://www.peck.ca/nua/ip/ip01.htm for a listing of other features of a “sustainable community”

7. http://www.fcny.org/cmgp/comnet.htm

7A. http://www.sustainableseattle.org/Programs/NeighborhoodIndicators.shtml

7B.http://www.iowacipa.org/ for a list of cities in Iowa -  http://www.iowacipa.org/home/cities.htm

7Chttp://www.wrrb.org/Neighborhood/

7D http://www.wrrb.org/Neighborhood/

7E http://www.fcny.org/cmgp/comnet.htm

8. www.crcworks.org/guide.pdf

9.  http://www.crcworks.org/partners.html

Article 15

Article 16 - Vestavia Hills Adopts the Globalist Agenda


By unanimous vote during the June 21, 2004 city council meeting, Vestavia Hills, Alabama formerly endorsed the city's "comprehensive plan".  The action by the people's representatives establishes the "plan" as law for the city of Vestavia Hills.  A lone dissenting voice objected that the "plan" is not stringent enough to protect the environment.  The objection was noted. 

Supporters of the plan - city officials and audience members frequently referred to the "plan" as a "Living document".  This phrase, on page 7 of the introduction, reads: "This plan must be considered a "living document."  The city's next step requires formulating laws and regulations to define the broad language in the "living document" which will be used to enforce the new policy.     

The "living document" concept may be compared to building a house in a tree.  The concept may sound appealing but try building a house designed to last at least one generation on a foundation that sways in the wind and is continually growing and changing. 

Apply the "living document" concept to the Declaration of Independence where it states: 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Our changing society would require the alteration of the document to reflect currently acceptable beliefs.  Therefore God and references to any and all deities would have to be purged.  "Unalienable Rights" would also be stricken from the
text. 

The following sentence, rewritten to conform to the new paradigm would likely pass muster. 

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that man is master of his own destiny so long as it falls within the bounds set by the state. Freedoms, such as Life, Liberty and Happiness are conditional and revocable if it later appears they stand in the way of real progress."   

The Ten Commandment concept under the "living document" philosophy would have to be reworded.  After holding a series of "visioning" sessions a consensus would be reached that "Thou shall not" is too negative and contains overtones of great intolerance.  We will change it to read, "Murder, stealing, lying, etcetera may be committed only under the following conditions..."

Hopefully, the above has demonstrated that law based on a document that is purposefully designed to change cannot promote justice or welfare.

The Vestavia Hills plan has five goals - number four purports to "Promote Orderly Growth".  One of the bulleted items under this category on page 71 directs the city to "Ensure "best and highest" use of property in all zoning decisions".   Alabaster, Alabama, a city just down the road from Vestavia Hills was recently in the news for condemning private property in favor of a commercial development.  The city contended that the welfare of the city would best be served by forcing individual property owners to give up property so that a Wal-Mart could be built. 

It is reasonably certain that the mayor and city council would deny that such a situation could happen in Vestavia Hills because of their "comprehensive plan."  Yet this "Goal", now law in Vestavia Hills, practically assures that this or similar situations will occur.

Article 16

Article 17 - Property Rights Under Attack in 
Homewood, Alabama

The State of Alabama has, under Housing Title 24, granted immense power to any incorporated city or town that declares a section of the community to be an "Urban Renewal District" or "Redevelopment Project".  Birmingham so designated the "East Avondale" area and the city of Homewood has followed suit with the designation of "Greensprings" and "Edgewood" communities as "Urban Renewal Districts". 


Property and buildings within the designated areas can be declared by the city or appointed authority as "blighted."  The far-reaching implications attaching to the label "blighted" cannot be understood without understanding the legal definition:

 

The city or authority may "...acquire blighted areas,...by reason of obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors that are detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of the community." [1]

 
Thus any well maintained home or business could be condemned at the city's discretion. 

Following the "redevelopment plan" the city may, after seizing the private property sell or lease the land.[2]   A "just" legal system that seizes property would provide adequate compensation to property owners.  This will likely not be the case for residents of Birmingham and Homewood or for any other community that follows their example.  Compensation for land acquired under this action will be based on "its use value".[3]
 
Example: A city has enticed a large unnamed retail outlet to locate a store in an "urban renewal project" - Edgewood for example. Under the "use value" criteria the owner of a vacant lot would receive compensation equal to the value of a vacant lot.  The owner of a lot with a house that has been declared, "blighted" may receive compensation minus the cost of removal of the house.  Thus "use value" is essentially the amount that the city considers fair - not the fair market value.    

What would motivate a city to seize property from a business or homeowner that is obviously solvent and in good repair? - MONEY - TAX REVENUES.  State law makes this point in the following quote: "such areas (blighted) impair economic values and tax revenues."[4]  Other issues are cited but it is reasonable to conclude that MONEY is at the root of this evil.

The first point of pressure that property owners in the Edgewood business community could feel from Homewood is found in city ordinance 2202 passed May 10th 2004: "All buildings shall be two (2) stories in height." Therefore all buildings taller than or shorter than two stories are "noncompliant".  During the public meeting held on July 6 at the Homewood High School by the Planning Commission to hear public comments - residents posed questions regarding this issue.  The Commission answered that as long as the structure remained unaltered the building could remain. 

Altering the structure of a building, or in some cases repairing the structure could bring a "discontinuation" order.  Some communities have incorporated a new concept with their nonconforming ordinances.  "Amortization of nonconforming use" - once "nonconformity" is established the overseeing authority sets a time in which conformity must be attained - typically two years[4a] - thus another method has been added for plucking the taxpayer feathers.

 Adding insult to injury!!

"A municipality, to the greatest extent it determines to be feasible in carrying out the provisions of this (Renewal Project), shall afford maximum opportunity, to the rehabilitation or redevelopment of areas by private enterprise."[5] (emphasis added)

The municipality (it) after seizing your property and paying pennies on the dollar for its "use value"  "determines" that "private enterprise" requires a small enticement to make the relocation to your property alluring.  It - the municipality determines that selling bonds is the most feasible way to provide cash to the desired "private enterprise".  Thus the displaced business owner and residents of the community are now saddled with debt to support the municipality's dream of "rehabilitation" and "redevelopment".   

 Alabama law Title 24 Section 24-3-3 -  Urban renewal plans

"Any urban renewal project...shall be sufficiently complete to indicate such land acquisition, demolition and removal of structures, redevelopment, improvements and rehabilitation as may be proposed to be carried out in the area of the urban renewal project, zoning and planning changes, if any, land uses, maximum densities, building requirements and the plan's relationship to definite local objectives respecting appropriate land uses, improved traffic, public transportation, public utilities, recreational and community facilities and other public improvements."

 Maps, documents and the public discussion at the Homewood Planning Commission meeting on July 6 did not divulge any of the required information cited in the above quote.  Nor did Homewood cite enabling legislation for the authority to commence the "urban renewal project". 

Homewood may claim that Edgewood is not intended to fall under the wrecking ball or see the "removal of structures".  If this were the case, why would Homewood's ordinance 2202 require "all buildings" in the target area to be two stories - placing the majority of the structures in a state of "noncompliance"?  

Footnotes:
1.  Alabama Title 24 Section 24-2-2
2.  Ibid Section 24-2-2 (4)
3.  Ibid Section 24-2-6
4.  Ibid Section 24-2-1
4A. Example - Gulf Shores Nonconforming Structure and Use Ordinance http://www.ci.gulf-shores.al.us/CCD/Zoning%20Ordinance/article_11%20-%20Nonconforming%20Structures.htm
5. Alabama Title 24 section 24-3-1(3)(b)

Article 17


 
 

Depopulating Rural Alabama - Another Step

The Huntsville Times on Sunday, November 6th , 2005 published an article entitled, “Effort afoot to reconstruct Black Belt’s grassy prairie”.  The article describes how Alabama’s “Forever Wild1, a State operated program that spends millions of taxpayers' dollars taking land out of private ownership and other organizations working in concert, will “acquire 100,000 acres in Alabama's economically depressed Black Belt…”  The first step involves the State of Alabama and The Nature Conservancy2 plan to acquire 2,000 acres west of Montgomery.  Subsequently, the article notes all 100,000 acres “…could be repopulated with native grasses, wildflowers and even bison3”.  Notice the quote in the preceding sentence does not include "human beings" in the "repopulation" effort - an oversight? - read footnote 3.  Joining the call to encumber the rights to 100,000 acres of privately owned land in Alabama are Auburn University’s Professor Diane Hite4 and Dr. Richard Holland5, President of the University of West Alabama.   

The process begun by State government, organizations and academics involves the denial of "Law of Nature and Nature's God" expressed in the Declaration of Independence and embraces - a new philosophy - a new religion - commonly referred to as "deep ecology".  The principles of this religion are as follows: click here to view the following principles on the Foundation for Deep Ecology website.

"1) The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth; intrinsic value; inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes."

"2) Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves."

"3) Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs."

"4) Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening."

"5) The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease."

"6) Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present."

"7) The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great."

"8) Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes."

Literature for the "National Strategies for Sustainable Development," an organization whose existence is mandated by the United Nations "Agenda 21", confirms in the following quote that "sustainable development" is part and parcel of "deep ecology" principles expressed in the preceding quote.  The primary criticism from "deep ecology" adherents centers on the slow implementation of the United Nations' "sustainable development" program.

   "The gradual emergence of the concept of sustainable development has also been built on a range of other concepts, e.g. ‘sustainable yield’. ‘eco-development’, ‘deep ecology’," emphasis added

The following map shows the targeted property: Click here to view the map on line: http://www.msstate.edu/org/mississippientmuseum/InsectSurveys/BlackBeltPrairie.htm

For additional maps and information click on the following link: http://www.frcc.gov/docs/PNVG/EastNew/CEGL_12172004.pdf

It is sad to say that this generation must lament the following quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"What a cruel reflection that a rich country cannot long be a free one."

 

 1.  Forever Wild - amendment to the Alabama Constitution.  See this paragraph for the official affiliation of State government with "deep ecology" organizations.  Click here to view location and description of property already acquired by "Forever Wild."

2.  The Nature Conservancy is a "spinoff/associated organization"  to the "deep ecology" philosophy.  Click here to read how the implementation of this philosophy will change America.

3.  This objective is part and parcel of "The Wildlands Project".  (It) "...was organized by conservation activists and scientists to create a plan for North America which protects and restores all native plants and animals in their natural habitat.  Vast landscapes, covering as much as half of the continent, must be kept whole or healed if we are to reverse the decline into mass extinction.  Perhaps a quarter of the landscape will need strict protection - roadless, without machines and industrial or agricultural human communities." - published in a special issue of the Wild Earth Magazine.  A copy of the article will be made available upon request. Click here to view the maps created by the University of Florida and agencies of the Federal government that show the location for the animal repopulation areas.

4.  Professor Hite is one of two "Principal Investigators" creating a database that will include species and community data for over 184 freshwater fishes and all mussel species from the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa rivers (ACT). "Completion of the ACT Aquatic GAP (geographic approach to planning) will allow for development of decision support systems (DSS) to help natural resource managers make informative decisions for land and riverine management and landscape level conservation planning."   "Gap analysis is directed towards identifying native animal species and natural communities that are underrepresented in conservation efforts. The objectives of the project are: ...(4) to map the ownership of public and private conservation lands; (5) to categorize all lands according to management status; (6) to produce a database of the total surface area and relative representation for each class of land cover and animal species relative to land stewardship categories;" - emphasis added.  Professor Hite's employer - Auburn University - operates a "clearinghouse" for "activist, agents and academics" in Alabama involved with the implementation of "sustainable development" - "Agenda 21" - the United Nation's program.

Question - If there are "natural resource managers" - are there "human resource managers"?

 5.  Dr. Holland is a member of Rep. Artur Davis' Sustainable Development Summit which was convened in October 2004.  The Representative's "...goal has been to create a pool of experts and professionals who can sit in the same room and formulate practical solutions related to environmental issues.  I believe that this working group is diverse and will provide an array of perspectives that can help forge consensus on environmental issues."

Article 68

 

Ducklings, Kittens, Fawns - Vestavia, Alabama - and Governance?

Words convey concepts and ideas,

 Example:

Parents, while on an outing to a local park, instruct their child to feed the “baby ducks”.  The child eagerly complies by throwing popcorn especially popped for the day’s outing to the ducks.   

 This two-sentence example conveys several unspoken instructions - popcorn must be removed from its container and thrown to the ducks.  Additionally, it teaches the child that ducks have babies, a concept which may appear benign, but the teaching method, though subtle, is contributing to a fundamental change in the structure of society.  The change does not manifest itself until the child has matured to the point where evaluation, either conscious or unconsciously, occurs and results in the dilution of the belief that the Supreme Being has not set an order to his living creations.  When the altered viewpoint is accepted by society, the once held view that man was created in HIS image with dominion over all other species is discarded.  This will likely lead the individual to the conclusion that all offspring subordinate to man, once referred to by specific names, such as – ducklings, kittens, and fawns etc. are in fact babies.  Following this concept to its logical end, it may be concluded that killing one of these species would be murder.  Indeed, the concept is gaining ascendancy in society demonstrating the effectiveness of the subtle teaching method.   

 If society accepts the principle that the Creator had little if anything to do with mankind, then the concept of “inalienable rights” (rights granted by God) is discarded for a new belief.  This leaves America with little choice but to discard the chief tenet of the Declaration of Independence – government (man) does not grant rights.      

 Adults are not immune to this thought-tampering technique.  A case in point is the word “governance”.  The word sounds similar to “government” and therefore, is the likely reason that most individuals feel comfortable assigning a benign meaning to the word.  The difference, though slight in sound, belies the conveyance of the destructiveness of this concept.  The destructive upheavals to society will occur when local policy statements, generally referred to as “comprehensive plans”, are officially accepted by local governments and implemented without objection from the public.  A prime example is the upscale community of Vestavia Hills, Alabama.  A bedroom community of Birmingham, the municipality touts its educational system as “one of the best”.  Setting aside wisdom which should accompany a high degree of education, the city has adopted a “comprehensive plan” that calls for the city to set high standards for “local governance”1.  

 In so doing, the city has altered the course of governing from a government system that adheres to the following definition: “The exercise of authority;…over the actions of men in communities,…according to established constitution,”2   to – governance, which is defined as the: “…exercise of authority; direction; control; management, either of a public officer, or of a private guardian or tutor.”3

 Observe that a “governmental” system rules in accordance with the constitution, the latter, “governance” system lacks this crucial point. 

 Under Secretary of State Dr. Paula Dobriansky4, head delegate to the United Nations World Conference on Sustainable Development, speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations5, an organization typically reluctant to grant public access to their meetings6, further clarified the definition of “governance” when she stated:

 “…good governance encompasses the creation and support of effective democratic institutions; public institutions that will make policy objectively and rationally for the betterment of all citizens. Indispensable to good governance is an independent judiciary that will in turn implement these laws fairly and equitably.”7

 The Under Secretary’s statement describes a process that has already occurred in a majority of American communities – the adoption of “policy statements” created by institutions or organizations other than the people or the people’s elected representatives.  In essence an “oligarchy” “a form of government in which the supreme power is placed in a few hands” has devised a “policy statement” a – “comprehensive plan” “for the betterment of all citizens.”  “Indispensable” to “governance” is a judiciary that is not accountable to the electorate.  Thus, “robed bench sitters” move from “judicial activism” to full legislative authority.  A trial political balloon recently, floated by the Alabama Bar Association8, sought to have state judges appointed at appellate level.  The balloon, on its maiden flight, has yet to be shot down and is likely a first step toward an “independent” judiciary.    

 Why do we need to change the structural organization of government from one that follows a constitution to one that does not?  The answer is found on page 3 of the United States’ publication, “Working for a Sustainable World, U.S. Government Initiatives to Promote Sustainable Development” - “Good governance is necessary for sustainable development.” 

 Lubricous judicial rulings designed to implement “governance” policy over outdoor lighting, as cited in the following quote, from the Vestavia Comprehensive Plan, under “sustainable development” principles, would result in a voter backlash against judges – a situation that cannot be tolerated if “sustainable development” is to be implemented in the United States.

 “All light sources should be shielded to eliminate nighttime glare that could be harmful to other buildings or roadways.  Light shields keep light focused downward, keeping the night time sky free from light pollution.”  Appendix 4 section 3c 1 page 29 of the Vestavia Comprehensive Plan

 Outdoor lighting, a seemingly benign subject, is used in this article to demonstrate the degree of control that will be exercised by “governance” under “sustainable development” principles.  The following quote from the Athens, Alabama Comprehensive Plan provides additional insight into the depths of the control.

 “In no case shall site or parking area lighting cast illumination beyond property boundaries” page 5-5 of the Athens Comprehensive Plan

 Voluntary compliance to the new order, while not essential, is advantageous.  The “judiciary” in this instance, as Thomas Jefferson stated: “…can do what open force would not dare to attempt."

 1.  Vestavia Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5 page 153

2.  Webster’s 1828 dictionary

3.  ibid

4. CFR web file http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=4600

5.  The Council on Foreign Relations CFR– 4,000 plus member organization.  The membership makeup includes Presidents, Senators, Congressman, prominent news celebrities and high standing academics.  The CFR, jointly working with mirrored counterparts in Mexico and Canada have issued a report titled “Building North American Community”.  The report calls for the merger of the United States, Mexico, and Canada within four years (2010).  A Lou Dobbs 3 min. video examining the call for the merger may be viewed at www.keepourrights.org

6.  Nigel Purvis: Contrary to the Council on Foreign Relations ordinary practice, this event is on the record”.

7. CFR web file http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=4600

8.  Alabama Bar Association website http://www.alabar.org/media/news/05-0824.cfm

 

 

The Final Solution – Globalization!

A dictionary is a book that contains the words of a language with explanations of their meanings.  Example: Sovereignty is defined in the Webster’s 1828 dictionary as – “Supreme power; supremacy; the possession of power. Absolute sovereignty belongs to God only.” 

The concept that God is supreme and that words have specific meanings have, since the communists revolted in France (1700s), undergone a catastrophic metamorphosis.  Through their effective teaching methods, applied liberally in the government school system, our Constitution, a system of fundamental rules, principles and ordinances, for the government of our nation has become a “living document”.  New definitions assigned to the words in the Constitution and government, in general, facilitate the manipulation of concepts and principles that were once considered rock solid. 

Formulating a new definition for “sovereignty” brings an end to the “nation-state” system, which was a progressive step, where sovereignty is shared with the United Nations Security Council as agreed to in the UN’s Charter and the beginning of the next step towards the “final solution” i.e. “globalization”.  The redefinition process begins with a campaign to demonstrate that the current definition is antiquated or inadequate and therefore does not fit the new norms of “governance” under development.   Frequently, the facilitator or change agent will state that public support is on the rise calling for the change.  Case in point, Robert Pastor, Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University has stated:  “Sovereignty....is not a fixed concept.”  “… evidence suggest that North Americans are ready for a new relationship (between  Canada, Mexico and the United States) that renders this old definition of sovereignty obsolete1.”

Professor Pastor is a leader in the “globalization” movement, as denoted by his article published in “Foreign Affairs Magazine (see footnote 1).  “Foreign Affairs” is the flagship publication for the Council on “Foreign Relations (CFR)”.  The CFR, an organization that includes Presidents, Senators, Representatives, media personalities and business tycoons, and has a membership that exceeds four thousand, describes itself as a forum for policy debate.  The “forum” is secret2, unless authorized disclosure is permitted.  Secrecy renders the “get-togethers” free from public scrutiny, a hallmark of a free society.  The CFR contends that secrecy provides a forum where powerful individuals from every sector of society may speak freely. Expanding their grasp for power, the CFR has instituted a program of sending delegations of prominent members to meet with global leaders, as noted in footnote two.  The fact that global leaders from every part of the world are willing and eager to meet with a nongovernmental delegation attests to the organization’s influence and clout. 

The attack on the concept of “sovereignty” coincides with the release of the CFRs’ publication, “Building a North American Community.”   Contending that the publication is a “report from an independent task force” belies the fact the CFR is the primary sponsor.  Remember, “he who pays the fiddler calls the tune.”  Joining in the call for dissolution of the “national sovereignty system” are the Canadian Council of Chief Executives3 and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales4 (COMEXI), secondary participants in the “task force”. 

The following  prominent are members of the 18 man CFR contingency to the “task force” – (all 18 must be considered outside the realm of freedom loving, patriotic Americans) are:

William F. Weld – two-term governor of Massachusetts, Assistant U.S. Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, DC (1986–88), and as the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts during the Reagan administration (1981–86).

 Carla A. Hills - Vice Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. From 1989 to 1993, Ambassador Hills served as U.S. Trade Representative in the first Bush administration, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice in the Ford administration.

Robert A. Pastor - author or editor of sixteen books, including Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World to the New and former member of the National Security Council.

 The CFR’s task force calls for the immediate creation4a of:

A North American Advisory Council5
The “Council” would, as stipulated in the “report”, be patterned after the European Bilderberg Group6.  The British Broadcast Company reported that the “Bilderberg Group”, “named after the Dutch hotel in which it held its first meeting…brings together about 120 leading business people and politicians.7”  “Not a word of what is said at Bilderberg meetings can be breathed outside. No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted.8

 Trinational Parliament
The globalist agenda calls for the “Council” of unelected officials to set the agenda9 for a “trinational interparliamentary group”10.  An understanding of the “globalist agenda” reference is facilitated by examining the meaning of the word “parliament” - the general council of the nation constituting the legislature, summoned by the king's authority (ruling junta), to consult on the affairs of the nation, and to enact and repeal laws.”11 (emphasis added).  Whereas, a “congress” is a meeting of individuals appointed and sent by another with powers to transact business as his representative; In the United States, a person elected or appointed to represent a state or a district would be a delegate to a congress12.

The form of “governance” under creation may be rightfully labeled an “oligarchy”- “A form of government in which the supreme power is placed in a few hands;”


The “oligarchy” will control:

Ø      Power to tax13 – beginning with a “common tariff”

Ø      Educational bureaucracy14

Ø     
Price and income controls15

Ø     
Merger of law enforcement and military16

Ø     
Harmonization of laws/regulations17

The timetable – accomplish all by 2010.  Will you sit idle and allow that which has come once in the 6,000 year history of man to digress to a fiefdom – the “final solution”?

 

View the three minute Lou Dobbs video exposing this topic at www.keepourrights.org

1.  “North America’s Second Decade” authored by Robert Pastor published in the January/February, 2004 issue of “Foreign Affairs”, the flagship publication of the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83112/robert-a-pastor/north-america-s-second-decade.html

 2.  “Novel techniques for defining and disseminating ideas nurtured at the Harold Pratt House (New York headquarters for the CFR) have been developed to supplement the traditional study and discussion groups: the Council started sending high-level groups of directors and members to meet with foreign leaders in Russia, China, Hungary, Poland, Vietnam, and the Middle East. The Council’s board of directors now meets regularly with an International Advisory Board, composed of leading figures in business, government, and scholarship overseas, to help define issues for attention and add international perspective to the evolving Council program. Though most of the Council meetings continue in the tradition of confidential exchanges, critical public issues and distinguished speakers,…are presented before a wide audience sometimes through national television, in the form of debates between speakers of opposing viewpoints.

http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/second_transformation.html

 3.  “Founded in 1976, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) is Canada’s premier business association, with an outstanding record of achievement in matching entrepreneurial initiative with sound public policy choices. Composed of the chief executives of 150 leading Canadian enterprises, the CCCE was the Canadian private sector leader in the development and promotion of the Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement during the 1980s and of the subsequent trilateral North American Free Trade Agreement.”

 4.  “The Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales (COMEXI) is the only multidisciplinary organization committed to fostering sophisticated, broadly inclusive political discourse and analysis on the nature of Mexico’s participation in the international arena and the relative influence of Mexico’s increasingly global orientation on domestic priorities. The Council is an independent, nonprofit, pluralistic forum, with no government or institutional ties, that is financed exclusively by membership dues and corporate support. The main objectives of COMEXI are to provide information and analysis of interest to our associates, as well as to create a solid institutional framework for the exchange of ideas concerning pressing world issues that affect our country.”

 4a. “Building a North American Community” page 31

 5.  ibid

 6.  ibid

 7.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4290944.stm

 8.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3773019.stm

 9.  “Building a North American Community” page 32

 10. ibid

 11.  Webster’s 1828 dictionary

 12.  This sentence draws on the definition of two words from Webster’s 1828 dictionary “congress” and “delegate”

 13.  “Building a North American Community” page 3

 14.  ibid page- 20  and 27-30

 15.  ibid page 17

 16. ibid page 10 & 11

 17.  ibid pages 4, 6, 8,  9, & 24

 

Homewood , Alabama embraces “Globalization”

Homewood, Alabama, an older, upscale community adjacent to Birmingham’s south side, has embraced the tenets of “Globalization”.  The term “Globalization” is the latest incarnation of the passé phrase “New World Order”, which over the years has lost favorable usage.  The term “Globalization” does not convey a sinister connotation and therefore the transformation from a free society to one in which freedoms are encumbered in the name of necessity and citizens are trained to gleefully comply, is less painful.  The tenets, creed, or doctrine of the process has a code or system of beliefs that is definable and documented.  A brief overview of the newly adopted “doctrine” is described in Homewood’s “Revitalization Plan” for the “ Rosedale” neighborhood – a formerly black community. 

Unless otherwise noted all quotes may be found in the “HISTORIC DISTRICTS OF ROSEDALE AND ROSEDALE PARK - HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND REVITALIZATION PLAN 2005”.  The “plan” may be downloaded from Homewood’s website: www.homewoodal.org/.

“The Rosedale Community Development Corporation and Rosedale Revitalization Steering Committee/Workgroup developed this plan in conjunction with Greater Birmingham Ministries and many other community and professional volunteers.” Emphasis added.

The partnership or merger of  “church and state” is signified in the preceding quote.  The merger, sometimes referred to as a “public/private partnership” has demonstrated an historic propensity to result in a tyrannous government.  European governmental policy of the 16 th and 17 th centuries are a glaring example.

The next quote identifies who will be expected to adhere to the creed of the “new world order”.

“All Rosedale residents, business, organizations, and other concerned entities including the city of Homewood share the responsibility of turning words into action, blight and deterioration into renewal, and disruption and dissonance into peace, harmony and unity.”

“Peace, harmony and unity” harkens to the call of “liberty, equality and fraternity”, the cry of the first communist revolution 1 in France during the 1700’s.  The revolution resulted in the death of 12,000,000 people.  France has never recovered from the cultural change.

Homewood’s “plan” for the transformation in the aforementioned quote will “…be guided by the local, national and global tenets of smart growth and sustainable development…” Emphasis added.

Describing the United Nations origins of “sustainable development”, the introductory section of Homewood’s “plan” states that in 2002 “…President Bush appointed Colin Powell to lead the American delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development where the US renewed its commitment and support of sustainable development.”

“In its simplest terms, it (sustainable development) means adding some new considerations or dimensions to our everyday decisions as a society.  These considerations include: what the long-term impacts of a decision are, is the decision sustainable on a local level, and have the economic, social, and environmental impacts been incorporated into the decision? One of the goals established by the (President’s Council on Sustainable Development) PCSD is to “create full opportunity for citizens, businesses, and communities to participate in and influence the natural resource, environmental, and economic decisions that affect them.” Federal, state, tribal, and local governments working together to achieve environmental protection goals will set the standard for cooperation between communities, businesses, and governments.  This new collaborative decision-making process will ensure better decisions, create more rapid change, and promote more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources.  Creating a widely-held ethic of stewardship will encourage individuals, institutions, and corporations to take responsibility for the economic, environmental, and social consequences of their actions.”

“Through collaboration it sets common valuesandshared goals by integrating economy, equity, and environment.” Emphasis added.

The “common values and shared goals” referred to in the preceding are not Christian and WILL NOT allow freedom of choice – a basic tenet of a free society!  In the following quote from Minnesota’s publication - a “sustainable development” workbook titled “Under Construction – Tools and Techniques for Local Planning” 1, it is clear that the transformation to tyranny has begun. 

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.” Page 73

How widespread is this “new world order” philosophy?

“Sustainable development is sweeping the globe.  Most countries have sustainable-development policies and a large number of states have sustainable-development offices, programs, acts and/or initiatives. There are national and international councils, commissions, and/or departments of sustainable development.  An Internet search for "sustainable development" will yield over 40,000,000 hits.  There is even an on-line encyclopedia of sustainable development.”

The “plan” issued in 2005 calls for a new “master plan” for the city of Homewood.  The Birmingham News – South News section Wednesday, May 10 th, 2006 reports on page 3S that the Homewood city council “will meet at 6p.m. on May 15 to begin settling on a consultant” to write a new “comprehensive plan” for the city.

Lawful enslavement, a violation of “inalienable” rights, is veiled in ignorance and aided by a perception that government’s objectives are benign.  The process will engulf society without firing a shot.  Was Nikita Kruschev, former Soviet leader, correct – we will bury you without firing a shot?  

1. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=147448

2. www.mnplan.state.mn.us/pdf/2002/UnderConstructionCover.pdf

Eufaula and Globalization?

Eufaula, Alabama, a community of approximately 15,000 residents located on the Georgia - Alabama border answered the globalist call to restructure society on principles that will NOT secure “inalienable rights”.  “Inalienable rights”, (private ownership of property, freedom of speech, ability to exercise freedom of choice, etc) are granted by God and affirmed in the Declaration of Independence.  The desire to adapt the community to the globalist belief system is confirmed by examining the City’s plan of action and related information.  The “plan” took 18 months to formulate1 and is entitled “Eufaula 2020”. Eufaula partnered with “Audubon International, Auburn University”1 in the production of the community’s plan of action.  The plan states that the “cornerstones1” of the “planning effort were sustainability and inclusiveness1.” 

Audubon International has created a program of “Sustainable Communities Partnership”, which will eventually create a National Center for Sustainable Communities.  The organization defines “sustainability”, i.e. “sustainable development”, in the following quote.

What is sustainable development?”

The most widely used definition of sustainable development comes from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987): “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Broadly, sustainability means integrating and balancing economic, social, and environmental concerns in meeting our needs in order to continue all life on the planet, including human life.” (Emphasis added.)

More specifically, achieving this kind of integration and balance between economic, social, and environmental dimensions requires new ways of looking at:

Ø how we produce and consume,

Ø how we live,

Ø how we work,

Ø how we get along with each other, and

Ø how we make decisions (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development)”2. (Emphasis and formatting added.)

The foregoing quote from Audubon International assumes as fact that if Eufaula residents, as well as the rest of mankind, do not change “how they work”, “where they live”, “how they interact with their neighbors”, and how we collectively decide to make decisions - all life on the planet will cease to exist. Thus Eufaula, by partnering with an organization that holds radical conclusions based on junk science, demonstrates the desire to implement the tenets of “sustainable development” . If this partnership is allowed to continue and flourish, it will result in the dissolution of the individual's freedom of choice. The preceding assertion is based on the following definition for “freedom of choice”, published by Minnesota's department of “sustainable development”.

 

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.” 3

 

Visual Aids for “sustainable development”

 Three circles, each depicting one aspect of the new age philosophy “sustainable development”, are frequently used as a visual aid to convey a benign concept to the victim (residents of Eufaula). The victim/resident rarely asks the facilitator/change agent, i.e. Eufaula Mayor Jaxon, whose job it is to sugarcoat the poison pill – How will “ecosystem integrity”, “carrying capacity”, “equity” or any of the other phrases used to describe “sustainable development” affect my community?


Eufaula Mayor Jay Jaxon is shown in the photo on the right drawing the three circles of “sustainable development”.  See footnote 2 page 7 for reference.


The move to embrace “sustainable development” will result in the dissolution of private property rights in Eufaula. Why?  Because the United Nations has determined that private property rights are an impediment “social justice”. The following quote is from the 1976 United Nations Habitat I conference held in Vancouver, Canada.

 

1. Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings  - and healthy conditions for the people - can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.

Inaction on your part will ensure that globalist goals are attained.

1. http://www.eufaulaalabama.com/CityGov/CityOrg/Boards/About/sustainable.html

2.  Stewardship News – A publication of Audubon International Volume 5 Issue 6
November/December 2002

3. “Under Construction – Tools and Techniques for Local Planning” published by Minnesota and available on the State's website at: www.mnplan.state.mn.us/pdf/2002/UnderConstructionCover.pdf - page 73

Article 79

Shelby County, Alabama and a bowl of soup?

The Shelby County Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 19 th, 2006.  The supposed purpose was to allow private property owners, in the Camp Branch district, an area that covers a major portion of Shelby County, the opportunity to request that the proposed zoning for their property be maintained or changed to another classification. 

The zoning regulations will be enforced by the County, if the citizens residing in the district vote for the regulations on June 27 th.  Property owners, who own property in this district, but residing elsewhere, will not be allowed to vote on the issue.  Prior generations of Americans understood that the power to tax without consent was thievery.   This generation of Americans is learning that the loss of property rights is a veiled form of taxation without representation that is no less than “THIEVERY”.  The zoning board failed to inform the audience that property rights found to be in a “nonconforming status” could be amortized.  Amortization is the period of time that the board would allow the nonconforming “use” to continue or “structure” to exist on the property – see footnote.

The ability of local government officials to lure from property owners the rights to their property is enhanced when a dispute between two groups of property owners can be fomented.  The emotional stress of a dispute will typically limit the victim/property owner’s ability to reason.  This is the case of the Saddle Lake subdivision located in the Camp Branch district.  The residents of the subdivision are gleefully allowing the control of their property rights to be transferred to a local zoning board in the hope that the board will prevent, through the exercise of zoning authority, the development of pasture land adjacent to their subdivision. 

Their shortsighted action is very similar to Esau who sold his birthright for a bowl of soup.  At least Esau was able to eat the soup – unfortunately, in this case, the property owners residing in the district will vote to not only transfer their rights to local government, but the rights of others that have no declared right to vote and for what? AN IMPLIED PROMISE – An implied promise from local government not to allow the development of land adjacent to the subdivision!  The residents of the subdivision have not considered that after the authority to zone has been transferred to the zoning board, the board may, at any time thereafter, change the zoning classification without the property owner’s consent.

Woe be to all that will not read the objectives of Shelby County – their fate will be no different than the individual that cannot read!

“ Shelby County intends to fully pursue its vision of an integrated network of compact, walkable and sustainable communities, woven into a canvas of functional green infrastructure.  By exploring, developing and using "out-of-the box" methods, tools and techniques, we plan to harness the power of "the market" to advance the development of traditional communities, and stem the tide of sprawl.  Rather than reacting to development as it happens - as has largely been the case to date - Shelby County intends to proactively direct where, when and how development occurs following the goals and vision of the Plan.”  Section III page 1, Shelby County Comprehensive Plan

In short, Shelby County intends to comply with the goals stated in the “plan” – not the will of the people.  Thus, where Shelby County designates communities of high density, compact communities will be created.  Perhaps the Saddle Lake subdivision, where walking and bicycling will be the mode of transportation for “sustainable communities”?   Should the county declare that there is a shortage of “functional green infrastructure”, citizens are warned that “out-of-the-box” rules and regulation such as “eminent domain” may be used to condemn property rights, converting the property to “green infrastructure” until the county deems the acreage sufficient and “functional”.

Declaring that the county will “harness the power of the market” signals the end of a “free market” system and the beginning of local government manipulation of the market – i.e. “SOCIALISM”.  The purpose? - To “advance the development” of the socialist planner’s dream of a “traditional community” and prevent the citizen from exercising the right to live where he chooses. Thus, the professional planner will declare that “SPRAWL” has been eliminated.

The County will “proactively direct”, i.e. intervene in the citizen’s ability to exercise “freedom of choice”, thereby declaring “where, when and how” he may utilize resources he once considered his own.    

 Do you smell the aroma of hearty soup bubbling on the stove or the rancor of socialist schemes?  

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/science/publications/Land_Use_Lingo.pdf

http://www.iog.unc.edu/organizations/planning/onlinepubs/pgfall91.htm

Article 80

Socialism ( Shelby County Style) versus the American Way

The voters of the Camp Branch district (also referred to as a beat) located in Shelby County, Alabama, on Tuesday, June 27 th, 2006, by a margin of 58%, rejected a zoning proposal that was touted by local officials.  The margin affirmed the fact that there is a majority of voters that understand that “zoning” encumbers private property rights.  The opposite position was taken by the County’s Planning Commission during a public meeting held on June 20 th.   

The June 20 th meeting should have been a forum wherein local official would have forthrightly discussed the issues involved on the coming referendum.  Sadly this was not the case.  The sample ballot provides some of the fundamental information which should have been open for discussion – the voters were asked:

“Shall the zoning regulations, the master plan and the authority of the Planning Commission of Shelby County, Alabama, be applicable to the Camp Branch Zoning Beat of Shelby County, Alabama?”  

Hence, the ballot is asking - Is the voter willing to grant to the “Planning Commission” authority over property rights in the Camp Branch Zoning Beat?  Why does the Planning Commission require zoning authority? - In order to implement the tenets of the County’s “MASTER PLAN”.  County enforcement officers must have zoning authority – it is their primary ENFORCEMENT tool – see footnote 1.

The sample ballot also states:

“Only those qualified electors residing outside of the municipal limits and in the unzoned portion of the Beat shall be permitted to vote or sign a petition calling for the election in the Beat concerned.”

This stipulation denies the property owners, who have property inside the district, but reside outside of the district, the right to vote on matters directly related to their property.  Thus, without identifying themselves as socialist/communist, Shelby County officials have implemented the prime tenet of the communist manifesto – the abolition of private property.  Granted, the abolition is not yet complete, but the direction is absolutely discernable and without corrective action (an awaking of the political will of the people), complete abolition of private property will be forthcoming.

Shelby County officials, whose rightful position is to protect inalienable rights, have aided and abetted socialist planners in the dissolution of private property rights.  Why? During the June 20 th meeting, when the Planning Commission could have informed the audience that the current system of zoning was viewed by the County as the fundamental cause of land use problems in Shelby County, and that after the authority to zone was transferred to the Planning Commission, the current system would be scrapped - the Planning Commission neglected to do so.  The following quote substantiates the preceding claim.

“ Shelby County's current zoning and subdivision regulations are conventionally structured… regulations, mandating strict separation of use and intensity and the virtual prohibition the type of place making the Comprehensive Plan seeks to promote. The affect of these regulations has been the suburban sprawl development pattern that the Comprehensive Plan seeks to discourage. This is clearly incompatible with plan implementation.” Section III page 2, emphasis added.

The new zoning system for Shelby County will implement “performance zoning/standards” 2, green infrastructure 2, infill 3, mix use zones 4, transferable development rights 5, etc.  The new system WILL NOT protect private property rights as it currently exists – it will, however, implement “sustainable development” 6, the antithesis of liberty.

Footnotes – see the Shelby County Comprehensive Plan available at: http://www.shelbycountyalabama.com/comprehensiveplan.shtm

1.  “Zoning is the single most effective tool for ensuring that land development follows a path consistent with the vision of the plan.” Section III page 2 of the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

2.  Section II page 3

3.  Section II page 2

4.  The term is used multiple times throughout Section II.

5.  Section III

6.  “Objective ED-5 Embrace sustainable community economic development strategies to focus on “growth without expansion” through sustainable development.”  Section II 49

“ Shelby County recognizes that this current trend is not a sustainable development pattern.”  Section II page 55

 

A Shelby County SNIPPET

This snippet (article) of the Shelby County saga begins with a quote from a letter from Alex Dudchock, county manager, dated August 25, 2005, requesting residents in the Sterrett Vandiver Beat sign a petition that would petition local government to hold a referendum on zoning.

“The structure of our legal zoning authority and the historical motivating factors that communities respond to are typically an unpopular planned use or nuisance occurring in an area, which is incompatible with their communities.”

The preceding statement implies that “unpopular planned use or nuisance occurring in an area” would be prevented through the application of zoning. In the following statement, Mr. Dudchock implies that “urgency” is required, a tactic often utilized in high pressure sales.

“…it is often too late to get the zoning process completed and in place to affect the location and intensity of a proposed development that triggered the initial interest in a zoning petition and subsequent public vote.”

The sales tactic “buy now before it's too late” worked. The property owners in the Sterrett Vandiver Beat voted to grant to the county government the authority to zone.

Employing the unscrupulous sales tactic, “bait and switch”, Mr. Dudchock’s letter failed to inform the recipient that zoning as generally comprehended is one of the root causes of Shelby County’s plight and would be completely revamped as soon as authority to zone was granted to local government. 

“ Shelby County's current zoning and subdivision regulations are conventionally structured….regulations, mandating strict separation of use and intensity and the virtual prohibition the type of place making the Comprehensive Plan seeks to promote. The affect of these regulations has been the suburban sprawl development pattern that the Comprehensive Plan seeks to discourage. This is clearly incompatible with plan implementation.” Shelby County Comprehensive Plan, Section IV page 2 – emphasis added. 

What has occurred since the referendum, which approved zoning for the Sterrett Vandiver Beat, is the equivalent of pouring salt into the open wound of ignorance!

Chimney Rock – the “salt” – is a “planned” community of approximately 3,000 dwellings that will be constructed in the once rural landscape of northeast Shelby County. The “planned” high density community is just the sort of development that residents of the Sterrett Vandiver Beat had hoped to prevent through zoning - it is in reality the type of development prescribed by the County’s “comprehensive plan”, a detail that officials failed to mention prior to the referendum.

The “planned community” was made public with considerable fanfare – front page newspaper articles, TV coverage and a “charrette”. A “charrette” “is an intensive planning session where citizens, designers, and others collaborate on a vision for development”. So says “The Town Paper” a newspaper publication that was provided at no charge during the “charrette”. During the “planning session”, held over a six-day period (July 7 th – July 12 th) in the upscale Birmingham Grandview Marriott on US 280, promoters/facilitators 1 claimed that plans for the community would not be developed until the public and local officials had expressed their thoughts on the project. Considering that an artist rendering of two large buildings 1a approximately ten stories high was posted on Exquisite Development's (one of two developers promoting the project) website, the comment was met with a certain amount of skepticism.

 

Other anomalies

The newspaper publication circulated at the “charrette” listed Ridgeview Development, LLC in Brentwood, TN as a contact for the “planned community”. The area code for the phone number is for northwest Florida. Further inquiry revealed that the address, 330 Franklin Road Suite 135A, Box 107, Brentwood, TN 37027, listed for Ridgeview Development, LLC is the UPS Store. The UPS Store provides mail drop service. The phone number for the UPS Store is (615) 661-9606

 

 

Additionally, the State of Tennessee Secretary of State’s website does not list Ridgeview Development, LLC 2 as a corporation under the laws of Tennessee.

The high density development, Chimney Rock, will utilize land use regulations (zoning ordinances) that comply with the principles of “New Urbanism”. “New Urbanism” 3 is part and parcel of Agenda 21’s “sustainable development”. 3a  The process requires human population centers to restrict all activity to six land use categories. New Urbanist refers to the concept as “transect zoning”. The following quote from Shelby County’s “comprehensive plan” exquisitely articulates the concept.

“Each (town) center shall have the greatest density and mix of uses at its core, with intensity and scale transitioning to rural along a transect (or continuum of intensity, scale and design) into the Rural Landscape.” Emphasis added.  Section III page 6

A graphic depiction of the concept shown below is from Section II page 21 of Shelby County’s “comprehensive plan”.

Human development beyond the outer ring will be PROHIBITED! The existence of an outright prohibition on human development in the rural landscape/green infrastructure will, of course, be denied. But, without the authorization for the following services listed in the following quote, building permits will be impossible to obtain. If your property is beyond the “transition area”, you will own the property in name only while continuing to pay property taxes.

“The Transition Area boundaries should set the limits of water and sewer extension, police and fire protection, planning boundaries…” Section II page 21

This stipulation in Shelby County’s “comprehensive plan” is also reflected in the following quote from “new urbanist” dogma:

"The Transect has six zones, moving from rural to urban. It begins with two that are entirely rural in character: Rural preserve (protected areas in perpetuity); and Rural reserve (areas of high environmental or scenic quality that are not currently preserved, but perhaps should be)."  http://www.newurbannews.com/transect.html

 

                   Jefferson said:

“A nation that believes that it can live long, free and ignorant,
believes what never was and never will be”

1. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Social Work
- Course - "Sustainable Development" spring 2002.

  "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." “Near the end of the semester students will present a participatory plan for engaging with the community for sustainable development work.” http://ssw.unc.edu/syllabi/sp2002/238%20Gamble.pdf

1a. http://www.exquisitedevelopment.com/projects.asp

2. http://www.tennesseeanytime.org/soscorp/

3. 14th Congress for the New Urbanism, Providence, Rhode Island – Speaker Rt Hon John Prescott MP, Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom June 7 th 2006

“…we share our mutual interests. You call it the new urbanism. In Britain, we call it creating sustainable communities.” “Sustainable communities balance the social, economic and environmental concerns of their community – meeting the needs of existing and future generations, and respecting the needs of others in diverse communities”. http://www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show_nt1.asp?d=0&i=41020&L1=&L2=&a=42012

 3a. follow this link to see the connection between “sustainable development” and the United Nations’ “Agenda 21” http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm

 4. “Under Construction: Tools and Techniques for Local Planning” A Minnesota publication.

  “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.” Page 73 www.mnplan.state.mn.us/pdf/2002/UnderConstructionCover.pdf

Will Chilton County residents respond?

Ken Freeman and Don Casey, Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively, of the Alliance for Citizens Rights, an organization actively involved in the fight to retain the unalienable right to retain “private property rights”, presented to the audience at Clara’s Restaurant in Clanton, Alabama, on Saturday August 26 th, examples that vividly conveyed the socialist “anti-private property rights” of  “comprehensive planning” that are being adopted across the country. 

The timely presentation sponsored by Dr. Bill Chadwick and The Beacon newspaper was in response to the call by the “Chilton County Partnership for Progress” request that the county commission formally endorse the effort to author a local “comprehensive plan” at its Monday, August 28 th meeting scheduled for 6:00 p.m. 

The “Partnership’s” planning committee, which consist of the mayors of Clanton, Jemison, Thorsby and Maplesville, two county commissioners, a representative of the Home Builders Association, a representative of the Health Department and the Probate Judge, have by “consensus” agreed to make the request to the Commission.

The presentation by Mr. Freeman and Mr. Casey included a video produced in Richland County, South Carolina, a county where a large portion of the property is owned by Black citizens.  Joe Neal, South Carolina State Representative, explained in the DVD video, that the county’s “comprehensive plan” would amount to nothing less than the confiscation of private property rights.  Copies of the DVD are available through Dr. Bill Chadwick in Clanton.  An audio recording of the Saturday, August 26 th meeting is also available.  You may contact Dr. Chadwick at 205-755-0890.

Relying on quotes from various other “comprehensive plans” adopted throughout Alabama, Mr. Freeman and Mr. Casey demonstrated that such “plans” are advertised to control “future growth”, but in reality, the process will abolish “private property rights”.  Two examples presented, outdoor lighting and the selection and maintenance of shrubbery, were specifically selected, because they are common, ordinary activities that homeowners participate in.  “Comprehensive plans”, adopted as official policy by local governments in Alabama, regulate both activities.     

The audience heard how the well-documented process, authoring a “comprehensive plan”, would progress from this point. 

Officials would likely respond to “comprehensive plan” opponents that will ask how anyone could object to a plan that will take months to write and require the input of “stakeholders” and the general public; after all, the “plan” will be designed to protect them, won't it?  This type of response is designed to allay well-founded apprehension that belies the comment made by Cheryl Morgan, Professor and Director, Center for Architecture & Urban Studies (CAUS), Auburn University.  The “Director”, when asked about Shelby County’s “comprehensive plan”, responded, “It is an award-winning 'plan' that is being duplicated across the State of Alabama”. 

Recognizing that the quotes presented from the Alabama cities, Athens and Vestavia, mirrored the tenets of “smart growth” and “sustainable development”, found in Shelby County’s “comprehensive plan”, the Director’s response was absolutely correct.  Hence, the public input segment of the process is a smoke screen/ruse designed to allow elected officials the ability to claim that the “policy” – “comprehensive plan” – is a mandate from the public, when, in fact, the objectives and outcome are predetermined.

Mr. Freeman and Mr. Casey pledged that they would, when requested, make their presentation, and would be available for further discussion.  You may contact Mr. Ken Freeman at: 256-498-3802, Mr. Don Casey at: 205-744-4132.

Will Chilton County, Alabama Adopt Socialism?

The “planning committee” for the “Chilton County Partnership for Progress”, consisting of the mayors of Clanton, Jemison, Thorsby and Maplesville, a representative of the Home Builders Association, a representative of the Health Department and the Probate Judge, sought from the Chilton County Commission, a formal endorsement of a process that would result in a county-wide “comprehensive plan”, during its Monday, August 28 th, 2006 meeting.  The request initiated a discussion about the planning process and the zoning laws that would result if the “plan” were to become an official policy.  The request did not result in a motion that the commission could vote on.  Acknowledging the need for further investigation, the commission declined to take official action.

Speaking for the “planning process”, Chilton County’s Probate Judge Robert Martin was dismayed that the discussion focused on zoning as the primary objection to the process.  Other proponents felt that describing the plan as “comprehensive” was an impediment or stumbling block to a general acceptance by the public. 

“Comprehensive Plans”, such as the one under consideration by the Chilton County Commission, are based on “smart growth”/“sustainable development” principles.  They are by their very nature “comprehensive” – “all-encompassing”.  The program may be repackaged to make it more appealing to a wider audience, but the tenets will remain the same. 

Dr. Bill Chadwick, opponent of the “planning process”, told the commission that property rights abuse is an inherent aspect of “comprehensive planning”, structured under “smart growth”/“sustainable development” principles.  He cited examples: 

Richland County , South Carolina : elected officials that had incorporated property rights abuse into local legislation in the name of promoting the “general welfare” through “comprehensive planning” were voted out of office.  Their action effectively shelved the “comprehensive plan”.  The coalition of Black and White property owners continues to work toward the abolition of their “comprehensive plan”.  Dr. Chadwick provided copies of a DVD that documented the South Carolina abuse.

Oregon is a state that has suffered from the supposed benefits of “smart growth” – “sustainable development” – principles enacted through “comprehensive planning”.  The State recently passed “Measure 37”, a State Constitutional amendment that requires government to reimburse owners of property that have had the property rights encumbered from regulations utilized to enforce the edicts of local “comprehensive plans”.

Citing a local example of property rights abuse, Dr. Chadwick commented that Shelby County’s “comprehensive plan” designated as “green infrastructure” a vast majority of the county.  Shelby County’s action denies the property owners, whose land is so designated, the ability to utilize their property to build a structure, home, or to create or terminate rights of access 1.  The regulations are creating a land shortage.  The government-created shortage will result in artificially high prices for land that the county declares to be suitable for development.  Land that falls under the County’s “green infrastructure” designation will still be under private ownership and taxable under the current system, but unusable for any meaningful purpose.

Proponents of “comprehensive planning” will continue toward their goal – an all-encompassing plan that, through governmental means, will regulate every aspect of growth. 

If this process is adopted, socialism will be the de facto system of government!  

1.  “ Areas to be preserved or protectedfrom development are designated sending areas in the comprehensive plan.”  Section III page 7. “ Lands designated as green infrastructure and Rural Landscape are sending areas.” Glossary page 8. 

“Development - … to construct or alter a structure, to make a change in use or appearance of land, to divide land into parcels, or to create or terminate rights of access.” Glossary page 3.

 

Shelby County Implements Phase II (1)

The Shelby County Commission met for a regular session on November 27 th, 2006. During the session, the Commission heard comments on the county’s new subdivision ordinances designed to implement the County’s socialist land use regulations. “Land use regulations” are one of the primary tenets of the County’s “comprehensive plan”. Two individuals spoke in opposition of the proposed ordinances.

Rhonda Brantley, President of the Greater Birmingham Association of Home Builders, stated that, in other sections of the country where ordinances have been enacted to enforce tenets of “comprehensive plans” similar to Shelby County’s, property rights abuses have occurred. Ms. Brantley stated that her organization had consulted with experts in the field of land use regulations. She offered from their findings the following example - property currently selling for fifteen thousand dollars an acre in Shelby County would, under the new regulations, sell for one thousand dollars an acre.

Lee Barnes, home builder, stated that proposed ordinances would essentially eliminate growth.

Following their remarks, the Commission asked Ray Hamilton, Manager of the Department of Developmental Services for the County, to address the issue of the subdivision ordinances. Mr. Hamilton sternly rebutted Mr. Barnes’ comments by emphatically stating twice that his remarks regarding the elimination of growth are untrue.

Technically Correct

Technically, Mr. Hamilton is correct. The County’s Comprehensive Plan is written and hence, the ordinances are enacted, with the intent to control and manage Shelby County – the primary tenet of a socialist society. The following statement found in Section III page 1 and Section IV page I of the County’s Comprehensive Plan clearly reflects the government’s intent to “CONTROL” “where, when and how development occurs”. The result; ownership may reside in paperwork retained by the property owner but - “CONTROL” of property will be at the direction and discretion of the government – i.e. SOCIALISM!

“Rather than reacting to development as it happens - as has largely been the case to date - Shelby County intends to proactively direct where, when and how development occurs…”

The following quote from the Glossary of the County’s socialist “comprehensive plan” is helpful in understanding how the ordinances will encumber all aspects of property rights under the tenets of the “plan”. Any action which would “…construct or alter a structure, …make a change in use or appearance of land, (or)… divide land into parcels, 2” is considered development and would fall under the guiding hand of local officials.

The Commission tabled the proposed ordinances until January 2007. The ordinances may be rewritten in the interim but the objective will remain – the implementation of the Shelby County’s official policy contained in their Comprehensive Plan.

 

  1. “From Policy to Reality: Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development” published by the State of Minnesota. Section: “Growth Management” page 46 http://server.admin.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=1927

2. Shelby County Comprehensive Plan Glossary - Development

 

Tolerance and the Guillotine

Will Durant, prominent academic and recipient of the “Medal of Freedom” during Gerald Ford’s Presidency, co-authored, with his wife Arill, “Rousseau and Revolution”.  Their publication focused primarily on the concepts that altered European culture of the 1700s and ushered in the French revolution.  Commenting on the cause of the revolution they stated: “…philosophers provided the ideological preparation for the Revolution” 1.  Citing Rousseau and Voltaire as the most effective philosophers, the Durants did not overlook the work of:

 “…a thousand other writers whose sum and brilliance and force had never been equaled, and whose propaganda penetrated into every class…, into the barracks of the army, the…monasteries, the places of the nobility, the antechambers of the King” 2,

These forces would combine with other factors and destroy the French culture, and the existing government. 

The infamous beginnings would result in the murder of approximately half the population of France (ten million people 1a), and with each succeeding communist/socialist experiment untold millions would needlessly die – Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot are examples of forced compliance with the ideology. 

The movement would strike at the bedrock society - it would begin the movement for free love 2a, abolishment of marriage and property 2b, government schools that would train children for the communist state 2c, and a kindergarten system to train children for the government schools 2d.  Marx and Engels, two individuals credited with formulating communism, would extol the teachings of Rousseau and Voltaire 3. 

The descendants of the “thousand other writers” have proliferated and permeate every aspect of society from government to religion.  Typically, the venomous lot injects their cancerous and tainted ideology in unsuspecting victims.  Each injection is designed to over time, destroy healthy tissue of society’s culture.

One example of a nest of vipers is the “Communitarians”.  They display an air of legitimacy and moral prominence. The founding members (98) (see footnote 4) are prominent members of society and academia. 

The following statement from the Communitarians is reminiscent of the 1940's regime that clicked their heels and saluted with their right arm, for they, too, purported to be the moral guidepost for society.

“The state should become a moral and financial partner of the initiatives in civil society to promote better fatherhood 5”.

Indeed, the following quote from the "Appropriations Policy Brief" for H.R. 3058 demonstrates the enormous sums of money that government intends to allocate in the Washington, DC area to redevelop marriage under its auspices:

“D.C. Federal Payment for Marriage Development and Improvement : Provides $3 million for a federal payment for marriage development and improvement in D.C, of which $1.5 million is to be for the Capital Area Asset Building Corporation for the establishment of marriage development accounts. $1.5 million is to be available for mentoring, counseling, community outreach, and training, of which $850,000 is for the National Center for Fathering…” 6

Combining “ State ”, “Marriage” and “Religion” is facilitated when the “Judicial” arm of government continually seeks to expand the definition of marriage beyond the scope God intended – a man and woman.  The reaction from well-intended religious leaders 7 to the threat from the “Judicial” branch of government is predictable.  They demand governmental action.  The process facilitates the transformation of marriage - a union established by God which is commenced through a religious ceremony untethered by governmental certification – to a civil ceremony licensed, defined and sanctioned by government.  Thus, once government acquires from the people the authorization to define marriage, the government may at its discretion redefine marriage.   

Voltaire and "tolerance":

In the following quote Voltaire would cite the mantra of "tolerance" that the union (marriage) of "Church" and "State" would be expected to address.  His remarks were directed to the soon-to-be-beheaded Louis XVI:

“The laws will be made uniform…. There will cease to be two powers (state and church), because there can exist but one – that of the king’s law in a monarchy, that of the nation in a republic….  Lastly, we shall dare to pronounce the word tolerance. 8” Emphasis added.

Rousseau explains the meaning of “Tolerance”:

“While the state can compel no one to believe them, it can banish him, not for impiety, but as an antisocial being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing, at need, his life to his duty.  If anyone, after publicly recognizing these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death. 9”

Literary author, Maximes of Chamfort, during the “French Revolution” would succinctly describe the application of “Tolerance”:

“ Liberty, equality, fraternity” had come to mean, “Be my brother or I’ll kill you. 10”

Guillotine, anyone?

1.  Rousseau and Revolution - Page 898

1a. Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams – The Shaping of America by Page Smith - Page 819

2. Rousseau and Revolution - Page 940

2a. “…Jean Meslier, in his Testament of 1733, pleaded for a communistic society in which the national product would be equally shared, and men and women would mate and part as they pleased…” ibid 80

2b. “Property, marriage, and religion have been invented to legitimize usurpation, violence, and deceit, with the result that a small minority own the land, while the majority live in hunger and cold.  Marriage is private property in women.  No man has a right to more than he needs; everything above this should be distributed to each according to his need.” Ibid Page 938

2c.  “Children should be taken from their parents at six years of age and brought up communally by the state until they are sixteen years old, when they should be returned to their parents; meanwhile the school will have trained them to think in terms of the common good rather than personal acquisition.”  Ibid 81

2d. “Inspired by Rousseau, Fredrich Froebel established the kindergarten system in Germany, whence it spread throughout the Western world.” Ibid Page 888

3  Ibid Page 880

4. http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/founders.html - For additional information regarding “Communitarians” see “Anti-Communitarians” website at: http://nord.twu.net/acl/

5. http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_rel.html

6.  http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB%2011-18-05--FY06%20TTHUD%20ConfRpt.pdf

7. “ Approximately 1800 people attended the rally which was held two days before the statewide election which added a section defining marriage to the Kansas State Constitution.”  “Kansas Clergy and the Coalition of African-American Pastors came together to put the rally on that celebrated faith and family values.” http://www.bottradionetwork.com/station_kansasCity/mayday4marriage.asp

8. Rousseau and Revolution - Page 873

9. ibid Page 176

10. ibid  Page 916

Amero – Amigo?

The slide towards globalization is, at the local level, in Alabama, proceeding relatively unencumbered. Shelby County, the State’s most affluent county, is implementing phase II of its comprehensive plan under “sustainable development” 1 principles - the new world standard for ethics. Phase II is the adoption of ordinances – regulations that enforce globalist social policy on the residents of the county. The vote to adopt phase II 1a (ordinances) is scheduled to be voted on by the County Commission during January of 2007. Phase III 1a stipulates that the County will monitor progress toward globalization. Ordinances found to be ineffective in enforcing and instilling the appropriate behavior in the populace, envisioned by the local junta (commission), will be rewritten to ensure compliance with policies and objectives of the County’s comprehensive plan.

At the international regional level the socialist movement is, as it is at the local level, on schedule. Leaders in business, government, and academia from Canada, Mexico and the United States have joined in the call for a North American Union 2 by 2010. The “call” is more than “a business plan”, a government trial balloon, or fluff from academic’s ivory tower.

The unionization process has advanced beyond the proposal stage with the construction of a tri-national transportation system 3. See footnote 2a – 2d for Alabama routes. Aliens and merchandise entering the tri-national union’s port of entry will, after initial inspection, be allowed free movement anywhere in the North American Continent 4.

The following highlight some of the primary stipulations for the “union” espoused by the tri-nationalists:

A dispute resolution system – judiciary. North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) laid the foundation 5. Further expansion of authority is all that is required.

A common police force and regional protectionary force (army) 6.

A ruling body to oversee governmental operations i.e. oligarchy - A form of government in which the supreme power is placed in a few hands; a species of aristocracy. The tri-nationalists stipulate that the body will be patterned after the “Bilderbergers” 7

Resources – wood products, coal, oil, etc will be held under common ownership 8

Enticing the masses, the tri-nationalists will dole out, from government coffers i.e. “ your pocket,” “Social Security” 9 to everyone within the North American border.

A common currency has not been overlooked. Take note that the following quote stipulates that the North American Central Bank WILL occur. The only “perhaps” is “when” it will occur.

“On the day the North American Monetary Union is created- perhaps on January 1, 2010 – Canada, the United States, and Mexico will replace their national currencies with the amero. On that day, all American dollar notes and coins will be exchanged at the rate of one US dollar for one amero . Canadian and Mexican currencies will be exchanged at rates that leave unchanged their nations’ competitiveness and wealth. In all three countries, the prices of goods and services, wages, assets, and liabilities will be simultaneously converted into ameros at the rates at which currency notes are exchanged.”

“At the same time, the national central banks of the three countries will be replaced by the North American Central Bank. The operations of that bank will be governed by a constitution like that of the European Central Bank, which makes it responsible solely for maintaining price stability. It is not required to pursue full employment or maintain certain exchange rates. Its personnel policies will be free from political influences, in particular those arising out of partisan national politics in member countries.”

“The board of governors of the North American Central Bank will consist of members from the United States, Canada, and Mexico chosen by their respective governments in numbers that reflect their economic importance and population. As in Europe, membership in the union will require that countries do not incur persistent budget deficits.”

“The amero notes and coins will have in common abstract designs on one side. Notes and coins will be produced in each of the three countries according to their own demand and show national symbols on the other side. The currencies will circulate at par in all three countries and those spent in other member countries will be returned to their countries of origin whenever they find their way into a commercial bank.” 10

The aforementioned description of the globalization process is not the end product. For, after this milestone is attained, the next rung of the “sustainable” ladder will appear. Word smiths, pseudo news reporters and silver tongue politicians facilitate the descendant down this ladder of despair into the pit of tyranny and despotism, where the understanding of and thus the ability to utilize inalienable rights, including the right to own property (all of which are granted providentially by God) slip from the mind of society. Utilizing a venom laced vocabulary with idealistic words and phrases i.e. “governance”, “viewshed”, “greenspace”, “carrying capacity”, “performance zoning” 11 these sly adders are literally instilling the ethic that the “ends justifies the means”.

1. Shelby County Comprehensive Plan, Section II page 43 see also glossary – definition mirrors the United Nations definition see http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm to confirm.

1a. “From Policy to Reality: Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development” published by the State of Minnesota. Section: “Growth Management” page 46 http://server.admin.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=1927

2. Visit www.keepourrights.org to view a news video from CNN’s Lou Dobbs news show broadcast in 2005. Robert Pastor, Vice Chairman of the tri-national committee proposing the Union is interviewed during the segment. Visit the following website to read the “committee’s” report “Building a North American Community” http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

2a. U.S. 72 (Corridor 7) http://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr07.html

2b. Corridor X/U.S. 78 http://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr10.html

2c. Birmingham Northern Beltline Corridor http://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr28.html

2d. to view a complete list http://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/table.html

3. http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4218.shtml

Map information source: fina-nafi.org (North American Forum on Integration)

4. “Building a North American Community” – Recommendations page 9

5. ibid page 2

“ More than a decade ago NAFTA took effect, liberalizing trade and investment, providing crucial protection for intellectual property, creating pioneering dispute-resolution mechanisms,…” see also page 22

6. Ibid page 10

7. ibid page 31

8. ibid page 15 & 17

9. ibid page 28

10. page 5 “The Institutions of a North American Monetary Union” http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/amero.pdf

11. http://www.keepourrights.org/glossary.htm

 

 

Shelby County, Alabama
Socialism 1a/Sustainable Development 1b 101

 

The Shelby County Commission will, during the Commission’s Feb. 12 th, 2007 meeting, address the adoption of revised subdivision regulations designed to begin the process of transforming Shelby County into a “planners’” (think soviet socialism) utopian dream. The proposed regulations include a resolution from the Shelby County Commission that describes their version of utopia.

WHEREAS, the Commission has found that it is appropriate to envision a future for Shelby County that includes an aesthetically pleasing and functional rural landscape with a viable rural/agricultural economy, interspersed with compact walkable communities designed following the traditional town or village model....” 1

Will the creation of a “functional rural landscape with a viable rural/agricultural economy, interspersed with compact walkable communities” be the design of current and future generations of property owners or the “intentional” creation of local government?  The answer lies in the next “Whereas”.

“WHEREAS, the Commission has found that the intentional concentration of development around traditional town or village centers will effectively accommodate a majority of the expected future growth over the next 20 years.” 1  Emphasis added.

Make no mistake.  The preceding describes the “intentional” relocation of Shelby County’s population over the next twenty years.  By what means will the socialist agenda come to fruition?

“By exploring, developing and using "out-of-the-box" methods, tools and techniques, we (socialist planners) plan to harness the power of "the market" to advance the development of traditional communities,….  Rather than reacting to development as it happens… Shelby County intends to proactively direct where, when and how development occurs.…” 2  Descriptive comment added.

BUT, as bad as it is, the two most devastating aspects of the proposed regulations have not garnered one iota of opposition.   

The county government may, after adoption of the proposed regulations, adopt any plan or program that furthers the implementation of the County’s socialist “comprehensive plan” 3 and

The county planning board, an appointed body (not elected), is given authority to adopt regulations to further the socialist agenda. 4 

After the adoption of the foregoing, the relationship between voter and elected official will change – appointed boards will create regulatory rules to which citizens will be held accountable. 

Additionally, new regulations will expand local government authority over “social” aspects of county residents. The expansion of authority into “social” conditions of the county is found in the following quote from Section 1.03 B. of the county’s comprehensive plan.  It states:

"Allow for development in the County to be coordinated across areas and over time, that promotes plans for physical, social, and economic growth as will best promote the public health, safety, morals, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare.” Emphasis added.

The control and monitoring of “social” aspects of daily life in Shelby County is easily understood when the stress level of residents required to reside in “compact walkable communities” is considered.  How far will the jurisdictional authority of the “social engineering” extend?  As far as the social planners and appointed boards deem it necessary!

The Shelby County socialist/sustainable development program described in this article is systematic of the general direction for the rest of the country.  The direction is not self-correcting - just as apathy did not create this country, it will not save this country.  The choice is yours!

 

Footnotes

The sustainable development logo may be viewed at: http://www.eeeee.net/sd_characteristics.htm

1a. Socialist International endorses sustainable development:

“The Socialist International strongly reaffirms its commitment to the Rio principles and the full implementation of Agenda 21.”

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

The full text of their enthusiastic endorsement may be viewed at the Socialist International website:

http://www.socialistinternational.org/6Meetings/Council/Casablanca-MayJun02/CasaCoun-e.html#8

1b. The definition of “sustainable development” - Shelby County Comprehensive Plan Section II-43 and the United Nations website http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm

 “meeting the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

1. http://www.shelbycountyalabama.com/News_Events/pcmeetingminutes/2006%20Meetings/SAM-01-06%20Proposed%20Subdivision%20Regulations%201-22-07.pdf

2. Shelby County’s Comprehensive Plan – Section III-1 and Section IV-1

3. Section 1.03  “These regulations have the following purposes. To:

A. Implement the Shelby County Comprehensive Plan and any other plan or program officially adopted under the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan.”

4.  “1.05 AMENDMENTS

The Planning Commission may from time to time adopt amendments that will tend to increase the effectiveness of these regulations.… These regulations and amendments thereto may be changed or amended by the Planning Commission after a public hearing by giving due notice as required by law, and approval by the Shelby County Commission.”

 

 

Shelby County Commission Denies Tearful Mother Her Property Rights

The Shelby County Commission met in regular session Feb 12 th 2007.  During the session the Commission allowed the public to comment on the County’s regulations designed to implement the County’s socialist 1/sustainable development 2 “comprehensive plan”.  The usual rhetoric was employed by proponents:

property rights will not be encumbered

protects green infrastructure

property values will not be affected

The utopian rhetoric met reality as Ms. McRae, rural property owner stepped to the podium and explained that on Friday past she contacted her Commissioner and stated that she had just been informed about the regulations and how they would encumber her property rights.  The Commissioner replied that the newspapers had several articles about the proposed regulations.  She stated that due to her medical bills she did not have financial resources to purchase a paper.  Furthermore, had she read the headlines, which stated that the regulations intended to regulate subdivisions, she would not have understood the article, because she did not reside in a subdivision.  She stated that the Commissioner said that her property value would not be affected by the regulations, though the Commissioner did admit that he did not understand the regulations. 

Ms. McRae then explained that her child required open heart surgery and that she would have to sell her property in order to pay for the procedure.  She had two buyers, a farmer who offered to pay below fair market value and a developer who offered a much higher sum for the property.  Ms. McRae stated that the developer would not purchase the parcel if the regulations passed, due to the fact that the rights to the property would be encumbered by governmental actions.

After the Commission voted to endorse the regulations, Ms. McRae, emotionally distraught, hurriedly left the room.

The following is a further description of how the new socialist/sustainable regulations encumber property rights.

Section 6.05 Stream Buffers emphatically defines the use to which a property owner may utilize his land on either side of a creek that is located on his property.  This extension of bureaucratic authority extends to all creeks 3 whether it feeds a pond on the individual’s property or flows into the Coosa River or Cahaba River.  The bureaucracy has declared that, depending on the stream classification, buffers are to be 50 or 75 feet wide – an arbitrary distance that may change at the drop of a bureaucratic hat. This distance is divided into two zones – “streamside zone” and the “outer zone”.  

As the proposed regulations stand, the following is a partial listing of restrictions or uses that the bureaucrats will permit in the stream buffer zones:

 

Streamside Zone

Outer Zone

Foot paths that preexist the regulations.  Acceptable proof that the path is preexisting is not defined.

Bicycle paths that preexist the regulations. Acceptable proof that the path is preexisting is not defined.

Bicycling is not a use listed for this zone.

 

“Restoration projects to restore stream bank integrity and native vegetation,”  Planting plants that are not on the “native vegetation” list will not be permitted.

“Invasive species control and/or removal,”

Who determines which species are “invasive”? The bureaucrat!  Does “invasive” include animals and plants? The regulations do not specify.

“No motorized vehicles or equipment to be operated in the Streamside Zone,”

This precludes the use of private roads to access land on the other side of streams.

“No motorized vehicles or equipment to be operated in the Outer Zone,”

This precludes the use of private roads to access land on the other side of streams.

“The Streamside Zone must be retained in its undisturbed natural vegetative state,”  Emphasis added.

“The vegetative target for the Outer Zone is to restore and preserve vegetation native to the region. Allowable uses shall be designed, constructed and maintained to minimize footprint of the use and the required clearing of natural forest and to prevent erosion and sediment pollution both during and after construction.” Emphasis added

Recreation is not a use listed for this zone

“Additional passive recreational uses,” is listed for this zone but not defined.  

 

 

Because unelectedboards and hired professionalplanners have been granted the authority to structure and implement new regulations designed to enforce additional aspects of the “comprehensive plan” such as “transferable development rights 4”, “performance zoning 5” and “dark sky lighting 6” which will hog tie their property rights, Ms McRae will most certainly be joined by other property owners ready to protest.

1. Socialist International endorses sustainable development:

“The Socialist International strongly reaffirms its commitment to the Rio principles and the full implementation of Agenda 21.”

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

The full text of their enthusiastic endorsement may be viewed at the Socialist International website:

http://www.socialistinternational.org/6Meetings/Council/Casablanca-MayJun02/CasaCoun-e.html#8

2. The definition of “sustainable development” - Shelby County Comprehensive Plan Section II-43 and the United Nations website http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm

 “meeting the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

3. http://www.shelbycountyalabama.com/pdf/11-06-06%20Subdivision%20Regulations%20PC%20Adopted.pdf 

Shelby County Comprehensive Plan -http://www.shelbycountyalabama.com/comprehensiveplan.shtm

4. Section IV-7

5. Section G-5

6. Section II-7, II-10, and II-29

 

 

 

 

Will Property Rights Survive in Elmore County, Alabama?

Tuesday August 28th, 2007 - The Wallsboro Community Center located a few miles north of Wetumpka, Alabama overflowed with more than two hundred concerned citizens. The 7:00 p.m. meeting was called by opponents of Elmore County’s Draft Comprehensive Plan and the County’s recently enacted Subdivision Regulations.

Making presentations were Mike Whorton, prominent realtor, Don Casey, vice-chairman of the property rights organization Alliance for Citizens Rights and Frank Vawter, a concerned land owner. Mr. Whorton and Mr. Vawter discussed in detail the recently enacted Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Whorton explained that negotiations to build an entry-level home Subdivision had faltered, due to the fact that the new Subdivision regulation required concrete gutter and curbing. The price of the concrete is equal to the value of the land that was to become houses for first- time home buyers and entry-level purchasers. During the question and answer, period Mr. Whorton and Mr. Vawter explained that the Regulations encumber the rights of every property owner in the unincorporated area of the County.

Mr. Casey’s presentation demonstrated, through passages quoted from the County’s proposed Comprehensive Plan, that the United Nation’s agenda of “sustainable development1” was being implemented in this central Alabama County. Quoting relevant passages for the “Plan”, it was shown that local government believes it can breach a property owner’s rights. The quote further asserts that the abused property owner does not have judicial standing to seek compensation2! Under this concept of “lawful” property rights violation, local government discards all semblance of ethical behavior.

What are the results of this unethical behavior? Individual property owners, with limited resources, will not be able to defend their inalienable property rights against local officials that have the public’s purse (your pocket book) to draw from. The once-touted wealthy middle class will join the ranks of the subsidized poor.

Elmore County’s effort to encumber property rights, the first tenet of “sustainable development”, extends beyond the County’s boundary. Indeed, in the following quote promoters (local officials) of the Comprehensive Plan yearn to place every resident in a six county area under the same socialist program:

“5.3a-Coordinate with Elmore County municipalities and the counties of: Autauga, Montgomery, Macon, Tallapoosa, Coosa, and Chilton to ensure that applicable Comprehensive Plans or Plans for each jurisdiction are mutually compatible with the goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan.” Section VI-12 of the Elmore County Comprehensive Plan.

During the Q & A, Andre' Hollenquest, a minority developer, explained how his business has been adversely affected by the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Hollenquest stated that after complying with every aspect of the County’s red tape, the county engineer denied approval for commencement of home construction. Every denial resulted in additional significant expenditures for Mr. Hollenquest.

What is the lesson to be learned? Subdivision Regulations can be used to selectively create emotional and financial hardship while affording local elected officials the ability to claim plausible deniability. The created system fosters cronyism!

During the meeting, opponents of the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Regulations formed the property rights organization “Concerned Landowners of Elmore County” (CLEC). The organization is sponsoring a meeting to be held at the Wetumpka Civic Center - Date October 9th, 2007 – time 7:00 pm.

The Elmore County Comprehensive Plan may be viewed or downloaded at the Central Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission’s website - www.carpdc.com

1. “The term sustainable development, popularized following the 1992
United Nations Earth Summit, is broadly defined as:
Sustainable development is that which supports long-term economic vitality, ecologic integrity, and social equity. All three systems—the economy, the natural environment, and society—must be carefully nurtured to achieve a healthy, just, and efficient state. While the term “sustainability” is most often found at the forefront of discussions concerning natural resources, the theme of sustainability underlies all visions for Elmore’s future.” Section II pages one and two - Emphasis added.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

2. “It is important to note that the courts have been very clear on this last issue; a taking does not occur simply because a regulatory action may impose limits on the use of property.”  “The Takings Clause is often misconstrued as a prohibition against any regulation that either decreases property value or prohibits individuals from "doing what they want with their land."”  “A loss of potential market value is not enough to trigger a takings claim.” Page I-9

                                                                                     

Chairman of the Elmore County Commission, far right, speaks with the opponents of the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Regulations prior to the meeting.


Freedom's Light Burns in Elmore County!


Tuesday, October 9th, 2007 - Six hundred interested and attentive residents of Elmore County filled the Wetumpka, Alabama Civic Center, for a 7:00 p.m. meeting. The meeting, sponsored by the Concerned Landowners of Elmore County (CLEC), was also attended by representatives from the Marshall County Citizens for Property Rights (CPR)1 organization. Frank Vawter, Chairman of (CLEC), moderated the informative meeting, which included a thirty-minute presentation by Don Casey, Vice-Chairman of the Alliance for Citizens Rights (ACR) and personal accounts from residents of Elmore County that have experienced property rights abuse.

Mr. Casey’s presentation, referencing the Elmore Draft Comprehensive Plan, which initially received a unanimous informal endorsement from the County Commission and the East Alabama Regional Planning Newsletter, absolutely established the fact that “smart growth”, “sustainable development” and “new urbanism” are part and parcel of the Federal Government’s pledge to institute and implement the tenets from the United Nations' “Plan of Action” adopted during the 1992 “Earth Summit”2.

One of the salient points during Mr. Casey’s presentation, which peeked the interest of the audience was the quote from the Draft Comprehensive Plan, which demonstrated an attitude on the part of the bureaucracy – elected and unelected – that all property rights except one could be stripped from a property owner. Mr. Casey stated that: “After leaving the property owner with the right to walk on his property and pick a flower, the property owner would not have a legal right, under this criterion to sue the regulatory authority or the government entity that had violated his property rights3”.

Mr. Casey’s presentation included a comprehensive definition of “governance”, which once obtained by the local bureaucracy would “provide the tools necessary to address developmental, economic and growth concerns4” in accordance with “public policy5”.

The cited definition of “governance” - "Governance is not government – it is the framework of rules, institutions, and practices that sets limits on the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies" - is from the United Nations' “Human Development Report” for 1999, page 8.

Personal accounts of property rights abuse included:

A 17-acre parcel that, because of newly enacted subdivision regulations, could not be lawfully sold. The owner’s property is effectively rendered worthless as a marketable asset.

Citing Mr. Casey’s point, the property owner does not have a legal right to sue local officials for loss of the property’s marketability.

A planned subdivision to be built by a minority contractor for entry level homeowners where costs have rendered the project unfeasible. Why? Because new regulations require the installation of concrete gutters and curbing.

Thus, the local bureaucracy through a regulatory action can direct where, when and how development at any level – the construction of one home or a hundred houses – will occur.

Concluding the meeting, Mr. Vawter announced that the campaign to disseminate information about property rights abuse in Elmore County would continue at the next meeting of the Concerned Landowners of Elmore County, which will be held at the Eclectic Jr. High School at 7:00 p.m., November 6th.

To view the video accounts of the two aforementioned property abuse cases go to:
www.alabamapropertyrights.org/elmorecountyvideo.htm

1. Visit the website to learn more about property rights violations in Alabama at: http://www.marshallcountycpr.org/

2. See Section II page 1 of the Draft Elmore County Comprehensive Plan -

3. Ibid., Section I page 9

4. Ibid., Section IV page 6

5. Ibid., Section I page 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Artistry of “Hog Farming”
in the hands of
Political Bureaucratic Want-To-Bees

 

 

An ongoing controversy in Elmore County, Alabama centers on the proposed official adoption, by the County Commission, of a taxpayer-funded $58,000.00 “Comprehensive Plan”1. The “Plan” was authored by the Central Alabama Regional Development and Planning Commission. Regional Planning Commissions (Alabama has twelve Commissions) are funded by taxpayers' dollars2.

The “Plan” in Section II clearly states that the overall objective is to comply with the United Nations' “Sustainable Development” principles. Affirming that these “principles” are part and parcel of “Smart Growth,” the County’s official newsletter published, on 4-23-07, the following: “The Comprehensive Plan is an effort to apply smart growth principles to managing the influx of new residents, business and industry.”3

The primary tool utilized to implement the aforementioned agenda in the County and indeed, across the country, is “zoning”, which is referenced 29 times in the 82-page Draft Document. Politicians, bureaucratic want-to-bees, seeking to acquire land use control regulations, utilize scare tactics designed to mentally hogtie property owners by asking the following question:

“Do you want a hog farm built next to your home?”

The typical answer, “NO”, is invariably not followed with an open and honest discussion of how “zoning”, the implied and often-stated solution, will prevent a hog farm from being built next to your property.

 

 
Is “zoning” the solution?
How can it be since “zoning” is:

“The way the governments control the physical development of land and the kinds of uses to which each individual property may be put.4”

Considering that the “globalization” process proposed in the Elmore County Draft Comprehensive Plan will allow hog farms to exist to provide pork products for local consumption – it is a given that HOG FARMS WILL OPERATE IN ELMORE COUNTY!

Therefore, granting to political, bureaucratic want-to-bees the authority to “zone,” merely means they have the authorization to determine where the farm will be located. This process mutes the free enterprise system by preventing the individual from utilizing the right to determine how his property will best serve his needs. The transfer of this authority to the bureaucracy is another example of the loss of accountability to the people.

Remember, the hog farm will be built – but, under “zoning” regulations, local government will determine where and when.

The political, bureaucratic want-to-bees' question is, in reality, a ruse to deflect the thought process from grasping the true, underlying problem associated with a neighboring hog farm – what recourse do I have if the hog farm creates a nuisance and turns my tranquil lifestyle into a smelly fly-swatting nightmare? Well, certainly “zoning” is not the solution, for it was through “zoning” regulations that determined where the hog farm is located. Correcting a nuisance created by the application of “zoning” regulations is the problem that remains and must be dealt with by the neighbors.

For a nuisance is: “An offensive, annoying, unpleasant, or obnoxious thing or practice; a cause or source of annoyance, especially a continuing or repeated invasion or disturbance of another’s right, or anything that works a hurt, inconvenience, or damage. Nuisances are commonly classified as public, private, or mixed.”5

Political, bureaucratic want-to-bees in counties where “zoning” laws have not been enacted will likely shy from just prosecution of nuisance violations, thus aiding in the fostering of the public attitude that a political solution to the problem lies in enactment of “zoning” regulations.

 

Politics, the art of diverting smell from the obvious, strikes again.

 

1. The “Plan” may be accessed at: http://www.alabamapropertyrights.org/elmore%20county.htm

2. http://www.alarc.org/about/index.html

3. http://elmoreco.org/Default.asp?ID=194&pg=The+County+Line&action=view&nid=105

4. http://real-estate-law.freeadvice.com/zoning/zoning_legalese.htm

5. Federal Laws Affecting Agriculture page FED-43 see also State Environmental Laws Affecting Alabama Agriculture - http://www.nasda-hq.org/nasda/nasda/Foundation/state/Alabama.pdf