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 standardards.

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 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:

    a land use element,
    a public and community facilities element, and
    a transportation element."

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

    elements for community design,
    housing,
    parks and recreation,
    solid waste,
    economic development,
    redevelopment,
    environmental protection, and
    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:

    health,
    safety,
    morals,
    order,
    convenience,
    prosperity and general welfare as well as....
    adequate provision for light and air,....
    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 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 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:
bulletlocal elected government has been replaced with regional government.
bulletregional transportation authorities mandate land control.
bulletartificial 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.
bulletrequire local school boards to answer to higher governmental authority rather than local citizen control.
bulletEnacted zoning laws that: prevent subdividing farmland, thus preventing the property owner from utilizing his property to his benefit.
bulletrestrict farms to 160 acres and one house.
bulletrequire 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.
bulletrestrict land use that is not classified as a farm (160 acres) to one house per 360 acres.
bulletprevent cutting a tree on your own property without a permit.
bulletrequire 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.

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 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 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 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

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE


CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE HOME PAGE

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE LOCAL HAPPENINGS INDEX