ALLIANCE
FOR CITIZENS RIGHTS
ALLIANCE
FOR CITIZENS RIGHTS
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING (continued):
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 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 9: 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 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-.htmlShelby 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 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 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 roposing 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
CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE HOME PAGE
