Zoning - Smart Growth - Land Preservation vs. Property Rights III

Written By: Jerry Hanson  |  Posted: Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

In every county across our nation, property owners are continually battling for the right to use their property in wise and reasonable ways. There seems to be an ongoing battle between bureaucrats and property owners. Local officials, elected and unelected, seem bent on following an agenda that deprives property owners of the full use and enjoyment of their land. Under the pretext of environmentalism, global warming, endangered species, and "Sustainable Development, " great havoc has been done to the unalienable rights of all Americans. Everyone knows that the anti-private property Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London neutered the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment. How is it possible that those who have sworn to uphold and defend our Constitution would blatantly rule contrary to the clear meaning of the Fifth Amendment that protects the taking of privately owned property for anything other than public use? Is it just that these "Justices" are progressives and they see our Constitution as a "living document?" I fear that it is far more sinister than that. There are those who want to kill our Constitution. They must kill it to accomplish their agenda. What is their agenda? The answer to that question is the subject of this article.
The many Americans that have faced the resistance and assault by government bureaucrats on their unalienable right to enjoy their property are stunned that this assault is possible in the "land of the free and the home of the brave." These property owners are experiencing first hand that the permit process which they thought was a mere formality or at worst a hidden tax, was actually a request to get permission from the government to use and enjoy their property, which permission can be, and often is, denied. They walk away from the "Planning and Development" office shaking their heads in disbelief that a government bureaucrat just denied them permission to use and enjoy their property which right they were led to believe was granted to them by their Creator and protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Are we just dealing with overzealous bureaucrats, or is there more to it? Originally I thought it was just overzealous bureaucrats who were justifying their salaries. Now I have come to understand that we have a much bigger problem.
Why are America's land owners in the struggle of their lives to control their own land? Who, or what is usurping the land owners' rights, and why? I hope we have all learned that our government and its bureaucrats are very skillful and deceptive in their use of words. Who would be opposed to "Smart Growth, " or "Land Preservation, " or "Sustainable Development, " or "Comprehensive Planning?" Are these innocuous terms that describe a local government's attempt to make everyone's life a little sweeter? What if I told you they are deceptive words used to dupe the American citizen to accept the United Nations' takeover of the American landscape? Worse than that, what if I told you these are the code words from the United Nations' plan to totally undo the American way of life, shred our Constitution, unravel our justice system, and indoctrinate our public school children?
The United Nations has not been looked upon favorably by most Americans for quite some time, so maybe these statements do not surprise or shock you. Most of us view the United Nations as irrelevant and a parasite on the American economy, and we would prefer it find another home, or better yet, disband. But do not be fooled, the United Nations is more powerful than ever. It is far from irrelevant, especially when it comes to diminishing your unalienable rights.
This is no conspiracy theory. The United Nations' plans are there for all to see on their own web site, www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21. There is one large obstacle to the UN's Sustainable Development Agenda 21 - the Constitution of the United States of America. Unfortunately that obstacle has, over time, gotten smaller and smaller thanks to Supreme Court decisions like Euclid v Ambler Realty and Kelo v City of New London. Thanks also to President George H.W. Bush who committed the United States to implementing the UN's 1992 Rio Earth Summit Agenda 21, and to President Bill Clinton who established in 1993 by Executive Order, the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) for the purpose of implementing the UN's Agenda 21 in the USA. We must also thank George W. Bush for "No Child Left Behind, " which is a globalist takeover of every child's education to prepare our children to accept their role in the new globalist society. The Federal Department of Education has proclaimed 2006 to 2015 as the "Decade of Sustainable Development."
The UN's Sustainable Development Agenda 21 was adopted by 178 nations. It must be remembered that of those 178 nations only one nation has a constitution protecting its citizens' God given unalienable rights. The UN's Declaration of Human Rights is founded upon the principle that rights are granted (or rescinded) by government (men). The fact that the UN has a Declaration of Human Rights which the member countries were "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded, principally in schools and other educational institutions..." makes clear their intention to supersede the Constitution of the United States. It should not be surprising then that few Americans know and understand their Constitution. We know all about "human rights" but we know little of "unalienable rights." Is there a difference? Yes, Article 2 of the UN Declaration of Rights "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration...." The word "entitled" means to give or bestow a title or right.... Therefore if the UN gives you a right they can also take that right away, though not "arbitrarily." In Agenda 21, if sustainability is threatened then it is not an "arbitrary" act for the UN to take your rights away. All over the United States land owners are denied their property rights due to an ostensible environmental impact or because it simply does not fit into the "Comprehensive Plan, " which was implemented at the behest of the United Nations. Now everywhere we turn we see the foot prints of the United Nations on all private property.
There is much more to be learned about Americans losing their property rights, so more articles will follow. Let's summarize what has been presented in these articles thus far.
What began as elitists attempting to control through zoning ordinances, who or what would move into their city, which resulted in the 1926 Supreme Court decision in Euclid v Ambler Realty that zoning was not a "taking, " has morphed into the zoning of practically every square foot of property in the United States. This means that everyone who wants to build something on their privately owned land must grovel with a substantial non-refundable application fee before their Planning and Development officer to seek permission to do so. Then with the Kelo v City of New London decision of the Supreme Court, a private developer can decide with the aid of the local government that he wants to "take" your property and tear down your home and build a resort or convention center or anything that promises the city more tax revenue. Now with the global to local Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, and Comprehensive Planning implementing the United Nation's Agenda 21, you will be denied to use your land for anything other than what has been determined as "allowable" by a non-government agency working in cooperation with local officials. If an environmental impact is suspected, or an "endangered specie" is nearby, you will not only be refused to build your home or develop or use your land as you would like, but you may also be required to enhance the environment to accommodate the "endangered specie, " or to protect the environment, or to improve the "View Shed, " or the "Food Shed."
There are a growing number of citizens that have been harmed by this unlawful "taking" that the statists or socialists have arbitrarily determined is constitutional. You may not have experienced this harm yet, but if you "own" property, rest assured you will one day encounter a global to local Sustainable Development bureaucrat that will demand that you "comply" under threat of fine or imprisonment or both.
The US government owns a growing 53% of the entire nation's land. This land grab based on the United Nation's Agenda 21 is spreading like wild fire under the cloak of "Sustainable Development, " "Smart Growth, " "Comprehensive Planning, " the "Wildlands Project, " the "Endangered Species Act, " "Land Preservation, " and other quaint sounding rhetoric. This UN agenda, according to Michael Shaw of Feedom Advocates, "[C]alls for the ultimate elimination of private property and the replacement of the United States Bill of Rights by an authoritarian grant of 'human rights.' As this initiative gains strength, it is wise to recall what George Washington said: 'Private property and freedom are inseparable.'"
Jerry Hanson is an owner and contributor to the Eau Claire Journal. He is a small business owner and farms near Augusta.