Conservative Congress Votes to Steal More Property

Thomas.loc.gov ^ | 08/08/05 | Sweetjustusnow

[Sweetjustusnow]

Our so called Conservative majority in Congress passed by unanimous vote the National Heritage Area's Bill (See Senate Bill 243) along with (Senate Bill 54)on July 26, 2005.

[Carry_Okie]

Adam Sparks.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!!

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"(New Jersey has more horses per square mile than any other U.S. state.)"

XRR, And I would guess at least three times that many horses hindquarters orifices. Peace and love, George.

You might visit Eco-Logic for very informative information. And, Many of our national parks are "United nations heritage areas."
"Hysterical" LOL

[XRdsRev]

What land are you talking about ???

I might agree with you if the Heritage Area's goal was to buy up vast amounts of land but if the Heritage Area doesn't buy or control any land then how can it belong to the government ???

The Heritage Area cannot by law seize or condemn any private land. It also cannot take or control already public land. Ther concept of the Heritage Area is to encourage private and public (state & local) preservation NOT to make a new National Park. What part of that don't you seem to understand.

Your point doesn't make any sense.

[XRdsRev]

National Heritage Areas are not National Parks. They are different legally and in how they are put together and administered.

No National Heritage Area has anything to do with the United Nations.

[FOG724]

He is from NJ waspman. He has no clue.

XRdsRev, over 60% of CA is owned by the Federal Governemt alone. States like Nevada and Alaska are worse. We spend our lives fighting the government over land. And no, they don't have to buy the land to steal it. They regulate it.

I have read all your posts on this and can see you are a real supporter of what you are doing but there is problems with this that you are unwilling to see or listen to. The things you are doing do effect us out here in the west, and you are unwilling to see how.

You need to start reading up on Agenda 21. Then after you have walked a mile in our shoes, you come back and tell us how right you were.

[FOG724]

National Heritage Areas are designed to preserve private property while also preserving whatever it is that the area is supposed to be about.

Bingo!!! And that is the problem. Perserving = regulation. Regulation kills property rights and property ownership. We are not paranoid out here for no reason though you seem to think we are. This is what everyone has been trying to tell you but you seem to get hung up on how you are different.

We see no difference betweem a heritage area and the NPS because it doesn't matter if you are the ones regulating or not, buying land ot not. You will cause regulation and that is tbe enemy of everyone here in the west.

[FOG724]

Ther concept of the Heritage Area is to encourage private and public (state & local) preservation NOT to make a new National Park. What part of that don't you seem to understand.

You are the one who doesn't understand, preservation is what we object to. It is the main thief of our land and property rights, not the government. As soon as you say that you have lost the battle here. A lot of us would just as soon take your preservation and shove it back down your throat. And in most of our minds, as long as you support preservation you are not a conservative and will be deamed the enemy.

[XRdsRev]

Um we are prohibited by law from regulating any private property.

We can buy it, if we raise the money and pay a willing seller what they want. That is called the free market. That is conservative.

As for preservation being a bad thing, if it weren't for people who were interested in preservation, places like Gettysburg, Mount Vernon, Valley Forge and countless others would have been obliterated.

I have to wonder about people like you. You probably complain about how people don't have pride in being Americans anymore and they don't have respect for America's founding principles but you'd probably be the first in line to bulldoze Independence Hall if you could make a buck off of it.

I tell you what, when you die, I promise not to try to preserve any memory of what you accomplished, you believed or any aspect of your life. We can blot your memory from history and that can be your monument.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

{1} "The Heritage Area cannot by law seize or condemn any private land. It also cannot take or control already public land."
-----------------------------

{2} "No National Heritage Area has anything to do with the United Nations."
=====================================

XRdsRev, {1} As it happens, now the "Heritage Area CAN condemn private property according to the Kelo Supreme Court Decision. A few years ago, United nations officials at least "helped" to prevent a mining company from mining NEAR a Colorada Park that is designated a United Nations "Heritage Area." The U.S. of A. paid the mining company millions for the property and rights for future earnings. The mine was in the "Buffer Zone" that had just been designated by the U.N.

{2} Perhaps someone can come up with the picture of the United Nations "Heritage Area" sign posted at the intrance to the Smokey Mountains National Park.

Seeing as how you work for this outfit, you are either woefully misinformed, or VERY malinformed about the work you are doing, or lieing through your collective teeth {keyboard}. I still suggest a visit to Eco_Logic on the VERY slim chance you don't know. Researching The United Nations "Agenda 21" will most likely describe the exact way your organization "Partners" with governments at all levels to gain control of all property, if not the property itself. Of course, your outfits "Public Private Partnership" is "better" than the "Public Private Partnerships" between money making business and governments. The "Kelo" decision undoubtedly outrages you and your outfit just as it does most of us. Peace and love, George.

[XRdsRev]

George,

with all due respect a National Heritage Area is not the same thing as a World Heritage Area. The UN has nothing to do with National Heritage Areas and actually I be surprised if they would have a lot of interest in promoting American Civil War or Revolutionary War history.

The UN Heritage Areas are something I do not support US Government participation in. That having been said, I know the National Heritage legislation well, I know that they are purposefully weak and temporary institutions and that they are administered by private groups to which anyone of any political persuasion can apply for membership. Since for 3 years I have sat on the board of directors of a proposed National Heritage Area and attended more meetings and conferences than I can count, I know what we can and can't do.

I do respect some of the concepts that people have espoused on this thread and I do recognize that the National Park Service and supporting groups have done some improper things to property owners. I have my own problems with the NPS, I certainly don't think they are perfect and I have battled them on occasions when I thought they were wrong.

I support the National Heritage Area concept for the specific reason that is severely limits the power and influence of the NPS while utilizing some of its benefits and it's ability to get people interested in their history.

The simple fact of the matter is that more people are willing to visit a National Heritage Area than a state or local one. In the east, a National Heritage Area fits well with the rights of private property owners. It allows a specific episode on American history to be promoted by working with existing state, local and willing private sites while eliminating the need to purchase or control vast amounts of property.

That is why our particular proposed area has had broad based support from private citizens, business entities and farmers.

Despite some misguided allegations to the contrary, we simply do not have the authority or the funds to seize, condemn or purchase land. We have absolutely no regulatory authority over land use or zoning at any government level. What we do have is over 30 seperate public and private sites that have specifically asked to be included the proposed Heritage Area. We have had numerous inquiries from public/private sites and municipalities outside our proposed boundaries to be included and we had to tell them no.

We have 14 counties that have approved inclusion and over 100 municipalities that have agreed to be in the proposed Heritage Area. Despite their inclusion we have no control over what they do with their sites. A municipality or private entity could destroy a listed site they own and there is nothing we could do about it. That is not my opinion, that is the law.

Do we encourage them to preserve if possible ? Sure we do. We make our case and they make their decision. If a public/private entity decides to preserve a site, then that is great. If they choose not to, then we have to admit defeat and move on. That is the way our process works.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[commonerX]

I feel that over the last couple of years the government is trying, to some degree, desensitize the public to the loss of civil liberties. The government will only allow a right or civil liberty to exist as long as it doesn't interfere with what the governments goals or isn't perceived as a threat to it's organization.

Example: once the right to bare arms is perceived as a threat to the governments well being, it will be remove or severely watered down.

[commonerX]

Didn't some politicians after 911 when people where arguing about the constitutionality of the patriot act, that the constitution is a document we all live by, but we can't allow it to be a death wish. Something like that, but the exact words escape me.

[mugs99]

Who cares California thinks. You don't even have any National Heritage Areas.

California has Wild and Scenic, National Monument, and Conservancy areas. All of the Sierras is now a Conservancy. We heard your promises and seen what you deliver...Destruction of rural communities.
.

[mugs99]

RURAL CLEANSING

That's exactly what's going on. They want us off the land and in cubicles in the filthy crime ridden cities. How long before only aristocrats are alloweed to live on the land?
.

[FOG724]

Um we are prohibited by law from regulating any private property.

I didn't say you would regulate it. I said regulation was the result. Now that you have personlly insulted me for no reason and discounted everything I said, I'm done with you.

Investigate Agenda 21 please, I know you won't though. Your selfrighteousness it appalling.

[countrydummy]

Thank you! Grrrrrrrr.........I hate NPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
New River Gorge...I hate NPS!!!!!!!!!

[countrydummy]

http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2005080823


Web Tools: [print] [email]

August 09, 2005
Couple ordered from home

Pair fought against Kanawha taking land for Sissonville school


By Eric Eyre
Staff writer

Beldon and Clara Huston have until Sunday to get off the land they’ve called home for more than 30 years or they’ll be held in contempt of court.

On Monday afternoon, Kanawha Circuit Judge Irene Berger ordered the Hustons to vacate their house along W.Va. 21 to make way for a new $12.5 million Sissonville Middle School.

For months, the Hustons fought to keep their home and property. But the Kanawha County school board seized 48 acres of their land through eminent domain.

- advertisement -

Monday’s ruling means they must leave or face fines and possible jail time.

“I think it’s terrible,” said Clara Huston, 74. “I don’t know how we’re going to live.”

The Hustons plan to have their home moved to another part of their property that the school board didn’t condemn. The home will sit on stilts until a new foundation gets built, and sewer, water and electric lines are put in.

“Why do you throw a 70-year-old couple out of their home?” asked the Hustons’ nephew Ron Davis. “It shows the school board isn’t thinking in the best interests of these people. They’re thinking about the bottom line.”

Charleston lawyer Nick Barth, who is representing the school board in the condemnation case, said the Hustons were supposed to vacate their land on July 15, but the school board gave them a 30-day extension.

“It’s causing problems getting the project to move forward,” Barth said. “Delays can be costly. The project has to get going. We’ve been very even-handed with the Hustons.”

The school board started condemnation proceedings against a 48-acre portion of the Hustons’ land in March. The Hustons are getting $305,000 for the land, but they’ve asked for $1 million — an amount an appraiser they hired has said the property is worth. The two sides continue to fight in court over the property’s value.

Web Tools: [print] [email]

August 09, 2005
Couple ordered from home

Pair fought against Kanawha taking land for Sissonville school


By Eric Eyre
Staff writer

(Page 2 of 2)

The Hustons also want additional time to clean out their house and move it to the new location on the former dairy farm. They said it will take at least two months before bulldozers and graders start to level land where their house sits.

Clara Huston plans to stay with relatives until her home is moved. Her husband said he’ll stay in the house — even if there’s no plumbing and electricity.

“They have 40 years of stuff piled up in that house,” Davis said.

- advertisement -

After Monday’s court hearing, Clara Huston passed along a warning to others who might have their land seized by a government agency. “Seniors, beware,” she said. “This could happen to you.”

To contact staff writer Eric Eyre, use e-mail or call 348-4869.

Previous 1 | 2

[Terriergal]

I also recommend reading some of Dr Michael Coffman's work --

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/biotreatystop.htm

"On July 19, Dr. Michael Coffman, a Director of Maine Conservation Rights Institute, and a regional director for the Alliance for America, was in Washington talking to Senator Mitchell's staff and to Senator Dole's staff, trying to convince them that the Treaty would have the effect of making the "Wildlands Project," the objective of the Treaty's implementation. ASI produced a 100-page analysis of the Treaty which was released on July 28. The study revealed the existence of a draft of the Global Biodiversity Assessment, required by the Treaty, and the identification of the "Wildlands Project" as a primary mechanism for Treaty implementation. McDonnell met by teleconference with staff of the Republican Policy Committee and the Foreign Relations committee to review the ASI analysis on August 1. Senator Mitchell announced on August 3, that the Treaty vote would occur on August 8. Throughout the night of August 3, a fax drafted by Coffman was distributed through the Alliance for America Network to 4400 organizations and individuals calling for support in opposition to the Treaty. About 50 Senate staffers and representatives from the American Farm Bureau and the National Cattlemen's Association met on August 4 for an in-depth presentation on the ASI analysis and review of the Treaty. All day long, Senate fax machines and switchboards were swamped with messages urging Senators to vote against the Treaty."


http://www.allianceforamerica.org/resource_links/resource_links8.htm
All of these programs are working to take more and more land. Some more than others but all with the goal of having less and less available to OWN by private citizens.