Federal "No Growth" Blueprint on Viagra

When Secretary Mel Martinez took over the reins as the newly installed head of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), he had little reason to suspect that in addition to heading up the nation's housing policies, he would also be handed the dubious distinction of being asked to unleash a 2,000 page blueprint for controlling every aspect of local land use across America from a "Directorate" located in Washington, D.C.

Unless Secretary Martinez acts to stop it, in the next few days, what is benignly dubbed the "Legislative Guidebook" will be jointly issued by HUD and the American Planning Association (APA). The Guidebook is a comprehensive blueprint of model statutes and planning guidelines whose goal is nothing less than centralization of land use planning for state and local governments and elimination of the need for messy and "inefficient" local land use control.

The Legislative Guidebook is the brainchild of an insular group of no-growth activists who found fertile soil for their anti-growth agenda at HUD during the Clinton administration. Flush with over $1.7 million in HUD grant money, these activists (with the knowledge and input of only a select few) spent seven years crafting the Guidebook. Between July 1994 and June 2001, under the leadership of the HUD-APA "Directorate," the HUD-APA project went through eleven amendments, and expanded in nature and scope to the voluminous size, almost two-thousand page document it is today, filled with generic rhetoric that masks its true radical intent to federalize local government control and eviscerate constitutionally protected private property rights.

The general public, as well as minority business owners and small business owners, farmers, and virtually everyone affected by the Guidelines were excluded from the process. Not surprisingly then, the results of this exclusionary process is a product which is anti-business and anti-private property rights. Many provisions in the Guidebook will statutorily take private property rights without just compensation.

One small example of the detailed level of control embodied in the Guideline is its treatment of ordinary, commercial signs, which virtually every small business and restaurant has. After prescribing uniform size, shape, and color standards by which every sign is required to look alike, the Guidebook recommends an "amortization" plan, which will give small business owners a limited period to enjoy their identical signs before they must be removed altogether, without payment of just compensation as required by the Constitution.

In contrast to its detailed level of minutiae, the Guidebook can also be characterized by the sweeping breadth of the land use planning issues it attempts to uniformly regulate, including: affordable housing, transportation, urban growth, neighborhood planning, economic development, public services, state facilities, taxes, zoning and subdivision, environmental policy, historic preservation, telecommunications and information technology, among others.

To encourage everyone from State legislatures to town councils to adopt these uniform standards, the same no-growth activists have convinced some Congressmen to introduce legislation, the Community Character Act (SB 975) and its House counterpart (HR1433), which would authorize a grant program to the tune of $250 million over ten years, earmarked for state and tribal governments whose land use planning activities are consistent with the terms and conditions embedded in the Legislative Guidebook.

Adoption of these no-growth laws has proved very expensive for local residents and homeowners. For example, Portland, Oregon, a model for the "smart growth" initiative, has gone from being one of the nation's most affordable cities to one of the least affordable. Moreover, because the Guidebook's proposals will restrict where people can live, it will help ensure not only that there is no affordable housing, but no housing at all.

The Guidebook has been slammed by Representative Richard Pombo, head of the Congressional Western Caucus, who stated: "The Legislative Guidebook is a backdoor attempt to squash the rights of private property owners. We must make sure that we respect the ownership rights of others." Federal regulations already control far too many aspects of our lives, and land use decisions. Hopefully Secretary Martinez will act to stop the uncontrolled growth of even more federal hegemony.

Nancie G. Marzulla is President of the D.C. based Defenders of Property Rights, the only national public interest legal foundation dedicated exclusively to protecting property rights.

FREEDOM 21:
Campaign

Well now... you want to follow the money? HERE's THE MONEY:

From The Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, Chapter 4 p.63...

The report of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing, “Not in My Back Yard” Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing (Washington, D.C.: U.S.G.P.O, 1991) recommended that “each [s]tate undertake an ongoing action program of regulatory barrier removal and reform at the state and local levels.” Ibid., at 7-6.

GROWING SMARTSM LEGISLATIVE GUIDEBOOK PHASES I & II INTERIM EDITION PAGE 4-62
Because it is important to have widespread participation by various groups affected by housing programs, the model legislation includes a housing advisory committee to advise the state agency when it is preparing the plan. Legislation based on this model may also specify the number of committee members, what interests they represent, and their terms. Typical members might include representatives of: the construction industry; home builders; home mortgage lending profession; economic development profession; real estate sales profession; apartment management and operation industry; nonprofit housing development industry; homeless shelter operators; lower-income persons; public housing authorities (both residents and those involved in public housing management); special needs populations; advocacy groups for affordable housing; and local governments in the state.

(4) The state housing plan shall at a minimum consist of the following:
(a) an evaluation of and summary statistics on housing conditions for the state[,] [all substate districts designated pursuant to [Section [6-602]],] [[and] counties] for all economic segments. The evaluation shall include the existing distribution of housing by type, size, gross rent, value, and, to the extent data are available, condition, the existing distribution of households by gross annual income and size, and the number of middle-, moderate-, and low-income households that pay more than [28] percent of their gross annual household income for owner-occupied housing and [30] percent of their gross annual household income for rental housing.
(b) a projection for each of the next [5] years of total housing needs, including needs for middle-, moderate-, and low-income and special needs housing in terms of units necessary to be built or rehabilitated for the state[,] [all substate districts designated pursuant to [Section [6-602]],] [[and] counties];
(c) a discussion of the capabilities, constraints, and degree of progress made by the public and private sectors in meeting the affordable housing needs and special housing needs of the state;
(d) an identification and comprehensive assessment of state and local regulatory barriers to affordable housing, including building, housing, zoning, subdivision and related codes, and their administration;90
(e) goals for each of the next [5] years for the production of housing units, both new and rehabilitated, for middle-, moderate-, and low-income and special needs housing for CHAPTER 4 the state, [all substate districts designated pursuant to [Section [6-602],][[and] counties];

(f) based on an analysis of subparagraphs (4)(a) through (4)(e) above, specific recommendations, policies, programs, and/or proposals for legislation for meeting the affordable housing needs and special housing needs of the state, including, but not limited to:
1. financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, preservation, or construction of housing;
2. use of publicly owned land and buildings as sites for low- and moderate income housing;

Land Grab, anyone?

Western Rural Americana is drowning in a sea of self-annointed saviors trying to "change the world" with their vacuous vowel movement.

They are worse than terrorists with their "sleeper cells." They are in control of our legal and law enforcement systems. They have totally infested our multi-level governments to an extent far greater than Joe MaCarthy ever immagined the Communist infestation.

It's gone too far! The only way to stop them is to pray the results of their infantile folly causes a collapse that doesn't totally melt-down our Constitutional Republic along with it.

In the meantime... look for hope in new ideas like Carry_Okie's to lead the nation back to objective, rational and Constitutional principles!

Having interviewed not a few of the very first urban planners (from UC Santa Cruz) in California, several well established developers, and real numerous estate people while writing my book, I learned that they all think that they are using each other. It's a constant struggle for control with the landowners in the middle, and eventually becomes a lose/lose game for all concerned. The longer it runs, the more corrupt it gets as the tax base shrivels, employment disappears, and a srinking cadre of the very well connected plays musical chairs with what is left.

The budget of the County of Santa Cruz is now over $400,000,000 for a county of 250,000 people, and they think that they are a poor county! Much of it goes for mental health and disability. The phone book of departments reads like a swill of every politically correct fantasy imaginable. You should see the infrastructure, the place is falling apart (especially roads). The forests are a firebomb. The meadows are over-run with weeds. It's pretty for now (as long as you don't know what you are looking at), but the piper will have to be paid eventually and it won't be cheap.

Thanks for the ping!

As one who used to live in Portland, I can attest to the fact that they are trying to regulate everything. And, in my 7 years there, real estate values skyrocketed. After 5 1/2 years looking, we found one lovely acre OUTSIDE the urban growth boundary...the last time I checked, the average lot size in Portland was 6500 sq. ft. For goodness sakes...the Mayor wants to cover I-405 and build houses on top! Plus, if she had her way, she would *move* I-5 further east so that she could have her greenspace along the east side of the Willamette River! Needless to say, I try my best not to drop a dime in Multnomah County...much less Portland. BTW, I do still live in the Metro area...just NOT inside the urban growth boundary.

I saw this on my self search feature and had to come here first. I have not read the whole thread so I hope that if I have repeated what another FReeper posted, I will be forgiven.;o)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.