FEDERAL LAND GRAB, COMMUNITY CHARACTER ACT

thomas.loc.gov ^ | April 4, 2002 | L. CHAFEE, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. BAUCUS

[Nix 2]

COMMUNITY CHARACTER ACT

THIS is a blatant land grab and control attempt by the Democrats in both the House and Senate to make it easier for federal, state, and local governments to grab off private property to use for their own purposes. If this bill, which is now wending its way yet again through the congress under a cloak of silence, passes, Eminent Domain land use will become a fly's eyelash because there will be NO restrictions on the federal, state, or local governments to prove beyond a doubt that taking anyone's personal propety is a necessity for their purposes.
This is a purely Fascist law designed to deprive US citizens of their right to have and own PRIVATE property.
Please read this bill. Understand it. Take note of its sponsors, and make your voices heard before we are taken over under dark of night

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

July 27, 2000
Mr. L. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. BAUCUS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL
To assist States with land use planning in order to promote improved quality of life, regionalism, sustainable economic development, and environmental stewardship, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Community Character Act of 2000'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

(1) inadequate planning at the State level contributes to increased public and private capital costs for infrastructure development, loss of community character , and environmental degradation;

(2) land use planning is rightfully within the jurisdiction of State and local governments;

(3) comprehensive planning and community development should be supported by the Federal Government and State governments;

(4) States should provide a proper climate and context for planning through legislation in order for appropriate comprehensive land use planning and community development to occur;

(5) many States have outdated land use planning legislation, and many States are undertaking efforts to update and reform the legislation; and

(6) efforts to coordinate State resources with local plans require additional planning at the State level.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act :

(1) FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY- The term `Federal land management agency' means the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and any other Federal land management agency that conducts land use planning for Federal land.

(2) LAND USE PLANNING LEGISLATION- The term `land use planning legislation' means a statute, regulation, executive order or other action taken by a State to guide, regulate, and assist in the planning, regulation, and management of land, natural resources, development practices, and other activities related to the pattern and scope of future land use.

(3) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

(4) STATE- The term `State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

(5) STATE PLANNING DIRECTOR- The term `State planning director' means the State official designated by statute or by the Governor whose principal responsibility is the drafting and updating of State guide plans or guidance documents that regulate land use and infrastructure development on a statewide basis.

SEC. 4. GRANTS TO STATES FOR UPDATING LAND USE PLANNING LEGISLATION AND INTEGRATING FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AND STATE PLANNING.

(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish a program to provide grants to States for the purpose of assisting in--

(1) as a first priority, development or revision of land use planning legislation in States that currently have inadequate or outmoded land use planning legislation; and

(2) creation or revision of State comprehensive land use plans or plan elements in States that have updated land use planning legislation.

(b) ELIGIBILITY- To be eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a), a State shall submit to the Secretary, in such form as the Secretary may require, an application demonstrating that the State's basic goals for land use planning legislation reform are consistent with all of the following guidelines:

(1) CITIZEN REPRESENTATION- Citizens are notified and citizen representation is required in the developing, adopting, and updating of land use plans.

(2) MULTIJURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION- In order to effectively manage the impacts of land development and to provide for resource sustainability, land use plans are created based on multi-jurisdictional governmental cooperation, when practicable, particularly in the case of land use plans based on watershed boundaries.

(3) IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENTS- Land use plans contain an implementation element that--

(A) includes a timetable for action and a definition of the respective roles and responsibilities of agencies, local governments, and other stakeholders;

(B) is consistent with State capital budget objectives; and

(C) provides the framework for decisions relating to the siting of future infrastructure development, including development of utilities and utility distribution systems.

(4) COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING- There is comprehensive planning to encourage land use plans that--

(A) promote sustainable economic development and social equity;

(B) enhance community character ;

(C) coordinate transportation, housing, education, and other infrastructure development;

(D) conserve historic resources, scenic resources, and the environment; and

(E) sustainably manage natural resources.

(5) UPDATING- Land use plans are routinely updated.

(6) STANDARDS- Land use plans reflect an approach that is consistent with established professional planning standards.

(c) USE OF GRANT FUNDS- Grant funds received by a State under subsection (a) shall be used to obtain technical assistance in--

(1) drafting land use planning legislation;

(2) research and development for land use planning programs and requirements relating to the development of State guide plans;

(3) conducting workshops, educating and consulting policy makers, and involving citizens in the planning process; and

(4) integrating State and regional concerns and land use plans with Federal land use plans.

####################################################################################

[Nix 2]

1 . Community Character Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House)[H.R.1433.IH]

2 . Community Character Act of 2001 (Introduced in the Senate)[S.975.IS]

Below is the Pennsylvania Bill.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE BILL
No. 2385
Session of 2002

[Edmund Burke]

I think you a exagerating just a little bit. They won't take your house, but they will tell you what color they want it painted.

[Nix 2]

Not exaggerating even a little bit. If anything, it is worse than I've stated. In action, it is the END of private ownership of land. Period. Total and complete government control and an easing of restrictions on LOCAL governments to take your land for their OWN purposes, whether they can prove necessity or not.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

I notice that Senator Levin from Michigan signed on as a co-sponsor of S975. Recently, there appeared in a local paper a letter from a concerned citizen with the words: "Back in 1993, I called Sen. Carl Levin’s field office to ask that Sen. Levin vote against an upcoming gun-ban bill. I told the aide that we do have the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. Sen. Levin came on the phone and essentially told me that right doesn’t exist."

I also noticed that my state representative, Bart Stupak, (among 48 other sponsors/co-sponsors) signed as a co-sponsor to the House version on June 21, 2001. I sent him a letter the other day concerning HR2829. It appears I'm going to have to write several more.

Thank you for the alert.

[sauropod]

Are you in Santa Cruz County?

[sauropod]

Fascism permits you to retain ownership of your property, but they control the use of it.

[hedgetrimmer]

Yep, I'm in Santa Cruz, the pearl of local Agenda 21.

[1Old Pro]

Related: "OPEN SPACE" TAXES. Has your town taxed you yet to "preserve" open space-

[Kay Ludlow]

I see PA House bill 2385 includes the funding mechanism for increased "watershed planning" as well as purchasing the "greenways"...

Here in Centre County PA, the Greenways committee is already hard at work drawing on the county maps all the land they want to open to the public/preserve through the Greenways initiative. They are doing this very quietly, and intend to present a finished plan to the County to adopt. Bill 2385 would provide money to the county to begin purchasing the greenways. While I personally don't think government should own any more land than they already do, my biggest issue is: what will they do about property on the greenways map that the owners aren't willing to sell?

I am concerned about the broad issues of property rights in this country, but with greenways my concern is personal. I am fortunate enough to own some land on a mountain ridge in the county. The Greenways Committee wants to preserve the entire ridge, and has drawn a trail through my land, where I intend to build my home.

As I've heard these people say, what good is a trail if you only have pieces of it that don't connect? They want to use emminent domain in the end to connect the pieces they get from willing/pressured/extorted sellers. I don't intend to sell...

[Nix 2]

Dear Kay,
In the world of rats and humans, humans don't stand a prayer unless they stand together. Groups have to form in the places where these things are happening. We did manage, through hard work and major digging into the legislative attempts trying to sneak past the light of day, to thwart the creation a landfill near where I live. Mountain hicks aren't always ready to lay down and let government have their way with us. We aren't about to do so now. I am begging for people to help squelch both sets of bills, federal and state. These will keep coming as long as they think we are distracted by the war , ours and the Near East's.
Time to Look Homeward, Sweet Angels.

[Nix 2]

BTW, Bush has now taken a stand on this federal bill. He is dead set against it, so our phone calls and emails are bringing it to light. Thanks to any and everyone who sent emails or called. It's working.

[Kay Ludlow]

We're try to group together to fight some of this locally. Of course the independant, self-reliant rural people tend to not want much to do with government... but we're making some headway!

[hedgetrimmer]

One of the reasons the Klamath farmers won a few battles is the website Klamathbasincrisis.org. You need to get a site up that focuses on your issue and presents information to people so that they can support you. Its work, but its worth it. The klamath site was getting thousands of visits a day last summer,and they even had live video donated so we could watch the headgates with them. You surely would get visits to your site by mentioning it on freerepublic, and help will come out of the woodwork. You can't do it alone and you can't do it by trying to fix things through the government process. Its already been subverted by the regional councils.

[Kay Ludlow]

Funny you should mention using a website. We actually have one in its early stages. The focus is not specific to greenways, but rather on all these local government initiatives, how they are tied together, how they trample our rights, and how they are tied in to broader national issues.

It is our hope that the site will wake up enough local people to convince local government that they need to back off and stop trying to ahead of the pack in implementing all the Agenda 21 stuff.

Luckily for me, I have a few local freeper allies now, so I no longer have to fight the battle entirely alone!

[hedgetrimmer]

Just let us know when your site is ready for prime time! The NoDarbyRefuge people are trying to link up with other land use/property rights sites. Contact them and let them know what you're up to. I know they will want to hear from you and will help you get your message out. In fact, when you're ready I'll put a link up on my website too, redwoodrepublic.com

[hedgetrimmer]

It is our hope that the site will wake up enough local people to convince local government that they need to back off and stop trying to ahead of the pack in implementing all the Agenda 21 stuff.

Speaking of Agenda 21 stuff, my poor little county was lost to that monster in 1993, although the process was started as far back as 1990. Only 125 people had any say in the matter, they certainly did NOT ask voters to participate in the process. Our county now looks like East Germany before the Berlin wall came down, with the highway starting to become overgrown with weeds because the agenda 21 policy won't let Caltrans use weedkiller to off them, grafitti and vandalism everywhere. The city of Santa Cruz is planning to build a desalination plant instead of building a reservoir that was paid for with 30 years of bond indebtedness, and nearly all the businesses that paid good wages are gone, with the largest employers in the county being the county itself and the Pajaro Valley Unified School district-- all gub'mint jobs.

An Agenda 21 Report for Santa Cruz County

[backhoe]

Here's a Note to Activists:

Want to do something? Go here:

Ignorance Making You Ill? Cure It!

for links, tools, & instructions about how to contact a pile of different people, and how to send a link to this story right here ( or anywhere else ) to a "mass email" using Outlook Express.

[Carry_Okie]

Only 125 people had any say in the matter, they certainly did NOT ask voters to participate in the process.

I was one of them. I was on the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management Roundtable. They took our input and butchered it. The document was completed in secret by people who had not participated in the public process. I refused to go along. They said that I agreed anyway and put my name on their list as a memher of the "consensus." It was a screw job and a fraud.

[Nix 2]

BTTT

[hedgetrimmer]

was one of them. I was on the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management Roundtable.

Ok, so how do we undo this monster? Do you think we could get an initiative on the ballot say maybe in a year and have the people vote it away?