"What is Sustainable Development? ...On June 29, 1993, former President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #12852 to create the President's Council on Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of a national zoning system.
Locally elected officials will no longer be the single driving force in making decisions for their communities. Rules will be made behind the scenes in non-elected "sustainability councils" armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines and money.
According to Sustainable Development policies, air conditioning, convenience foods, single-family housing and cars are among the products that have already been determined to be unsustainable. Under such a system, the federal government, backed by an army of private, non-governmental organizations.
(NGOs), like the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, and the National Education Association will influence, if not dictate, policy in state governments and in local communities...
...The Community Character Act (S.975), and its counterpart in the House of Representatives (H.R.1433), is the legislation that will legalize enforcement of Sustainable Development in every community in the nation. The bill requires local governments to implement land-management plans using guidelines outlined in a federal document called the "Smart Growth Legislative Guidebook." This publication was developed with $2 million provided by the Clinton Administration to "guide" counties, cities and towns on how to "update their local zoning."
The Community Character Act offers grants to communities that will pay up to 90% of the costs for localities to "update" their zoning, but only if they do it the way the federal government dictates. The Community Character Act requires localities to "conserve historic, scenic, natural and cultural resources." These are euphemisms that mean more land grabs and fewer places where people can freely go about their daily lives. It means planned economies, restricted housing, and diminished use of cars. It means government control of property. The bill contains not a single mention of private-property rights protection..."
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
The timberland owner who holds an amount of acreage beneath that upper bound that is the prime target of speculative takeovers. These people also hold those parcels, most affected by the current changes in zoning laws. What might explain some of the heat on Roger Burch is that he is effectively removing raw material from a tightly controlled, tract-to-acreage conversion market, by maintaining its use as economically productive timberland.SourceWe'll call this little scenario, "The Push":
1. Rezone tracts with future acreage potential to large minimum divisions. The price of those tracts will be depressed by the reduction in their development potential.
2. Big landowners buy timberland, log it to pay for it, and wait.
3. When the time is right, they log it again, develop it, and sell baronies.
4. The County puts up token resistance, justifies new zoning further afield, and environmental laws to prevent "that" from happening again.
5. The new zoning and environmental laws depress the resource value of new tracts and thus the price. The anointed buy the tracts and do it again or force their competitors into selling the property as parkland, thus raising the value of adjacent parcels.
One has to wonder if there were politicians out there clever enough to realize that they could serve the developers, the antidevelopment activists, and the environmentalists, all in one policy swoop. It all seemed so plausible, repetitive, and ubiquitous.
Consider a contemporary example: In 1999, the County banned commercial timber operations on SU zoned land, including large tracts with residential potential not limited to one house per 40 acres, as are TPZ. There is, thus, pressure to sell these tracts because of an unsustainable cash flow (big taxes, no harvest), unless they convert the zoning to TPZ (the next larger designation with but one residence per parcel). Control of that designation is at the sole discretion of the Planning Department. After sufficient delays and harassment to force the requisite number of sales, is the next step the "token resistance to development" part?
The decision, whether the physical attributes of a site could support a cluster of homes, or whether a site is unsuitable for construction at all, depends upon the individual physical circumstances more than property lines or County planner's zoning map, no matter how many "planning overlays" it has. The problem is that a civic management system simply cannot organize itself for an appropriate synthesis of all individual attributes, because of its demotivating structure and criteria subject to political interpretation.
The temptation to play God with other people's property is endemic to democracy because it is a way to acquire the control of wealth without paying for it. It is a personally gratifying thing to do. This disease particularly afflicts those we elect or hire into civic bureaucracy, no matter how well intentioned. A planner supposedly has no personal stake in decisions other than personal ideology, continued employment, promotions... unless there is graft involved, or acting under verbal orders of decision-makers... but that would be unheard of, wouldn't it?
Is it any wonder that our noted "anti-development" Supervisor, a man with an unchallenged reputation as a leader in protection of The Environment, came from a family of long-term residents of the County that had made a killing in real estate? Perhaps he really believes that he was protecting the County from those outside interests. Perhaps he and his friends agreed that what he did was the "right" thing, but whom did those measures benefit? Although there are certainly many happy owners of personal baronies, and a few very happy investors, the policy also made entry level housing unaffordable for many of his constituents. Guess what he plans to do about that?
[Snip (several pages)]
We'll call this one, "The Squeeze":
1. Rezone suburban lots with urban potential to a larger minimum size.
2. The owners of "worth-less" lots get to hold the bag and pay the taxes.
3. The County recognizes the "urban sprawl" and circumscribes the area by zoning "greenbelts."
4. Prices of residential housing rise due to a lack of available acreage.
5. The big landowners wait for the market to develop and buy the "worth-less" lots for the less that they are "worth."
6. The County recognizes the "housing shortage" and rezones the minimums for "in-fill."
7. The property, now worth a lot, gets developed, and the County rakes in additional taxes.
Now that those "worth-less" lots are worth lots, why didn't the bag-holders keep them?
8. To produce new lots, use environmental and zoning laws to require modifications to building codes that the current class of owners cannot afford. To take the dirt, condemn the property. Sell it to whom?
One has to wonder if there were politicians out there, clever enough to realize that they could serve the developers, the anti-development activists, and the environmentalists, all in one policy swoop. It all seemed so plausible, repetitive, and ubiquitous.