American Planning Association Putting Lipstick on a Pig?

Now that Agenda 21 and ICLEI have been exposed on a National level, the American Planning Association appears to be scrambling to change its terminology in order to make the expansion of government control over our private property  and daily choices sound more palatable.
 
Below is a link to the American Planning Association’s “Glossary for the Public”:
http://www.planning.org/policy/communicationsbootcamp/guide/pdf/glossaryforthepublic.pdf
 
A speaker, at a County Land Use Plan Study Session, using some key talking points to counter the tactics described in the American Planning Association’s “Glossary for the Public”
 
Here are some key talking points that citizens can use to counter the tactics described in the American Planning Association’s “Glossary for the Public”:
  •  Government planning over private property is top-down, government-controlled policies.
    • Government planning over private property is control, limitation of choices and intrusion into private property rights.
  • Government planning/control is proven to have devastated the property values of countless property owners.
  • Point out clearly when the government is changing land use designations of YOUR (or another individual’s) land and insist that the government officials must get permission from each property owner. Make charts that compare the proposed government land use maps to current maps illustrate clearly how land uses (the rights and responsibilities that came wiht the property when it was purchased) are changing.

Current Land Use Map                                                        Proposed Land Use Map

  • Government should plan its own land, not other peoples’ land!
  • Government planning/sustainability control over private property = regulations, fees, code enforcement, code violations and fines that will burden both current and future generations. There has been a constant flow of land use regulations in the form of regional plans, environmental plans, acid sulphate soil plans, global warming, sky-is-falling, seas-are-rising plans – plans for just about everything which also affect what can and can’t be done with individual pieces of private property. Before all of this flood of government imposed regulation and taxation, life was affordable, the economy strong, growth was a positive and things were getting done.
  • “Sustainable” government “planning” policies advocate the status quo.
  • Most people like living in what some demonize as “sprawl”. What they fail to realize is that when “sprawl” disappears locally, they sell and buy property in an area where there is “sprawl”.
  • A “long tradition” (of mixed-use development) doesn’t give the government new powers to take away the rights and responsibilities that came with the land when individuals purchased it. Mixed-use/live-work units are NOT especially attractive. Most people prefer not to live in such conditions and earn their way by working into better neighborhoods.
  • People buy homes in certain areas because they like a certain type of setting. When given the choice, most people choose to move away from highly populated areas.
  • Changing characteristics of a neighborhood through force of government – changing the terms and conditions under which people purchased their property – imposes the government’s will over the peoples’ free choice to use their land with all of the rights and responsibilities that came with the land when they purchased it.
  • Growth boundaries and urban service areas limit the choices and property rights of individuals. Those who want to protect land outside of the growth boundaries can purchase it (when it comes on the market for sale) and then protect it themselves.
  • The government must not be allowed to impose its well-intended, yet warped, vision of Utopia on the people.
  • Government planning (control) over private property cannot reasonably predict the long-term unintended consequences of its decisions.
  • If the government wants to change the rights and responsibilities that were purchased with and individual’s property, the government must secure property owners’ support with just compensation.
  • Sustainable development and its implementation, adversely affects not only an individual’s rights and freedoms, but also takes away true local control.
  • Government planning (control) over private property interferes with the free market and is therefore unsustainable. It limits choices for future generations – imposes sustainable development on future generations who may not want it. These are NOT positive outcomes.
  • Watch for planners to link “relevant and meaningful” stories “to the everyday lives, hopes and aspirations of residents, community leaders, business interests and elected officials”.
  • There are countless people who have been irreparably hurt as a direct result the government’s increased reach of power over property rights. Give real life examples of how government planning (control) over private property had huge negative impacts on the everyday lives, hopes and aspirations of real individuals.
  • Focus on what communities have to lose by being saddled with limitationsof regional planning.
    • limited individual choices and freedoms.
    • interferes with the free market
    • limits choices of future generations
    • regulations and fees
  • “Green” is just another term for expansion of government control and expense.
  • The American Planning Association seems to like to play the “Democracy” card. Make it clear that your community wants to preserve property rights. Whether the majority of the community wants to preserve property rights or not, it’s the government’s primary job to protect our inherent rights to life, liberty and property.
  • In America, Democracy ends where our inherent rights to life, liberty and property begin. America is not a Democracy. America is a Republic, governed by law that is anchored in the principle that our inherent rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are not subject to the whims of government officials or whims of majorities. Democracies, where the rights to life, liberty and property could be voted away, have consistently ended in tragedy.

by Tonja Dausend

Advertisements

About goldcountrypatriots

Administrator
This entry was posted in Local, National and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s