Additional
Titles

Related

Articles:

Separating

People From
Their Water

Communist
Oriented
Policing

Other
'Destroying
America' Articles:

Pledge Allegiance

to the ACLU

STEALING PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH PUBLIC
DOLLARS

By Cheryl K. Chumley
March 17, 2004

NewsWithViews.com

Just when you thought you had a handle on
the maneuvers of environmentalists and the politicians who pander to these
anti-private property activists, now comes a new stealth measure aimed at
taking even more of your land.

Presented as a friendly partnership plan
for necessary preservation of clean drinking water reservoirs, wildlife
habitat, and endangered species, the Highlands Conservation Act (H.R.
1964) is actually a carefully crafted, multi-layered, insidious hoax that
spits on the Constitution and in the faces of freedom-seeking Americans
nationwide.

If left unchecked, this $100 million-plus
bill or its companion Senate version, S. 999 that's even worse, it will
become the steppingstone for greater power to the Greens.

The way it works is this: Governors in
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey identify which lands in
the two million acre Highlands region should be taken from private control
and placed under government jurisdiction. The Secretaries of the Interior
and Agriculture Departments pass along these targeted land grab
suggestions to members of Congress. They in turn give their stamp of
approval on funding the so-called necessary conservation actions with 50%
matching federal dollars, up to $10 million annually from 2005-2014 with
general Treasury or Land and Water Conservation Fund disbursements.

This is the new and supposed friendly
partnership aspect of the bill; that the federal land bureaucracies assume
the more humble role of financial provider while leaving the "non-federal"
entities (also known as non-governmental organizations or NGOs; all with
political agendas) in charge of identifying which properties to purchase
and manage. Comparatively meeker to past land management measures as this
federal involvement may sound, deeper analysis reveals several hidden
agendas at play.

Do you think, for instance, that the
governors of these four States, when faced with the tempting opportunity
to receive millions of taxpayer dollars, will show restraint when it comes
to identifying land parcels for preservation? The nature of the political
beast says no: The history of these four states' involvement with H.R.
1964 proves otherwise, too.

Connecticut and Pennsylvania, while
listed in the bill as Highlands states, were never formally included in
the USDA Forest Service's official land assessment studies conducted in
1992 and 2002.

That these two states were added to H.R.
1964 stems primarily from the findings of their own open space and green
plans which, happily for all involved, coincided with the Forest Service's
2002 formal findings that "long-term sustainability" of the Highlands
depends upon the ability of land management efforts to "span local and
even state political boundaries." Research indicates a wide range of
environmental groups, from the Sierra Club to the Highlands Coalition, had
a heavy hand in helping Connecticut and Pennsylvania politicians develop
these land use plans that were added to the Forest Service studies cited
in this bill as evidence of the region's "national significance."

So, what if politicians in Maryland and
Vermont decide they want a piece of the federal money pie, too? The
Highlands region is already mapped as a connecting corridor of land,
Wildlands Project style, that extends from eastern Pennsylvania through
New Jersey and New York to northwestern Connecticut, adjacent to 15
parcels of federally protected property. It wouldn't take much effort on
the part of environmentalists to convince Congress of the "nationally
significant" need to extend the lines of land acquisition a bit further to
offer Vermont and Maryland similar partnership perks as awarded the four
states in H.R. 1964.

The friendly Forest Service certainly
won't oppose extension of "non-federal" or NGO control of Highlands
property. While the bill maintains this agency will only assume an
advisory role to "local government, individual landowners, and private
organizations in identifying" lands for conservation, and grants an extra
$1 million each year to cover the costs of these duties, the Forest
Service's own 2002 study offers a different understanding of its
authority.

The Forest Service ought to "continue
(its) leadership role in land management in the Highlands and in
implementing these strategies" by "modifying or creating authority and
processes necessary for governance and decision making," the agency's "New
York-New Jersey Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update" states.

That sounds a bit like a plan for
ultimate Forest Service control of the Highlands area. And with H.R. 1964
granting the agency the right to "undertake other studies and research as
appropriate," it also sounds a bit like the doors opening to land
acquisitions and government management in other states, regardless of the
bill's so-called guarantee of private property protections and non-federal
authority.

"So-called" is the key phrase here: The
private property protection section of the bill says appropriations "shall
be used to purchase lands or interests in lands only from willing
sellers." Sounds non-threatening enough, right? But unfortunately, the
entire notion of the willing seller is a joke.

By and large, property owners do not
understand the intense pressure well-funded conservation groups create on
local politicians to acquire land or the complex maze of collaborations
and partnerships the NGOs form to achieve these ends.

Buying small parcels here, winning over a
few landowners there, these radical conservationists slowly increase the
amount of acreage off limits for human use. The landowners who hesitate or
refuse to sell become surrounded by these public properties and find the
restrictions placed on the managed lands now trickle onto their
boundaries. They often lose water rights, access road use, and development
rights. In effect, these non-willing sellers lose control of their lands.

As a result, their land loses value and
they decide to sell. They become the "willing sellers."

Those living adjacent to the managed
property areas, meanwhile, suffer enormous tax hikes and cost-of-living
increases. As private property converts to public property, local tax
bases shrink. The government must recoup this revenue somewhere; remaining
residents pay in the form of higher taxes and new fees.

H.R. 1964 will continue this decimation
of local communities because it allows the federal government to be used
as a bank for financing the political agendas of private NGOs.

Changing the language in the bill's
private property section will not prevent this destruction of local
communities and Constitutional private property protections from
occurring. Even if language were tightened to the point of providing
security that locals really would control the future of Highlands
property, history indicates private property owners and advocates would
still emerge from the bill's passage as the tossed-aside underdogs.

In 1998, a 15,800-acre privately owned
tract of land within commuting distance of New York City called Sterling
Forest was targeted for preservation after environmentalists learned
developers were planning to build 13,000 new homes for an estimated 35,000
potential residents. An organization called the Palisades Interstate Park
Commission took the lead in rallying for purchase and public management of
these lands, forming coalitions with other local and state
environmentalists. These included known Wildlands Project supporters like
the Audubon Society to take their arguments to Congress.

What resulted was a partnership between
the federal government and state NGOs, where the former gave money so that
the latter could purchase and control land.

Sound familiar? The Sterling Forest deal,
which ultimately encompassed about 17,000 acres and - coincidentally again
- connects Highlands property targeted in H.R. 1964, is also the model for
this bill. The déjà vu continues: H.R. 1964 specifies the Palisade
Interstate Park Commission as a "non-federal" entity "with authority to
own and manage land for conservation purposes."

Past experience would indicate this is
one non-federal group that wouldn't hesitate to spread its management
authority further throughout Highlands region lands, the majority of which
is currently privately owned.

To maintain that private ownership,
perhaps Senate supporters like Sens. Rick Santorum, Arlen Specter, Ron
Wyden and Larry Craig could take an uncharacteristically nonpolitical step
and insert logical language in the bill, before Senate Public Lands and
Forests subcommittee members approve it unchallenged during a scheduled
March 24 hearing.

Perhaps a line could be added to this
effect: "County governments shall maintain final authority to veto any
land proposal stemming from this bill." That ought to stop the droolings
of cash-strapped state politicians and land-hungry environmental radicals
for a while, at least.

The fundamental concept of private
property, the keystone of our economy, would be better served if the
entire measure were scrapped. That would abolish any chance the
politicians and radical Greenies have of realizing its hidden agendas.

Otherwise, we Americans are facing the
dire consequences of Wildlands Project goals to lock out 50% of each
state's lands from human use. It is our tax dollars that are assisting
current Wildlands Project efforts to take land from Maine to Tennessee
from the private sector. And we're helping to realize the Wildlands
Project dream of grabbing an enormous, connected swath of eastern U.S.
land and placing it off limits to all forms of human residence and
productive use forever.

H.R. 1964 sits squarely on the backs of
the American taxpayer, who could be required to fund these Wildlands
Project practices for decades because of a bill that does not even bother
to stipulate whether Congress will stop its land grab funding past the
2014 deadline.

© 2004 Cheryl Chumley - All Rights
Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Cheryl K. Chumley is Associate Editor of the
American Policy Center News Wire. The Center, a grassroots, activist think
tank is headquartered in Warrenton, Virginia, and maintains an Internet
site at http://www.americanpolicy.org/.
E-Mail: [email-masked]

Home

"Buying small parcels here, winning
over a few landowners there, these radical conservationists slowly
increase the amount of acreage off limits for human use."