Saturday, July 30, 2011

LAND BANKING, VIEWSHEDS, & STAKEHOLDERS - Part III

I'm a little out of sequence here, according to my title. I saved "Viewsheds" for last. The concept of "Viewsheds" is a bit of a dilemma. All things being subjective in the the realm of aesthetics, your idea of a "Viewshed" might be different than mine. No one wants to look at an eyesore, but your eyesore might be my gemstone, or my livelihood. I'm all for beautiful vistas and scenic enjoyment. However, I'm all for private property rights. So how does one combine those two things and come up with a coherent policy that is good for all? Common sense would prevail, or one would hope so.

The concept of "Viewsheds" is new to American jargon. MerriamWebsterDictionary Defined as: "The natural environment that is visable from one or more viewing points." First known use is 1981.

My how justification expands quickly in today's environmentalists' methods and ideology. The Urban Dictionary states:
"A viewshed is an area of land, water, or other environmental element that is visible to the human eye from a fixed vantage point. The term is used widely in such areas as urban planning, archaeology, and military science. In urban planning, for example, viewsheds tend to be areas of particular scenic or historic value that are deemed worthy of preservation against development or other change. Viewsheds are often spaces that are readily visible from public areas such as from public roadways, public parks or high-rise buildings. The preservation of viewsheds is frequently a goal in the designation of open space areas, green belts, and community separators.

Isn't that nice? From 1981 to 2011, in thirty years, someone's idea of expanding land use controls that have nothing to do with private property rights has blossomed into an entire philosophy of radical land usurpation for the sake of "Views."

For purposes of illustration I came across a document describing the dilemma regarding Thomas Jefferson's home, Monticello, in Charlottesville, VA. I've been there. I loved it. It was wonderful to see it and learn from it. But the area now has a "Comprehensive Land Use Plan." And Monticello has a foundation to advocate for its preservation.

The view from Monticello to the east and the south overlook a vast piedmont landscape into Fluvanna County. A power plant was planned for construction in that area. This power plant involved natural gas and would connect with the national power grid. The power plant would benefit a lot of people.

"The Foundation responded that the lights and the plumes atop those smokestacks could be visible from Monticello. “Depending on the weather sometimes you can see 50 miles from the hilltop. In a rural area, eight or 10 miles is in the neighborhood.”


If I read that right, The Monticello Foundation wants to control all of the land within 50 miles of eyesight from Monticello. 50 miles of land for the purpose of scenic views. The article also refers to yet another environmental designation attaching to another new Federal idea called the Rural Historic District. RHD. The RHD means more layers of regulation of land use. Well, if you look at all of the land left in the country that is not under the control of cities, you could just put all rural land under an RHD. After all, could you not make the case that the entire country is a RHD? It was historically all rural at one point. But I digress.

We have a similar situation arising here in Gaston County. There is a State Park at Crowders Mountain, from which, once climbing to the top, you can see for miles. In fact you can see all the way to Charlotte, NC on a clear day. Now the environmentalist lobby is trying to keep development out of the line of sight from any viewing position on Crowders Mountain. How many miles should be kept out of development for the sake of the "Viewsheds?" The question of Crowders Mountain "Viewshed" is not yet settled, but the wording in "Vision" plans is clear. "Viewsheds" are to be taken into consideration and given priority over development. Check your local "Vision Plan" and you will find it so.

I guess the amazing thing to me is that once the environmentalists in America realized they could trash property rights by controlling the use of land, they then figured out they could expand that control by demanding "Viewshed" rights. There is no end in sight to their environmental fanaticism. Pun intended.

I'm not sure I have a good solution. Perhaps one should limit the distance of "View" in question. How far should "View" rights extend? If you own a residence in a "scenic" community, can you not just claim "View" rights based on the RHD and demand all other comers take a back seat to your new "government granted rights" that, by the way are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?? Then again, when it is truly historical, such as Monticello or Mt. Vernon, or Gettysburg, what is reasonable? Is your "View" a right?


Welcome to the new Amerika, where rights are granted by government and special interest groups, instead of the rights granted by our Creator.

2 comments:

  1. An excellent series of articles, Cheryl. I first ran into this viewshed concept thirty or so years ago when the first wilderness set asides were rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. I wrote countless letters to my Senators and congress against the idea of wilderness. A few years later I recall a mining company wanted to develop a mine a few miles from one of these new wilderness areas, The environmentalist were up in arms because the mine would be visible from some part of the wilderness. The used the term view shed. Effectively they were trying to expand the foot print of the already huge wilderness area. The mining company finally won out after spending millions of dollars to protect their rights not to mention time lost.

    I would like to use this post next Saturday. In my normal introduction of each guest post I will link parts I and II.

    You are doing some great work here, Cheryl, and I know for a fact that you are making an impact.

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you very much, Jim. I seem to have been missing this "viewshed" issue until recently while I've been studying the land use plans for our local government. Surprised to find it has been percolating along for this past 30 yrs. I'm more surprised that there is not a huge backlash against it. (understatement) On your mining co. illustration, is it any wonder that our energy companies are being squeezed out of business and "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket?" The mitigation offset bribes are also news to me..only learning that in the past couple of weeks.

    I hope you are right that people are reading and learning along with me. You are always more than welcome to share with your readers anything I have here....because you are also doing GREAT work at Conservatives on Fire!

    Cheers back to you!!

    ReplyDelete