THE AUDACITY OF GREENWAYS

The more I look, the more I see, the more I read, the more I learn, the more I lament the sorry state of American freedoms.

Not at a snail's pace, walking trails called greenways are now taking private property at breakneck speed. Thousands of acres of land are being taken out of the hands of private property owners every day in this country for the ubiquitous, albeit unfounded, idea that Americans need more nature walks to traverse.

One example: This story a Tennessee home owner's land is threatened by greenway
"RUTHERFORD COUNTY, Tenn. - One man's home he built himself nearly 30 years ago is in jeopardy. It's not due to neglect or financial issues, but to make way for a greenway."

Here is another one

I point these out because it is becoming all too common. The city council where I live has adopted the anti-private property rights initiative of establishing greenways. The council has come at this from no less than three directions...maybe four. The first was signing an agreement with something called the "Carolina Thread Trail." The second was adopting a "Vision Plan" that specifically identifies the addition of greenways as a goal of the city. The third is coordination with the transportation committee called the MPO (Municipal Planning Organization), which is proposing to divert transportation money away from roads and into the building of...you guessed it...greenways. The fourth is attachment to something called a Regional Government. In our case it is called the Centralina Council of Governments whose stated goal is to implement Smart Growth. Smart Growth proposes greenways and open spaces to be part of any planning goals.

Let's say you rescind one or two of those agreements, you are still stuck with the others. One way or another, greenways will be put in place usurping the private property rights of many to serve the few, using our tax system by purchase or by incentives or by eminent domain to take land from those who have worked to own it and paid property taxes for the privilege. If they can't get you through the utopian goals of the "Vision Plan," they'll come at you through the transportation planning department. If they can't get you there, they will refuse grants from the Regional Government. And if they can't get you on that one, they'll sue you for not implementing your agreement with the Thread Trail.

So, what is a citizen to do? Our local tea party is looking for council members who will rescind all agreements with Trails orgs. and who will rescind the Vision Plan. We are looking for council members who will stand up to the MPO and tell them our transportation money is not to be used for greenways and bike trails except in areas that are already owned by government. We are looking for council members who are familiar with the Constitutional rights to own private property and who define property rights as a top priority for our local government.

Who wants to live in a place where the government can step in for the sake of a walking trail to take your property? The audacity of government officials who would define the common good as an excuse for taking private property for a walking trail is beyond reprehensible. And I would note that these greenways never cross the private property of city council members, county commissioners, or the select few who are chosen to sit on the ridiculous "stakeholder" councils. The audacity is stinking to high heaven. Yes, that heaven where our rights are derived.

Who are the citizens who think it is their right to traipse across someone's private property? Those who think this, for their mistaken idea of some altruistic sake of commiserating with nature, should be candidates for trespassing fines and arrest. Instead, we have councils promoting obsequious cooperation from all around them to literally slap private property owners in the face. Other property owners...not themselves, of course.

Not satisfied with just greenway land, audacity leapt bounds even further in this Oregon law where government can and will take Scenic easements. Scenic easements are also called Viewsheds. In other words, they want views and scenery to surround their greenways and trails. So if your land just happens to be within viewing distance, your house or structures might offend the utopian connoisseurs of nature. We can't have that, now can we? The word "viewsheds" can be found in our local plans as well.

An excerpt of this law is here:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, after the date of the approval of the plan for the Willamette River Greenway or any segment thereof under ORS 390.322 (Submission of plan to Land Conservation and Development Commission), the State Parks and Recreation Department may acquire scenic easements in any lands described in such plan or segment pursuant to ORS 390.318 (Preparation of development and management plan) (2)(d). Each such easement may be acquired by any means, including but not limited to the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

Audacity of illegal land confiscation. It seems to be contagious.

EMINENT DOMAIN FOR GREENWAYS?

I keep saying I'm taking a break....and then things draw me back into the dialogue. We have been having a local issue regarding the use of Eminent Domain for taking privately owned property for greenways, walking trails, and "open areas." So I was "taking a break" from writing, when I discovered our County Commissioners are deliberating this evening on this same subject. Our City officials have already proven to be pawns in the game of land confiscation for the anti-private property rights environmentalists. I felt it was necessary to jump back in to encourage the County Commissioners to uphold private property rights and reject the use of Eminent Domain, taking property for these environmentalists who lack respect for property ownership and want the entire world to belong to a "common."

Here is a copy of my editorial published in the Gaston Gazette today:

Eminent Domain For What?

If someone told you that some or all of the property you own could be confiscated against your will for a common area, an open area, a walking or biking trail, what would you say? You search for and find that perfect property to buy, only to find out that a 10 or 20 foot swath of that property next to a creek or stream is required greenway? Would you still want to buy it? Let's say you bought a piece of land for the scenery, the quiet solitude, and the privacy. Should government force you to relinquish your land for the sake of recreational common access? Maybe we should ask Mayor Stultz.

While environmentalist conservation groups avow that they have no "eminent domain" powers, they create partnerships with local governments in order to use those governments to do the dirty work for them. Greenway websites emphasize that all land acquisitions are "voluntary." As we have seen recently in Gastonia, that is not exactly the truth with regard to the recent greenway project.

Eminent Domain is a property-taking law originally devised for the government to take land for critical infrastructure such as roads and utilities, to provide service to the population surrounding the property in question. Environmentalists have convinced politicians that they have the power and right to take privately owned property for “public benefit” by means of eminent domain on the basis of walkways, biking trails, and the vague definition of "open areas."

Greenways’ websites promote all kinds of utopian benefits through restricting land use, creating open areas, and building walking and biking trails. They even call greenways "alternative transportation" to get grants from the State and Federal Departments of Transportation. Do you wonder where our transportation money is going?

The operating capital for these groups is government grants and tax-deductible donations. This means governments are giving tax dollar grants to organizations with which the governments are partnering, while at the same time governments are handing out tax deductions to donors who give land or money to the greenways, trails, and conservancy organizations in order to encourage people to fund the taking of property. Cleverly, the money trail is the real trail being created under the guise of greenways. The conservancy foundations are not working for free. The more government grants and tax deductible donations they get, the fatter their salaries and bank accounts grow.

Recently I found a published plan on the City of Gastonia website. It is at cityofgastonia.com or you can google search "Gastonia 2020 Plan For Our Future." The plan states our government should "Encourage the protection of land through foundations and land trusts." It states our local government is to "partner with land conservancies and other public and nonprofit environmental agencies." What would be the purpose of such partnerships? Would those "partnerships" involve tax-funded grants for the taking of private property? In this instance, the word "protection" means "restricted use."
Historically, the “mob” always demanded "protection" money, too. What a coincidence! Did you vote to have our government partner with land trusts and conservancies to "protect”……oops, I mean “restrict” land use? If you did, was it your own land or land belonging to someone else you wish to restrict? Did you vote for a plan allowing our local government to take land by eminent domain for a greenway or a bike trail? You didn't? Neither did I.

Instead of encouraging private land ownership and industries, our local government wants you to believe that by partnering with anti-private property rights groups, restricting land ownership, we will create some desirable location attracting businesses and lots of industrious, educated people. What industrious and educated persons want to buy or own a piece of land that could be taken or restricted at any whim of the local government for any reason whatsoever such as greenways? I think there is an oxymoron in there somewhere. Should we ask Mayor Stultz about that, too?

Our County Commissioners are deliberating the threat of eminent domain for the Carolina Thread Trail on Thursday, February 24. You can show your support for our guaranteed Constitutional property rights by contacting them and telling them you are against the use of eminent domain for any such purposes as greenways, trails, and open areas.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

So there it is. Our local problem is not just happening to us. The drive for property-taking by local and state governments, operating in unelected partnerships with environmentalist groups, is going on all over the United States. If you are reading this from whatever town in anywhere USA and are facing the same onslaught from these nonprofit land grabbers, please feel free to use my op-ed as a model to go after the offenders.

Below: Written by Adolf Hitler in 192o / The platform of the National Socialist Workers Party
WE DEMAND A LAND-REFORM SUITABLE TO OUR NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, THE PASSING OF A LAW FOR THE CONFISCATION OF LAND FOR COMMUNAL PURPOSES; THE ABOLITION OF INTEREST ON MORTGAGES, AND PROHIBITION OF ALL SPECULATION IN LAND.

(Two articles down in this blog is Hitler's entire list.)

GREENWAYS - PATHS TO GOVERNMENT POWER OVER YOUR PROPERTY

Yesterday, upon hearing that our local city council was about to use eminent domain to condemn private property for the sake of a greenway, I emailed each council member to implore them against the action.  This morning's newspaper informs me that they went ahead with the eminent domain grab and took swaths of land for their beloved greenway.  Six council members, three for the grab, three against, the mayor broke the tie and took the land.  

The newspaper article says this: "Plans are to hook the greenway into the Catawba Lands Conservancy’s conceptual Carolina Thread Trail, a 15-county network of walking and biking paths in the Charlotte region. Arthurs (the attorney for the property owners)  pointed out that past discussions of building that network have referenced respecting landowners by building around them if they don’t wish to participate.

But Smith, the city attorney, pointed to the conservancy’s mission statement, which states "any decision to exercise eminent domain is at the discretion of the governing body" where the land lies."

In other words, when the greenway was proposed, the council pushed the greenway project by saying they would not use eminent domain and would respect private ownership.  Lo and behold, the greenway conservancy group, whoever that is, has a mission statement to the contrary.  The lessons?  Be careful with whom you jump into bed and don't listen to liars in powerful positions.

The attorney for the property owners said, "My clients will still pay taxes on this property and will be liable if someone gets hurt," he said. "There’s no way to protect them from that with just a simple condemnation."

So the property owners now own a piece of condemned land on which they pay taxes and property insurance yet they have no use of and no control over?  How does that work?  I am also wondering what just happened to the property values should the owners decide they want to sell their land.  How does the City condemn land, take it, and then make those who just lost their property pay taxes on it and cause them liability?   

Read Full Article Here

You might be sitting there thinking, "Big deal."  You might be thinking greenways are so cool.  Greenways are for hiking, biking, and commiserating with nature.  You might be thinking Americans are so fat, we need to take away land from private ownership so we have places to run off the extra flab.  "It's for the public good, " you say.  Say what?

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says this:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

To get around this, our local council offered some pittance to the property owners who refused the offer, saying they wanted their land to remain as a buffer to their property and did not want any pedestrian traffic or a greenway on their land.  The council, in effect. has come back to say, "up yours."  "We'll do what we want and you can go fly a kite."  Now they have taken the land without just compensation and waltz off to congratulate themselves on the coup.  

The greenway organizations say they have no power to use eminent domain to take the land.  Instead, they are relying on your local government officials to use eminent domain, and then they pressure the local governments to do just that. (Take names and vote those s.o.b.s out of your local government)

Mind you, the owners of this land were not planning some dastardly development on the property.  They were not planning high density destruction of the area.  In fact, they only wanted to keep the land they owned for the purpose of owning it and using it as a buffer of protection for the rest of their property.  And, after all, they are paying the taxes and insurance on that land.

Now you might be saying, "Well, this is just some little town in North Carolina and has no effect on the big picture of the world."  If that's what you are thinking, you don't know the extent and reach of  "lands conservancy" groups who have descended on every square inch of the country like a plague of locusts.  Just four areas below:

Pocatello, Idaho

Philadelphia, PA

Barrington, IL

Albany, NY

 Comprehensive Article on Greenway Abuse of Property Rights

Excerpt: "When property is appropriated for “public use” (whether for public access or buffer zones to preserve views), landowners are forced to sell their land to the government at “fair market value,” not for a highway or a utility, but for a hiking trail. In cases where a property owner is allowed to stay, the government can force public access via a public right-of-way easement or impose regulatory sanctions to eliminate uses seen as “incompatible” with scenic resources."

You need to also recognize that the land the greenway grabbers are after is usually the land along waterways and the most scenic views, so if you bought that property just for those reasons, you will now be forced out of your ownership in order to placate thieves who want what you bought and paid for.  Governments at local levels are part of the grander scheme of a national land grab under the guise of "greenways, land conservancies, smart growth, and wildlands projects."  It has become a national moral tragedy, giving power brokers in government the license to steal property from Americans who purchased that land with their own blood, sweat and tears. 

Worse than just the eminent domain abuse, is also the use of our tax dollars to provide grants to the greenway projects, land conservancies, smart growth initiatives, and wildlands projects.  Simply stated, they are using our own money to support stealing private property from the unlucky souls who get in their way.   Using tax dollars to undermine private property rights guaranteed in the Constitution has to be one of the Progressives most treasured delights.  ( I didn't want to use the other crass phrase describing that.)

'Feel good' rhetoric about how we need to save green space and make everybody healthy, save the planet, etc.  is over-riding common sense and the very foundation of our country.  If we would just call the greenways what they are, i.e. theft, then maybe people would get the message.

As John Adams so wisely stated:

"If people can't feel secure in perhaps their most significant investment in life — a cabin, a farm, a purchase that is part of their dream — if they can't participate and have due process before governmental agencies, if they cannot feel secure in that, then we do not have liberty."

Will people just throw away everything for the short term gratification of giving in to peer pressure and hype?  Don't answer that....I know the answer and I don't like the answer.  Where are the grownups?

Added:  WWII Vet Loses his land by eminent domain, March 2010, for a recreational park in Matthews, NC