Skip to comments.Conservative Congress Votes to Steal More Property
Posted on 08/08/2005 1:56:03 PM PDT by Sweetjustusnow
Our so called Conservative majority in Congress passed by unanimous vote the National Heritage Area's Bill (See Senate Bill 243) along with (Senate Bill 54)on July 26, 2005.
In other words they are on the march to suck up more private property and have given their approval to the National Park Service to expand their empire through the stealing of private property.
As for "National Heritage", Miriam-Webster definition of "Heritage" is: "property that descends to an heir: legacy: birthright" and "legacy" means "inheritance". My family has a heritage and legacy. How about you? Individual liberty is no more. It's all about the "common interest". Now what does that sound like? Communism? But of course.
Until people understand Agenda 21 and rise up to take their Government back from the despots who have stolen our country, all the debate over who is better Democrats or Republicans is nothing short of a farce, as there is no difference. They are all on the same page. They have sold out the American people to the highest bidder, special interest groups and those who wish to impliment a "one world government".
I hope people wake up to the fact that this country has long ago ceased to be a "Representative Republic", let alone a democracy.
They aren't stealing it. They are going to compensate the owners. They're stealing the money to pay the compensation.
Guess who sent a nice letter asking for money today?
None other than my Congessman, Randy Forbes who voted "Yes" to CAFTA.
Now, does he really really think that after I called his office and said, "Please vote no," that I would send him a nice fat check.
I'll vote Libertarian, Green, or Constitution. I've had it with both major parties.
What will they compensate my family for? Our own legacy, heritage and birthright?
What is the price for loss of liberty?
Yep, I'm in the same boat. Lost my job twice since 2003 to India and am now going to drive a big rig over-the-road.
I sent my congressman a letter telling him that my money was sent to Candice Miller in the hopes that she runs against Debbie Stabenow for the senate.
When you go out to your driveway tomorrow morning, and find your car gone, but a bag containing $1500 in its place, with a note saying "The Blue Book value on your car was $1500", are you going to say "I was ripped off!" or ar you going to say "I was compensated!"
Great Idea, LOL!
"going to drive a big rig over-the-road."
That's a job that's fast becoming one of those "jobs that Americans won't do."
National Heritage Areas are not allowed by law to use Federal money they receive for land purchases. Some NHA's don't even own any land. The NHA's are overseen and administered by PRIVATE organizations made up boards of directors to which any private citizen can apply for consideration to become a board member.
The only way a National Heritage Area can buy land is to raise the money itself or they can use a state program if applicable to get money (just like any municipality or non-profit can).
The whole concept of National Heritage Areas is so as not to create new National parks but instead to help related privately owned and publicly owned sites to come together and tell their story in a coherent way and to pool resources so they can spend their money and plan their interpretation etc. in a cohesive and economical way.
Every proposed National Heritage Area goes through a process of public input long before it ever gets to a vote at the Federal level. Pro and con forces have time to say their piece and contact their legislators to support or oppose any proposed area. Usually there are a series of public meetings at which time anyone can speak about what they want or don't want from a NHA. All Federal funding and designations only last for 10 years and then have to be resubmitted for approval which is a difficult and time consuming process.
excellent analogy. That makes the point very clear. Freepers are the best at presenting ideas in very clear terms.
You just don't get it, do you.
save your money and invest wisely...a mexican will have that job within 3 years!!!
Please you are getting hysterical.
Since I sit on the Board of Directors of a proposed National Heritage Area, I think I know far better than you what they can and cannot legally do.
We absolutely cannot use our Federal operating funds to purchase real property (land). It is against the law for us to do so. We can recieve up to $10,000,000 in Federal money ($1,000,000 per year for 10 years) but it is not guaranteed that we get that amount and we are only allowed to use that money for explicit purposes (which again do not include buying land). We can use the money to develop a management plan for the area (which is a fancy way of determing how to best tell the story and get the public interested in the story), interpretation, basic staff salaries (no board members receive any compensation), signage, brochures and publishing, tourism and business outreach, education programs for schools, grants to historic sites etc. etc. We are also responsible for raising additional funds for the Heritage Area.
Yes we are a private not for profit managing entity. None of us work for the National Park Service and we cannot do so. The Board is made up of various persons who are interested in the project including BUSINESS PEOPLE and PRIVATE LANDOWNERS. We all work for free and give up large amounts of our valuable time because we believe in what we do.
I have to crack up at people like you. You pull some stuff off of a whackjob website that is total hysterical BS and you start screaming like chicken little. You and I can agree or disagree about the propriety and value of National Heritage Areas but arguing that they are a UN plot to take over the world is laughable.
My propsed Heritage Area was the brainchild of a Republican Congressman and one of the Nation's oldest patriotic organizations. It is hardly a liberal endeavor although we do have liberals who also support what we are trying to do and some who don't.
P.S. - I am not some liberal plant or a newbie to this site, nor do I work for Greenpeace or Kofi Annan. I am a guy who believes in what our National Heritage Area is trying to do and I believe that we are going about it in a manner that is friendly to private property rights, good for private business and public/private preservation efforts.
Have a nice day.
"Friendly to private property rights".....lmao
You have no right to anyone's private property. If I wanted my property listed as an historical site, I'd have filled out the proper paper work to do so.
"Hysterical" is always the term used by those who hope to shut the mouth of the private property owner.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Gee, what is this? Why! It's the partners of the National Park Service, and lo and behold, I believe I see OCTA listed. http://www.nps.gov/nts/partners_nonprofits.html
Yes we are friendly to private property rights since we don't take any private property. If we want it, we have to buy it just like anyone else. We have no power to condemn private property or use eminent domain proceedings against any private property owner.
Hypothetically if we wanted a piece of property that was for sale and a developer wanted the same property, we would have to pay more or the property owner would have to WANT to sell to us (or a preservation organization).
I called you hysterical because you are hysterical.
"Gee, what is this? Why! It's the partners of the National Park Service, and lo and behold, I believe I see OCTA listed."
So what ? OCTA partners with the NPS on trailwork. NPS partners with many different organizations and individuals of various political ideologies on various projects. That doesn't mean they all meet in the lobby of the UN for world take over sessions.
National Heritage Areas are a seperate issue. If you want to rant about OCTA, be my guest but don't drag my project or organization into your rants with broad brush and uniformed condemnations.
Well why don't you tell us what your organization is? Then perhaps we can ask the property owners that you have your sights set on their opinion of your organization.
What is the name of your organization?
Aslo, have you ever read the National Trails System Act?
Don't quit looking...CAFTA opens the the highways to drivers as far south as the South Pole...
"Crossroads of the American Revolution Heritage Area".
Good ironic distinction. I like your irony and precision of thought:
"They aren't stealing it. They are going to compensate the owners. They're stealing the money to pay the compensation."
Oh, you mean this lovely little boondogle, here?
That little thing? Why, I'm sure nobody's right to private property could possibly be usurped with this one, right?
You must have a whole lot of faith in the NPS and Big Brother. Either that, or you have an agenda that the majority of people in this country are oppossed to.
I just love to read all about these non profits and the NPS, it's always interesting to note that the citizen is always listed last in their so called partnering.
I smell RINO.
You shoulda finished reading tha last sentence where Brilliant says "They're gonna steal the money to pay the compensation..."
Please don't assume you know anything about me or the organization.
I can sleep at night without worrying about black helicopters flying over my house. Too bad you cannot do the same.
If anyone has any questions about the proposed heritage area or its goals, they can mail me and they will get a truthful answer. Heck I even answered you even after your ignorant diatribe.
As for being a RINO, I am as much a RINO as you are a nutcase. Chew on that one.
Hahah I just read the link you posted. Are you people for real ??????
How do you sleep at night worrying about complex inter-relationships designed to usurp local government ???
What a crock.
Buddy, do yourself a favor. get off your a**, stop reading stuff on the internet and go to some public meetings regarding these heritage areas and read their master plans AND THE ACTUAL LAW designating them. Then once you actually have some information besides nutcase propoganda, perhaps we can have a reasonable conversation. By the way you conveniently left out a key portion of the actual legislation
"(c) Prohibitions on the Acquisition of Real Property- The Association may not use Federal funds received under this Act to acquire real property, but may use any other source of funding, including other Federal funding, intended for the acquisition of real property. "
In other words, the Heritage Area may not use their Federal Heritage funding to buy land.
Hey, the facts are there for everyone to see. Ad hominum attacks are the first instrument used by those who wish to divert from facts and truth. Especially when they are unable to form a concise argument for the charade they are promoting.
Everyone has a heritage, and history can be found in the history books. There is already a way for private individuals to have their own property designated as an historical site.
Why do we need groups such as yours coveting property that doesn't belong to you and pushing their agenda down our throats?
How much land will you steal in the name of your "heritage area"?
Heritage Area's are just another way to take from the private citizen and give to Government. But don't worry, obviously you will be successful in your endeavors. I bet property owners are just knocking down the doors of groups like yours begging to be included! NOT.
I hope someone else is paying your fuel bill. My brother in law parked his rig and started doing odd jobs. he says he is making more money and home every day. Good luck!
The Sierry Club and other similar organizations are more than willing to buy out BLM leases in order to protect the land. I am sure those environmental groups have some fat contributors just waiting to designate someone elses land away from private ownership and control.
What do private property advocates have to say about National Heritage Area's?
The term "Communism" has become a comical term. Your point is well taken and we should change just one letter in the expression and make it Commonism. The only bad thing about that is that the current flock of "Communitarians" are Communists, too. And the word Communism is more closely related to Community, than Commonism ever could be... Oh well.
Hey Carry_Okie! What was that Sparks guy's screen name that wrote for the San Francisco Comicle? It was something "Warrior," wasn't it? Geepers! I'm havin a senior moment again!!!
Driving a big rig? Did you know that there is a codicil in CAFTA which allows Mexican (and Canadian) long-distant truck drivers free access to US highways? No more transshipments just across the border. AND...their trucks don't have to pass state safety regulations.
From what I've been told by one of my colleagues over in the economics dept., most of the cargo handling corporations in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut are relocating all their cargo handling facilities to Costa Rica and Panama, paid for by us via CAFTA handouts, whereof the cargo will be shipped straight north to the United States by Mexican long haulers right to a Wal Mart near you. And you can be sure those truck drivers aren't going to leave once they're here.
I'm not surprised. I lost faith in W when he bowed knee to the communist Chinese and paid a ransom for the return of those air force personnel the ChiComs knocked out of the air years ago.
Just look how their spending the corpus of the trust the taxpayers and voters put in them... Just like drunken fools, they've become pathetic spendthrifts!!! Fiscal conservatism be damned as far as they're concerned!!!
"are you going to say "I was ripped off!" or ar you going to say "I was compensated!""
May I remind you that you were the first to engage in an ad hominum attack (perhaps you ought to read your own posts).
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding between what a National Park and a National Heritage Area are.
I'm going to make this simple.
A National Park consists of government owned land where the NPS controls how the land is used.
A National Heritage Area consists of public and privately owned land. The NPS only has a say on land that it owns. It has no control over state or locally owned public land and it has no control over private land.
The Heritage Area managing authority cannot condemn, seize or control any private land within the Heritage Area. It can purchase land with a willing seller if it can raise the money but it cannot use any of its Federal Heritage Area operating funds to buy land. Since Heritage Areas get little or no other Federal funding, then it basically eliminates the use of Federal $$$ for land acquisition.
The job of the managing entity is to try to interpret and preserve what it can in a Heritage Area. This is done by working with state and local governments and private property owners. However, the managing entity has no final say on what is done with any public or privately owned land.
For instance if we want to see a battlefield preserved but we can't buy it or convince the owner to preserve it, then we can't do anything else. If the owner wants to bulldoze it and build a mall, then they are free to do so. The private property owner has the final say as regards their property.
I know that doesn't fit in with the tin foil conspiracy theories about NPS/UN control of the world but that is the way it is in the real world.
As for trying to steal private property, that is a total crock. We can't steal anything. If we want it, we have to pay market price for it and the owner has to be willing to sell it.
The managing entity for the Heritage Area is a private not for profit organization made up of citizens from all walks of life. They make no money by being on the Board of Directors. Their job is to come up with ways that make the Heritage Area self sustainable. This means that they have to raise private money to make it work. The money is raised at the local level and if the Heritage Area was such a burden on local communities, landowners, businesses and governments, then it would die pretty quickly from lack of support.
The heritage Area must respond to the needs and wants of the local population or it cannot survive.
These are the facts. You can believe otherwise but you are just plain wrong.
Eliminate all Heritage areas!!!!!!
Oh! And I heard a rumor the other day that the people of Jarbidge, NV have had to reclaim their road recently... AGAIN!!! Is that true, Jeff?
It's not a senior moment. :)
Brother... Just wait till you get your ephifany and find out the truth of your misguided situation... Brother!!!
Who cares what California thinks. You don't even have any National Heritage Areas.
Another Californian who thinks they know what they are talking about.
There's the rub, Brother Reverend! Discuss with us now, how they are induced to "WANT" to sell to "us!" It's very subtle, strong and vile in far too many cases. If you'll honestly look into it, you'll discover it! It sucks canal water!!!
I am really concerned that people with good intentions are being used by our federal government to think up good uses for other peoples property.
The UN and agenda 21 are slowly implementing policy using willing people to gradually erode our national sovergnity.
Groups of people are being organized with the lure of government money to pay for those "studies" and administer land use proposals that are then in turn presented to planning and zoning committees, parks and recreation boards etc.
I am greatly concerned that other people are scheming ways to turn private property into public areas. Then after public control comes user fees, a little sales tax support and so on. And what percentage of our land should be set aside? How many historical sites can be feasable protected from progress and how do we classify their significance in comparison to private enterprise and private development?
I am wary of other people scheming what they think is best for my property and keeping me out of the loop until a public meeting has been called. The schemers have already thought out the details and come prepared with a great sales presentation, where the land owner has been caught unaware and totally unprepared for the undermining of his property rights. How much land has been stolen because of schemes hatched behind closed doors?
I am sure your intentions are noble. In some cases probably sensible and necessary. But beware of the intentions of others who enable these things to happen.
This heritage concept is a pretty thinly veiled socialist land grab in my opinion.
Then git back to us and tell us how we should feel about what the NPS did to all those citizen/property owners and small businessmen of the Cayahoga Valley in northern OH!!!
Look you can think whatever you want. I am not telling you how to live in California. If you don't want a Heritage area there, then by all means don't have one. Ours has tremendous public support, the biggest complaint was that it was not big enough.
Property owners here are not afraid of the NPS or the Heritage Area. They can read and know what the law says. Heck there are more lawyers here per capita than in any other state.
You fight for what you want to in California but don't get yer panties in a bunch when we fight for what we want back east. Like I told the other California guy, I don't know what his exact situation is. Don't pretend to know what ours is.
Some people have discovered that adding the words nationally significant to their area or region can result in millions of federal dollars funneled through National Heritage Areas (NHAs). What was once a regional or local project with community involvement can be partly underwritten by the government and overseen by the Nation Park Service.
NHAs raise legitimate questions about the role of the federal government. To begin with, the potential scope of heritage areas is enormous. Forty-five million Americans now live within the 27 existing NHAs. Although the National Park Service does not control what happens in these areassupposedly, decisions are made by management entities composed of local groupsthe agency provides money and technical expertise, as well as publicity and prestige, to these community projects.
NHAs move the federal government into one more aspect of private life. They provide justification for local governments that want to adopt cultural-heritage-related zoning laws and other land-use restrictions. Although designation as a National Heritage Area does not involve Federal regulation of private property, according to the National Park Service (2005a), it gives local preservation interests the backing of the federal government. A heritage area benefits from national recognition due to its association with the National Park Service through the use of
the NPS arrowhead symbol as a branding strategy, says the National
Park Service (2005b). If the local management group does not meet the standards of the federally approved management plan, funding will diminish or cease. This creates an incentive to bend to the wishes of the National Park Service.
Despite such worries, NHAs are not a land grabyet. Some, however, worry because the National Park Service agency has been taken to court numerous times for trying to restrict the freedom of inholders and persuade them to move out of the park boundaries .2 For example, a family that owns 410 acres within Wrangell-St. Elias National Park in Alaska has been suing the Park Service since 2003, trying to maintain access to its property.
Indeed, one goal of National Heritage Area proponents may be to add national parks. The management board of the Rivers of Steel NHA in Pennsylvania has announced that it wants to create an urban park, the Homestead Works National Park. The location would be on land currently designated for heritage use (Rivers of Steel 2005). This action would seem to undercut the stated claim that heritage areas allow the Park Service to fulfill this mission [preservation of historic and natural resources deemed nationally significant] without having to acquire or manage more land (NPS 2005b).
A redeeming feature of heritage areas is that they form only a minute portion of the federal budget. Currently, each heritage area can receive no more than $1 million per year, and all such funding has a sunset date between ten and fifteen years after funding starts. Funding is supposed to be seed money, matched by local private funding. In 2003 congressional testimony, however, de Teel Patterson Tiller, acting associate director for cultural resources for the National Park Service, admitted that to date, self sufficiency has yet to be achieved with any NHAs, and the first four NHAs established have sought and received Congressional extensions of their funding (Tiller 2003). The dissipation of taxpayer-funded government resources may be small, but it may still be wasteful.
Creating heritage areas is not an inherently bad idea. The preservation of truly significant areas or historic sites opens up possibilities for research, education, and tourism. Around the country, private museums, historical societies, and state and city governments are doing just that. If they are supported by members of the local community, they can achieve the same results as NHAswithout losing local autonomy, wasting federal resources, or risking attacks on private property.
HERITAGE BILLS INTRODUCED, 108th CONGRESS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.