Skip to comments.Will the land-use control gods be dethroned?
Posted on 06/17/2010 9:34:08 AM PDT by editor-surveyor
When "Smart Growth" and "Sustainable Development" washed across the nation in the 1990s, property-rights activists were overwhelmed. Visioning councils sprang up everywhere, and towns, cities, counties and regions soon had "Vision 2020 Action Plans" that transformed normal communities into "Sustainable Communities," and, for the most part, land owners never knew what hit them.
A common element in this transformation is the creation of what is usually called a "Comprehensive Land Use Plan." This plan, when approved by the governing authority, becomes the basis for bureaucrats to virtually control the use of private property.
The definition of property ownership includes the notion that the owner has control of the property and may use the property as the owner sees fit, subject to damages only if his use of his own property causes damage to a neighbor, provable in court. Armed with comprehensive plans, however, bureaucrats control the use of private property. Bureaucrats, not the property owner, decide whether the owner may use his property as he wishes or not.
When Houston County, Minn., adopted its comprehensive plan,
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com:80 ...
We don't need no steenking property rights...
Property rights ping!
Property rights ping!
Property rights ping!
Over 10 years ago we abused property owners here in Boulder County CO formed the Land Use Coalition (LUC). We have been fighting the land use tyrants ever since on a wide range of issues.
I hope this suit succeeds! It will help us immensely.
Keep up the good fight!
We have it here...hope these folks win.
As a general rule; be INCREDIBLY distrusting of ANYTHING having a title incorporating the word “Smart.”
“Smart” is the Progressivist newspeak label granted to anything that advances their all encompassing agenda for total world governance of everything you can see, hear, smell, touch, taste or feel; their unrelenting push to enslave every last man, woman and child on Earth.
[And I mean that in the most POSITIVE, nay, the SMARTEST possible way.]
Reminded me that I've been here before!
Henry Lamb and his Freedom 21 org are a great resource.
Other red-flag words to watch for:
Another word that screams “Shoot ‘em” is “GREEN.”
Good to see folks are fighting back!
What can we do to help “Landowners Concerned About Property Rights.” ? I sure hope they win.
Check Henry Lamb’s websites.
I remember that thread!
So do I!!! See Reply #66...
God bless Henry Lamb.
Counties have long been required to have a general plan by state law in California. This is not “smart growth.” Smart growth is AB32 centralization of development for climate change. Zoning dates back to the late 1800s to the days when livery stables and dairies were located next to hotels:
Government code - 65300. “Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s
judgment bears relation to its planning. Chartered cities shall adopt general plans which contain the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302.”
65302. “The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. The plan shall include the following elements:
(a) A land use element that designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste
disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land. The location and designation of the extent of the uses of the land for public and private uses shall consider the identification of land and natural resources pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d). The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan. The land use element shall identify and annually
review those areas covered by the plan that are subject to flooding identified by flood plain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources. The land use element shall also do both of the following:...”
“(b) (1) A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan....”
“(c) A housing element as provided in Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580).
(d) (1) A conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. The conservation element shall consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction, as described in the land use element, on natural resources located on public lands, including military installations.
That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination with any countywide water agency and with all district and city agencies, including flood management, water conservation, or groundwater agencies that have developed, served,
controlled, managed, or conserved water of any type for any purpose in the county or city for which the plan is prepared. Coordination shall include the discussion and evaluation of any water supply and demand information described in Section 65352.5, if that information
has been submitted by the water agency to the city or county....
(2) The conservation element may also cover all of the following:
(A) The reclamation of land and waters.
(B) Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters.
(C) Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan.
(D) Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores.
(E) Protection of watersheds.
(F) The location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand and gravel resources.
(3) Upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, the conservation element shall identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitats, and land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management.
(e) An open-space element as provided in Article 10.5 (commencing with Section 65560).
(f) (1) A noise element that shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The noise element shall recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control and shall analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources:...”
“(g) (1) A safety element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction, and other seismic hazards
identified pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 2690) of Division 2 of the Public Resources Code, and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wildland and urban fires. The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes,
military installations, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards....”
This is not about the “General Plan.”
BTW, your “clipboard” appears to be working.
When zoning is 100% at the local level one can vote with his feet and pocketbook to go to the neigbhoring locality. That is an essential part of democracy.... letting us vote. And many of us do precisely that. Mineapolis zoned to favor one way, St Paul a different way. The same way with KC MO and KC KS. The same most everywhere. Some states were right-to-work and some were union shops.
The more the municipal codes are made uniform, the less choice individuals have. We move from a democracy where we can vote to a tyranny of the self-appointed elite.
Unfortunately our own conservative friends are logically inconsistent on this issue. Bloomington-Normal housing market has a need for student housing near ISU. The private market is seeking to fulfill that need by building private housing on private property in a way that endangers nobody. But it is the conservative home owners who oppose 2020 plans are the ones opposing others private property rights.
Meanwhile, the central planners sit back and laugh as the private housing developers are forced into the arms of the central planners by the logically inconsistent NIMBY conservatives.
Don’t get your drift. I’m the one who hears the appeals and the groups of NIMBYs. I try to apply the existing law in a manner that protects private property rights, but mitigates use in a manner that protects the general public from substantial injury to their health, safety and peace. It’s not easy.
Socialist tyranny was never ment to be easy!
Government doesn’t belong in residential property issues, period.
Planning by govt agencies should be limited to providing arterial infrastructure. Outside of that, only the courts should be involved, when necessary.
“Meanwhile, the central planners sit back and laugh as the private housing developers are forced into the arms of the central planners by the logically inconsistent NIMBY conservatives.”
I suppose that is easy to say until there is only one ingress and eagress into a development and the fire trucks need it. Or the four story apartment building is built next to residences and there is no parking. Or residences are used as summer rentals and the occupancy rate and noise of college kids partying is creating a mess. Or the sewer treatment plant will not have the capacity to serve the new development. Just little things like that.
Nothing you say is relevant to the topic.
The most desireable towns, with the highest property values are those that were done before government tampering in the planning process.
Government planners are absolute idiots.
The topic is land planning. I have a community with septic tanks and wells on city sized lots. That was done before planning was in vogue. We have several homes that can no longer be occupied becuase the septic system failed and there is no place to put a new one on the lot without messing with a neighbor’s well. That is why we now have minimum lot sizes at 2 1/2 acres.
“The topic is land planning”
The topic is people control and the over-reach of tyrannical government.
Your 2 1/2 acre lots will not survive “Agenda 21” and “Smart Growth” because the ‘plan’ is to crush people in at 40 persons per acre minimum (those will be the ‘upscale’ dwellings).
Keep your eyes closed at your own peril.