Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.


Posted on 04/04/2002 2:56:04 AM PST by Nix 2


THIS is a blatant land grab and control attempt by the Democrats in both the House and Senate to make it easier for federal, state, and local governments to grab off private property to use for their own purposes. If this bill, which is now wending its way yet again through the congress under a cloak of silence, passes, Eminent Domain land use will become a fly's eyelash because there will be NO restrictions on the federal, state, or local governments to prove beyond a doubt that taking anyone's personal propety is a necessity for their purposes.
This is a purely Fascist law designed to deprive US citizens of their right to have and own PRIVATE property.
Please read this bill. Understand it. Take note of its sponsors, and make your voices heard before we are taken over under dark of night


July 27, 2000
Mr. L. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. LEAHY, and Mr. BAUCUS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources


To assist States with land use planning in order to promote improved quality of life, regionalism, sustainable economic development, and environmental stewardship, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Community Character Act of 2000'.


Congress finds that--

(1) inadequate planning at the State level contributes to increased public and private capital costs for infrastructure development, loss of community character , and environmental degradation;

(2) land use planning is rightfully within the jurisdiction of State and local governments;

(3) comprehensive planning and community development should be supported by the Federal Government and State governments;

(4) States should provide a proper climate and context for planning through legislation in order for appropriate comprehensive land use planning and community development to occur;

(5) many States have outdated land use planning legislation, and many States are undertaking efforts to update and reform the legislation; and

(6) efforts to coordinate State resources with local plans require additional planning at the State level.


In this Act :

(1) FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY- The term `Federal land management agency' means the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and any other Federal land management agency that conducts land use planning for Federal land.

(2) LAND USE PLANNING LEGISLATION- The term `land use planning legislation' means a statute, regulation, executive order or other action taken by a State to guide, regulate, and assist in the planning, regulation, and management of land, natural resources, development practices, and other activities related to the pattern and scope of future land use.

(3) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

(4) STATE- The term `State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

(5) STATE PLANNING DIRECTOR- The term `State planning director' means the State official designated by statute or by the Governor whose principal responsibility is the drafting and updating of State guide plans or guidance documents that regulate land use and infrastructure development on a statewide basis.


(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish a program to provide grants to States for the purpose of assisting in--

(1) as a first priority, development or revision of land use planning legislation in States that currently have inadequate or outmoded land use planning legislation; and

(2) creation or revision of State comprehensive land use plans or plan elements in States that have updated land use planning legislation.

(b) ELIGIBILITY- To be eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a), a State shall submit to the Secretary, in such form as the Secretary may require, an application demonstrating that the State's basic goals for land use planning legislation reform are consistent with all of the following guidelines:

(1) CITIZEN REPRESENTATION- Citizens are notified and citizen representation is required in the developing, adopting, and updating of land use plans.

(2) MULTIJURISDICTIONAL COOPERATION- In order to effectively manage the impacts of land development and to provide for resource sustainability, land use plans are created based on multi-jurisdictional governmental cooperation, when practicable, particularly in the case of land use plans based on watershed boundaries.

(3) IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENTS- Land use plans contain an implementation element that--

(A) includes a timetable for action and a definition of the respective roles and responsibilities of agencies, local governments, and other stakeholders;

(B) is consistent with State capital budget objectives; and

(C) provides the framework for decisions relating to the siting of future infrastructure development, including development of utilities and utility distribution systems.

(4) COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING- There is comprehensive planning to encourage land use plans that--

(A) promote sustainable economic development and social equity;

(B) enhance community character ;

(C) coordinate transportation, housing, education, and other infrastructure development;

(D) conserve historic resources, scenic resources, and the environment; and

(E) sustainably manage natural resources.

(5) UPDATING- Land use plans are routinely updated.

(6) STANDARDS- Land use plans reflect an approach that is consistent with established professional planning standards.

(c) USE OF GRANT FUNDS- Grant funds received by a State under subsection (a) shall be used to obtain technical assistance in--

(1) drafting land use planning legislation;

(2) research and development for land use planning programs and requirements relating to the development of State guide plans;

(3) conducting workshops, educating and consulting policy makers, and involving citizens in the planning process; and

(4) integrating State and regional concerns and land use plans with Federal land use plans.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: communistsubversion; eminentdomain; enviralists; green; hostile; hudtakeovers; landgrab; privateproperty; stealthbill; uncontitutional
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last
PLEASE READ THIS BILL! Make noise. Scream bloody murder. Get this out and swarm Congress and the Senate with as many objections as you can muster. This endangers ALL of us and will totally destroy whole neighborhoods wholesale putting them DIRECTLY under government control. Private property will become obsolete under this bill. Those who suffer most will be small, independent business which run the economies of autonimous communities and is the worst nightmare assault on property rights I have ever seen.
1 posted on 04/04/2002 2:56:04 AM PST by Nix 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nix 2
already here in the city of Rochester NY for the last five years. total plummeting of property values, white flight and urban decay roars on.
2 posted on 04/04/2002 3:00:29 AM PST by bandlength
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bandlength
Is this article showing up on the forum now? I can't find it and it is VERY important. This bill has been introduced twice already by Jeffords since 2000. It is NOW being debated in the Congress and looks as if it has a chance of passing when congress starts floor debate this session. THIS is frightening.
3 posted on 04/04/2002 3:10:47 AM PST by Nix 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nix 2
city of rochester has codified it's emminent domination:

click here to read the lunacy

4 posted on 04/04/2002 3:11:40 AM PST by bandlength
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bandlength;68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub;Squantos;Luis Gonzalez;Dan from Michigan;Lowbridge...
5 posted on 04/04/2002 3:23:48 AM PST by Nix 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nix 2
The name of this bill alone is enough to send chills up and down my spine, throw in the numerous buzz words, like "sustainable economic developement", environmental stewardship, social equity, etc, etc, and you have another example of the federal tit offering "free milk" for the states who know better than to turn down "free milk" because someone else will get it if "we" don't.

One more car hooked up to the federal freight train called the freedom express, on course for derailment. She is going fast enough to detach herself from earths gravity, and assisted in this particular case by a host of senatorial saviors, unworthy of either name. What is somewhat surprising is mr bennett from Utah. This is what control is all about. The senate is attempting to run the country folks and run the table in the process.

6 posted on 04/04/2002 3:30:12 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nix 2
obviously, the feds have liked the "pilot" program that has been in effect in rochester ny and other smaller cities so much that they think it should be a universal concept. basically, if the gov't doesn't like what happens on your property whether it is your fault or not OR it just likes the lay of the land, WHAMO! declare it unfit, or not in the best interest, or some other pc crap like that and just take it over.

in the case of rochester ny, you don't even have to be compensated for your property. they just tell you that it is a nuisance (one too many crack deals went down on the sidewalk in front of your rental property) and bam! the property is now the government's. just pay $1,000 of fines to the city as a "get out of jail free card" (to pump up the tax coffers; they have to get their $ somewhere, since everyone who owns property here is just praying for it to burn; can't sell it; property values too low), and leave town, never showing your face again.

oh, and the catch 22 is, if you happen to rent to a decent tenant and their violent boyfriend moves in, the judges won't give you an eviction, even though there's gunplay, drugs,etc. that way, they can blame the property owner for "allowing" all of this mayhem, thus speeding up the "nuisance" a.k.a eminent domain process. so, damned if you do and damned if you don't. most of us just foreclose and walk away. then the gov't can take the property back which is what they wanted in the first place.

what do they do with the property? make it into federally subsidized housing (codeword: "affordable" housing) where the tenant pays anywhere from $0-$150 a month in rent. what private landlord can compete with that?

or they swing the wrecking ball, put up a brand new habitat for humanity house with vinyl siding, get HUGE subsidies-often up to ten times the actual value of the house because of the horrible neighborhood it's in-to give the tenant that never paid their rent in the first place the responsibility of homeownership. problem is, who's the "new homeowner" gonna call when the pilot goes out in her new home? no more landlord to change that awkwardly placed lightbulb (no, i am not kidding; tenants in rochester ny are accustomed to hand maiden service courtesy of the local legal aid and legal assistance programs as well as a variety of state and local and regional govt agencies;housing authority, etc)

then the city goes around patting themselves on the back because they "increased homeownership." meanwhile, the "new homeowner" forecloses on her zero percent interest mortgage, trashes the place and it goes up on the auction block in 3-10 years for $12 K. and all of this tremendous financial and moral loss is at the courtesy of the taxpayer. what's not to like for the feds? no wonder they want to adopt this kind of law universally!

7 posted on 04/04/2002 3:31:54 AM PST by bandlength
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bandlength
oh and BTW, fighting crime in rochester ny is very UN-PC. our mayor is a marion barry clone with relatives involved in the drug trade, so if you read the above link, you'll find that fighting crime is the responsibility of the PROPERTY OWNER and not the police. crime runs rampant here and the mayor's solution is to take property away from private landowners.
8 posted on 04/04/2002 3:37:54 AM PST by bandlength
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bandlength
In this area, as I am sure goes on in many other rural areas, the utility companies could not find a way to charge owners for the water they used from wells on their own properties. There is now legislation moving in PA to hook up meters to these wells to charge for *sewage* costs, even though these same owners have septic tanks and sand mounds which require NO city sewage. We are fighting this with a vengeance.
Pennsylvania heads up if you don't have a handle on this. Mary Jo White wants to hear from YOU.
9 posted on 04/04/2002 3:46:17 AM PST by Nix 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wita
Just the names of the *sponsors* of this bill send chills down my spine. Leahy an Jeffords, Jeffords being the original author of this obscenity and attack on individual freedom.
10 posted on 04/04/2002 3:49:43 AM PST by Nix 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nix 2; bandlength; *landgrab; *Green; *Enviralists; farmfriend; marsh2; dixiechick2000; Helen...
... the worst nightmare assault on property rights ...

PING !! !!

Pass this on to all your ping-lists, and read the info bandlength has provided. Rottenchester has infected the whole area in Upstate; we don't need it spread across the country.

11 posted on 04/04/2002 4:01:48 AM PST by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nix 2
Looks like the American Planning Association wrote this - it provides all kind of money to pay their members with (job security)!
12 posted on 04/04/2002 4:02:44 AM PST by Kay Ludlow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kay Ludlow

13 posted on 04/04/2002 4:12:21 AM PST by Nix 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nix 2
no matter where you go, it's all about picking the producing members of society's pockets to give to the "less fortunate."
14 posted on 04/04/2002 4:17:41 AM PST by bandlength
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: brityank
With all eyes on the Near East, this is a classic clintonian tactic. While we are all watching in some completely other direction, they are again usurping and deleting the Constitution in our *hallowed halls* of government. I am so disgusted with these kinds of tactics that it is too obvious that the clintons are still the driving force behind the dems who still seek to implement HIS policies to destroy us, US. It's painful that some CINOS have jumped feet first on this train. No use for any of them.
15 posted on 04/04/2002 4:20:50 AM PST by Nix 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bandlength
We know they want the peons to have nothing and no chance to GET anything. The more *less fortunate* there are, the more votes the dems can buy. They are about to eliminate an entire tax base block here, all small business and entrepeneurs, and ALL private land ownership which means the economy goes into the dumpster. It's their dream to control every single dollar and cent, every living thing in this country. THIS is a challenge for every American Patriot to stand and BE HEARD.
Got a firearm in your house? Take your house. It endangers the *community*.
Folks, there are NO LIMITS to this bill.
16 posted on 04/04/2002 4:28:57 AM PST by Nix 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nix 2; farmfriend; cowpoke
Recall seeing something about this yesterday. Thanks for posting the bill itself.

Deus Vult! 'Pod

17 posted on 04/04/2002 4:37:11 AM PST by sauropod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nix 2
Amendment V, U.S. Constitution,

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

18 posted on 04/04/2002 4:51:40 AM PST by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
This is a sneak attack on us. It was never meant to see the light of day until they had done the deal. Expose it everywhere. And fight it EVERYWHERE. It will be taken up as soon as congress is back in session and they will try to get it done before the public knows what hit them. It *sounds* so Utopian that most people will not understand the ramifications until they begin. This is a *Green* wet dream.
19 posted on 04/04/2002 4:54:16 AM PST by Nix 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

This bill makes this amendment meaningless. They decide *just* compensation, but it won't work like that. Any excuse they can find to accuse you of being a *danger* to the community, i.e., a firearm in your house, polluting with a barbeque pit in your back yard, running a small business out of your home that isn't OSHA approved, anything, anything. Any excuse and they will drive you to bankruptcy trying to fight them. Even if you win, you have already lost. Your land is GONE. There is no stay in this bill to stop the government from using your land as they see fit even while you fight them.

20 posted on 04/04/2002 5:10:37 AM PST by Nix 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson