Home › Blogs

Sustainable Development, Social Justice, and Private Property Rights

I think we can envision what sustainable development might mean based on the meaning of the words and a little common sense. Probably the first thought that comes to mind is the continued prosperity of something such as a business. Other things that come to mind is common sense development to keep taxes down, a clean environment, good schools, free enterprise. All of these things are the essence of sustainable development to the average citizen.

What sustainable development isn't, is the abolishment of private property rights, a bloated over-reaching government, government sanctioned monopolies, erosion of individual freedom, and the redistribution of wealth which is the essence of Chesterfield County's “new comprehensive plan”.

This form of “Sustainable Development” (capital letters) is a recipe for the destruction of capitalism. If you think I'm kidding, look at what is happening in California. Over the past two decades, regulations incrementally imposed to implement Sustainable Development polices have choked free enterprise out of existence. Businesses are leaving the state in droves. Housing costs have risen to eleven times the annual income of its residents. Even though energy and water consumption is down, the cost to each household is higher and in the absence of any expansion of infrastructure to deliver resources. Unemployment and foreclosure rates are the highest in the nation. The state is essentially bankrupt.

This hardly sounds like what we envision as sustainable development.

The county government is not completely to blame. After all, they are only following the directives of our federal government. The county is rewarded with generous funding for the implementation of the egregious programs that consequently resolve some of the problems of local government, many of which were created by the federal government in the first place.

How convenient!

The Chesterfield County planning staff asserts that they helped the Renaissance Planning Group write the plan and I have no doubt that is true. I also have no doubt that in doing so, they have no idea of the nefarious underpinning of the plan.

The federal government has spared no expense to ensure that their objectives are met. For the past two decades, K – 12 public schools as well as colleges and universities have received generous grants to indoctrinate our unsuspecting youth in the principles of what they define as “Sustainable Development”.

The comprehensive plan is said to be a “blueprint for the future” to serve as a guide to mange future growth, encourage economic growth and jobs, encourage the most efficient use of resources, etc. but does not legally control land use or regulations in the way that a zoning ordinance does. But then it goes on to list 150 specific actions in an action matrix that are intended to carry out the goals. The very first section of the action matrix, then describes in general terms, the ordinances and regulations to achieve the goals.

In truth, it reads like a Marxist Manifesto. The document clearly states that the plan is to establish and maintain the “community well-being”. The glossary in the back of the comprehensive plan defines “community well-being” as:

“An optimal quality of healthy community life, which is the ultimate goal of all the various processes and strategies that endeavor to meet the needs of people living together in communities. It encapsulates the ideals of people living together harmoniously in vibrant and sustainable communities, where community dynamics are clearly underpinned by social justice considerations.”

The words “social justice” certainly raises suspicions? Why would such a term appear in a “guide” to manage growth in our community? What does “social justice” really mean?

The web definitions of “social justice” are:

  • The fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society.
  • An adherence to the theory that proprietorship and the authority of the means of production, capital, land, etc. should belong to the entire community.
  • A redistribution of wealth; Socialism

So what is “socialism”?

Here are just a few of the web definitions of “socialism” but all say the same thing in different ways:

  • A political theory advocating state ownership of industry
  • An economic system based on state ownership of capital
  • The Marxist theory of a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

So then one wonders, what is it in the plan that would lead us to “social justice”?

The following proposals in the plan would certainly lead us down the path to “social justice”:

Land Use Categories: With the stroke of a pen, there will be a transfer of wealth through down-zoning and up-zoning that will significantly reduce the value of ¼ of the land referred to as “countryside” and a sharp increase in the value of land in the low-income areas targeted for high-density development of “urban development areas” (UDAs).

Conservation Easement: Steep down-zoning extinguishes the hope of rural land owners that they may some day retire on the profits of future development of their land. It increases the likelihood that the rural land owner will regain some of the losses by committing most of their land to conservation easements. A redistribution of tax liability occurs when those who agree to conservation easement can reduce their adjusted gross income by 50 – 100% per year for up to 16 years. In doing so, they are essentially transferring the tax burden to the rest of the community.

Conservation easement is a wealthy rural landowner's dream. He could conceivably build a multimillion dollar mansion on hundreds of acres of land and pay only $100 or $200 in property taxes in addition to a 50% reduction in adjusted gross income by putting the majority of the property in conservation easement.

Investment and maintenance in bicycle trails and walkable paths in favor of the 5 – 6% of those who travel by foot and/or bicycle will be added to the tab.

Property Tax exemption is another entitlement for workforce housing.

Public/Private Partnerships: The plan encourages private/public partnerships which translates into monopolies, corporate tax breaks, and higher prices paid by the consumer.

Agriculture: An agricultural strategy calls for more incentives for landowners to conserve property.

Land Conservation Tools: Tools used to encourage conservation of more public and private lands to include land use taxation programs, purchase and transfer of development rights, easement programs. All of these programs serve to redistribute assets and tax liability.

Cultural Resource Funding: The plan calls for funding of “cultural resources”. Public funding for the arts? Really?

Historical Preservation: The plan calls for more preservation of historical areas. Typically what we see is the incremental expansion of land preserved around historical sites over time. Such is the case with the Petersburg Civil War Battlefield which already encompasses 2600 acres of preserved land. Congressman Forbes and Senator Webb are proposing adding another 7200 acres which will nearly quadruple the amount of land of this historical site. Technically, one could argue that all of the land in America is historical in one way or another. The question is, where do we draw the line? As more land is taken off the tax roles, the tax burden increases for the rest of the landowners in the community.

Federal Grants and Funding: The plan encourages taking advantage of the many government funded programs available that would help fund the implementation of the plan. What this means is that taxpayers will foot the bill for countless subsidies and federal grants to the local government and NGOs for the many programs for local community development activities such as affordable housing, anti-poverty programs, and infrastructure development, energy, water etc.. Add to that the many tax breaks awarded to development firms and landowners for LEED certified building materials, Energy Star appliances, and energy efficient construction for the new urbanism design.

Adding insult to injury, there are 150 actions to be taken in the action matrix to regarding food production, forestry, a tiered water rate, energy efficiency and reduction, tree removal, landscape regulations, green building codes, housing design, river access, septic and utility ordinances, grading and clear cutting standards, aesthetics of building fronts, low-income housing, greenways and trails specific plans, etc.. The real question is, what rights can a landowner keep?

If you think this form of Sustainable Development is unique to Chesterfield County, think again. The maps may be different, the words may change, but the policies are all the same for every locality across the nation and around the world. The common goal of every locality is government control of the economy, land, individuals, and the total destruction of Capitalism.

James Madison said, "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." Thomas Jefferson announced that "the defense of private property is the standard by which every provision of law, past and present, shall be judged."

The Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, largely written by George Mason, declared "that all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Arthur Lee of Virginia called private property "the guardian of every other right."

You either have the right to own and control property or you become property!

Ingram Forecloses on Virginia's Future

Richmond, VA - On Friday, Delegate Riley Ingram, Chairman of the House Counties, Cities & Towns Committee, sided with the Home Builders Association to force some typically rural communities into establishing an area of high-density high-rise mixed use urban development in the midst of a countryside setting. 

If Ingram has his way, you'll be forced to forfeit your land for the development of high-density 'urban development areas' also called 'smart growth'.

A 2007 law mandating that every county with a population of 20,000 or more or a growth rate of 15% must zone an area for high-density urban planning. Public funds in the form of grants, subsidies, and tax incentives, will be used to promote the project to include rail, bike lanes, and other public transportation projects, reducing access to roads and without the benefit of alternative transportation to many communities. This will increase the cost of housing within the urban boundaries with a natural consequence of increased property taxes, and will reduce the value of property outside urban boundaries.

This type of one-size-fits-all mentality fails to consider that many of the localities like Goochland, Powhatan, and Louisa County are required to establish zones for urban development but offer no alternative transportation for those communities. How are they expected to promote alternatives to personal automobiles in the absence of any alternative? Yet they will be forced to help fund alternative transportation projects for other communities that they won't benefit from.

But grassroots activists of the tea party movement are fighting back in support of Delegate Bob Marshall's HB1721 that would make UDAs optional rather than mandatory. The measure would allow local communities to decide if urban areas are appropriate for their locality. It further allows for input from the citizens in areas that currently use the predetermination techniques of the "consensus" process that dismisses any public input.

Delegate Pollard argued that without the UDA mandate, localities will continue leap-frogging practices and look to the state for funding of roads to accommodate sprawl. The argument simply doesn't hold water. As a Representative of the Home Builders Association pointed out, the 2007 law does not prohibit development outside the UDAs.

It's only natural that the Home Builders Association supports the UDA mandate. Ingram's appreciation for their sizable contributions to his political campaign enables developers to sidestep the pressures of the market. Instead, certain contractors certified in the green principles of construction will benefit from the profits accruing for a mandate requiring up to twelve homes on a single acre lot as well as receive huge tax breaks for the new urbanism design. Government grants and subsidies offer greater assurance of the completion of the plans on the backs of the taxpayer.

Ultimately, the UDA mandate is nothing more than centralized government planning of private land use. By definition, it substitutes, by fiat, the priorities and values held by anti-sprawl interest groups and corporate developers for the priorities of individual property owners and those who enjoy the amenities of suburban living. In this sense, it is more about the legislating of personal aesthetics than the efficient use of land and resources.

As economists have known for decades, and the collapse of the former Soviet Union has proven, government planning of resource usage cannot be "smart." The issue is not whether land use should be planned or not, but whether land use planning will be done by big government or by those who own the land.

Central planners, who operate outside of a market environment, i.e., who are not attentive to market pressures and are unmotivated by the prospect of profits and the fear of losses, would be utterly unable to obtain the information necessary to determine land use in the general public interest or to arrive at an economically efficient result.

The economic realities of building high-priced urban units in greater numbers than is justified by the demand is not considered in their policies, and their only answer to dealing with these realities is to provide additional public funds to provide incentives and subsidize the costs for lower-income residents.

One immediate consequence of this failure to consider the economic impact is the sharp increase in housing cost as a result of land rationing. Homes are considered affordable when the average home price of an area is no more than three times the average income for that area or what is called a median multiple of three. In states who have for decades participated in the smart growth experiment, housing costs have soared and pushed the median multiple to more than ten. The lesson learned here is that even with tax subsidies for low-cost housing, housing costs will force even much of the middle class out of the urban community. Consequently areas of smart growth also have the highest rate of foreclosures.

Rather than allowing neighborhoods to grow and change over time in the free marketplace, people are forced out of their homes and businesses through abusive regulations to rapidly gentrify the community. The elderly on fixed incomes and low-income families will be the biggest losers as they can no longer afford to live in the area or pay the concomitant costs. What if the property owner is your 80 year-old grandmother who spent a lifetime saving to earn a small parcel of the American Dream? Why do we assume growth only inside the urban boundary must be promoted at any cost? How can "livability" and environmental protection benefit from a "build it and they will come" mentality?

The question that HB1721 brings to the forefront is should the principles of a free market determine the appropriateness of UDAs for a locality or should it be forced by big government on localities using taxpayer funded incentives and disincentives to satisfy the desires of special interest groups?

History has taught us that government manipulation of the housing market results in more debt, higher prices, more foreclosures, more taxes, and fewer jobs.

Will Virginia lawmakers in the House vote for more economic failures of big government or free market solutions to prosperity?

Stay tuned!

Governor McDonnell Mortgages Virginia's Future

Governor Bob McDonnell's omnibus $3.3 billion transportation bill (HB 2527) consists of:

  • Virginia Transportation Infrastructure Bank -- $400 million initially with a goal of $1 billion

  • Federal GARVEE Bonds -- $1.2 billion

  • Acceleration of HB 3202 Bonds -- $1.8 billion ($600 million/year for 3 years)

  • Expanded Revenue Sharing -- Lifts current $1 million/project and $50 million program caps

  • Establishes Intercity Passenger Rail Operating and Capital Fund

To rely on future federal funds that are totally unpredictable is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous in this unstable economic environment. The Governor is gambling on the flow of federal funding remaining the same when Washington is already looking at making cuts. This irresponsible borrowing will put future generations on the hook for billions. 

It's easy for the Governor to rationalize going into debt when he won't be around to deal with the potential consequences by the time the payments come due. The easiest way to get credit for starting a lot of projects when he has no money is to spend future money that will be the problem of future Governors.

McDonnell should take notes and learn a lesson from Maryland's transportation boondoggle. Maryland got itself into trouble with very aggressive use of GARVEE bonds for the Intercounty Connector. They dedicated future federal money to that project, but then the economy tanked and local tax receipts dropped. Since they'd bonded for the ICC, they couldn't stop that project, and instead had to cut maintenance on most existing local roads.

Virginia is getting into risky territory already with its level of debt. McDonnell argues that low interest rates and the low cost of construction make now a particularly good time to borrow. No matter how low the interest rate and construction is, borrowing on the backs of future generations during this time of economic uncertainty could have dire consequences. Governor McDonnell should take a responsible conservative approach and live within our means.


 

2011 Session features Immigration Bills

In the 2011 Virginia General Assembly session, two bills related to illegal immigration should get a look. House Bill 1775 patroned by Gilbert will “amend and reenact § 22.1-3.1 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 2.2-208.01, relating to the immigration status of the parents of enrolled students.”

It is estimated that Virginia’s illegal alien population is about 295,000. This has nearly tripled since 2000. While our citizen population has grown only by 6.5 percent, Virginia’s foreign-born population has grown by a whopping 46.5 percent. Those foreign-born represented just over 10% of our residents in 2008. The population of children with immigrant parents (at least one) has doubled from 8.7% in 1990 to 17.6% in 2007.

Estimates state that about 8% of K-12 public school students in our state are children of illegal immigrants, with 75% of them attending in Northern Virginia. Virginia taxpayers foot the bill for educating these children. Children’s parents must prove residency in a school district, not citizenship. Regardless, ALL children, are permitted access to our public schools and House Bill 1775 will not exclude any child based upon a parent’s lack of citizenship documentation as this would violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

If we are educating as many as 95,000 children of illegal immigrants, the estimated cost is upwards of 1.5 billion dollars! Of that, over $400,000 is spent on special English instruction classes. While these illegal residents pay state and local taxes, the offset can be ruled irrelevant. One must assume that someone else would do the job if the illegal were not. It is just as equally likely that a legal employee would pay the same taxes or more.

Since passage of the controversial Arizona immigration law that requires law enforcement to inquire about a subject’s immigration status, a number of localities around the country have met significant resistance to enacting policies or legislation similar to HB1421. The Maryland state school board prevented Frederick County from identifying student’s immigration status in school records. The school commissioners merely wished to document the cost of educating the rising tide of immigrant students. This Maryland county system saw the number of students requiring special English classes rise over 12% from 2007 to 2008. For the same reason, Oklahoma also sought to gather such information from schools. Arizona also drafted similar legislation.

Another immigration-related bill is House Bill 1421 which reads, “No locality, or employee of a locality, acting in his official capacity, may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” This legislation appears to inhibit the establishment of so-called “sanctuary cities” that purposefully ignore the citizenship status of residents. Nearly 50 U.S. localities have been identified as sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. It is estimated that as many as 200 localities have policies in practice to protect illegal immigrants. Many states including Tennessee, Georgia, and, of course, Arizona have anti-sanctuary laws.

Write or call to your State delegate and senator asking them to support these important bills. You can follow the bills here: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?111+sum+HB1421 http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?111+sum+HB1775

Other sources:

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=20703&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=2061

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?111+ful+HB1421+pdf

Sustainable Communities - A Transformation of Virginia

As Governor McDonnell's plans for sustainable development, referred to as "sustainable communities", continues to gain momentum, it is worthwhile to step back and take a long look at the big picture, painted with a broad brush to reveal what Virginia might look like as his vision for the Commonwealth is more fully implemented over the next 20 years or so.


The picture painted here is based on official documents published by countless government agencies and non-government organizations during the past two decades as public policy for the transformation of our great nation for a "Sustainable America".


These documents were rarely reported in the news, and average working people have no idea what sustainable development really means, and even less knowledge of what is in store for the future. If the vision of sustainable development continues to unfold as it has in the last decade, life in the Commonwealth and the rest of the nation will be quite different in the future.

 

The Vision

Half the land area of Virginia and the entire United States will be designated "wilderness areas," where only wildlife managers and researchers will be allowed. These areas will be interconnected by "corridors of wilderness" to allow migration of wildlife, without interference by human activity. Wolves will be as plentiful in Virginia as they are now in Idaho and Montana.


Surrounding these wilderness areas and corridors, designated "buffer zones" will be managed for "conservation objectives." The primary objective is "restoration and rehabilitation." Rehabilitation involves the repair of damaged ecosystems, while restoration usually involves the reconstruction of natural or semi-natural ecosystems. As areas are restored and rehabilitated, they are added to the wilderness designation, and the buffer zone is extended outward.


Buffer zones are surrounded by what is called "zones of cooperation." This is where people live - in "sustainable communities." Sustainable communities are defined by strict "urban growth boundaries." Land outside the growth boundaries will be managed by government agencies, which grant permits for activities deemed to be essential and sustainable. Open space, to provide a "viewshed" and sustainable recreation for community residents will abut the urban boundaries. Beyond the viewshed, sustainable agricultural activities will be permitted, to support the food requirements of nearby communities.


Sustainable communities of the future will bear little resemblance to the towns and cities of the 20th century. Single-family homes will be rare. Housing will be provided by public/private partnerships, funded by our state treasury, and managed by non-government "Home Owners Associations." Housing units will be designed to provide most of the infrastructure and amenities required by the residents. Shops and office space will be an integral part of each unit, and housing will be allocated on a priority basis to people who work in the unit - with quotas to achieve ethnic and economic balance. Schools, daycare, and recreation facilities will be provided. Each unit will be designed for bicycle and foot traffic, to reduce, if not eliminate, the need for people to use automobiles.


Transportation between sustainable communities, for people and for commodities, will be primarily by rail systems, designed to bridge wilderness corridors where necessary. The highways that remain will be super transport corridors, such as the "Trans-Texas Corridor" now being designed, which will eventually reach from Mexico to Canada. These transport corridors will also be designed to bridge wilderness corridors, and to minimize the impact on the environment.

 

Consequences of Sustainable Development

What is perhaps the most serious consequence of sustainable development is the least visible: the transformation of the policy-making process. The idea that government is empowered by the consent of the governed is the idea that set the United States apart from all previous forms of government. It is the principle that unleashed individual creativity and free markets, which launched the spectacular rise of the world's most successful nation. The idea, and the process by which citizens can reject laws they don't want, simply by replacing the officials who enacted them, makes the ballot box the source of power for every citizen, and the point of accountability for every politician.


When public policy is made by elected officials who are accountable to the people who are governed, then government is truly empowered by the consent of the governed. Sustainable development has designed a process through which public policy is designed by professionals and bureaucrats, and implemented administratively, with only symbolic, if any, participation by elected officials and the public. The professionals and bureaucrats who actually make the policies are not accountable to the people who are governed by them.


This is the "new collaborative decisions process," called for by the President's Council on Sustainable Development (President Bill Clinton's Executive Order #12852) and is being used to steer communities to a "consensus" of a predetermined goal. Because the policies are developed at the top, by professionals and bureaucrats, and sent down the administrative chain of command to state and local governments, elected officials have little option but to accept them. Acceptance is further ensured when these policies are accompanied by "economic incentives and disincentives," along with lobbying and public relations campaigns coordinated by government-funded non-government organizations.


Higher housing costs are an immediate, visible consequence of sustainable development. Land within the urban growth boundary jumps in value because supply is limited, and continues to increase disproportionately in value as growth continues to extinguish supply. These costs must be reflected in the price of housing. Add to this price pressure, the regulatory requirements to use "green seal" materials; that is, materials that are certified, either by government or a designated non-government organization, to have been produced by methods deemed to be "sustainable."

Higher taxes are another immediate, visible, and inevitable consequence of sustainable development. Higher land values automatically result in higher tax bills. Sustainable development plans include another element that affects property taxes. Invariably, these plans call for the acquisition of land for open space, for parks, for greenways, for bike-and- hike trails, for historic preservation, and many other purposes. Governor McDonnell includes plans for a trust fund to acquire land for affordable housing and provide financial assistance to low-income residents and those affected by foreclosure and for the homeless.

Every subsidy and piece of property taken out of the private sector by government acquisition, forces the tax burden to be distributed over fewer taxpayers. The inevitable result is a higher rate for each remaining taxpayer.


Another consequence of sustainable development is the gross distortion of justice. Bureaucrats who draw lines on maps create instant wealth for some people, while prohibiting others from realizing any gain on their investments. In communities across the country, people who live outside the downtown area have lived with the expectation that one day, they could fund their retirement by selling their land to new home owners as the nearby city expanded. A line drawn on a map steals this expectation from people who live outside the urban growth boundary. Proponents of sustainable development are forced to argue that the greater good for the community is more important than negative impacts on any individual. There is no equal justice, when government arbitrarily takes value from one person and assigns it to another.


Nowhere is this injustice more visible than when eminent domain, conservation easements, and regulations designed to manipulate the homeowner into surrendering his property in despair, is used to implement sustainable development plans. The Kelo vs. The City of New London case brought the issue to public awareness, but in cities throughout the nation, millions of people are being displaced, with no hope of finding affordable housing, in the new, "sustainable" community.


In Florida, this situation is particularly acute. Retirees have flocked to Florida and settled in mobile home parks to enjoy their remaining days, living on fixed incomes, too old or infirm to think about a new income producing career. Local governments across the state are condemning these parks, and evicting the residents, in order to use the land for development that fits the comprehensive plan, and which produces a higher tax yield. These people are the victims of the "greater good," as envisioned by the proponents of sustainable development.


Housing is considered "affordable" if median home prices in an area are no more than three times the median household income in that area. This ratio is called the "median multiple". By the time sustainable development reached it's peak in California, the median multiple reached 10. Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, and Richmond were the first in Virginia to adopt the policies with the same consequences reaching the median multiple of 4.1 - 5.7.

Less visible, but no less important, is the erosion of individual freedom. Until the emergence of sustainable development, a person's home was considered to be his castle. William Pitt expressed this idea quite powerfully in Parliament in 1763, when he said:

''The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter, the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter - all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.''

No more. Sustainable development allows king-government to intrude into a person's home before it becomes his home, and dictate the manner and style to which the home must conform. Sustainable development forces the owner of an existing home to transform his home into a vision that is acceptable to king-government. Sustainable development is extinguishing individual freedom for the "greater good," as determined by king-government.

 

Conclusion

The question that must be asked is: will sustainable development really result in economic prosperity, environmental protection, and social equity for the current generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs?


Even in the early days of this century-long transition to sustainability, there is growing evidence that the fundamental flaws in the concept will likely produce the opposite of the desired goals. Forests that have been taken out of productive use in order to conform to the vision of sustainable development have been burned to cinders, annihilating wildlife, including species deemed to be "endangered," resulting in the opposite of "environmental protection."


Government- imposed restrictions on resource use in land that is now designated "wilderness," or "buffer zones" have resulted in shortages, accompanied by rapid price increases that result in the opposite of "economic prosperity." In sustainable communities, it is the poorest of the poor who are cast out of their homes to make way for the planners' visions; these victims would not define the experience as "social equity."


Detailed academic studies show that housing costs rise inevitably as sustainable development is implemented. Traffic congestion is often worsened after sustainable development measures are installed. Just ask those in Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, and Richmond where the principle of sustainable communities was adopted nearly a decade ago. And always, private property rights and individual freedom are diminished or extinguished.


Sustainable development is a concept constructed on the principle that government has the right and the responsibility to regulate the affairs of people to achieve government's vision of the greatest good for all.


The United States is founded on the principle that government has no rights or responsibility not specifically granted to it by the people who are governed. These two concepts cannot long coexist. One principle, or the other, will eventually dominate. For the last 20 years, sustainable development has been on the ascendency, permeating state and local governments across the land. Only in the last few years have ordinary people begun to realize that sustainable development is a global initiative, imposed by the highest levels of government. People are just beginning to get a glimpse of the magnitude of the transformation of America that is underway.


The question that remains unanswered is: will Virginians accept this new sustainable future that has been planned for and imposed upon them? Or, as Virginians have done in the past, will they rise up in defense of their freedom, and demand that their elected officials force the bureaucrats and professionals to return to the role of serving the people who pay their salaries, by administering policies enacted only by elected officials, rather than conspiring to set the policies by which all the people must live?

 

Is Governor McDonnell just the other side of the same Orwellian coin?

Gov. Bob McDonnell's senior economic adviser, Bob Sledd was quoted in the Richmond Times Dispatch yesterday saying: "Virginia will seek to promote sustainable communities, provide a range of housing options, and prevent and reduce homelessness in Virginia".

Sledd also announced the administration's plans to create a "state housing trust fund" to finance affordable housing communities in Virginia called for in Bob McDonnell's Executive Order #10 signed in April, 2010.

This is code for government manipulation of the market and the erosion of private property rights.

In other words, this administration is dedicated to promoting the Owellian ideas of the United Nations and socialists like Gro Harlem Brundtland and Maurice Strong to control where and how you live. They'll follow the lead of liberals to provide funding to reduce housing costs for those displaced by their egregious land use policies.

This is nothing short of a "redistribution of the wealth" of Virginians to solve the very problems they help to create.

In an earlier critique of McDonnell's EO, Ron Utt of the Virginia Institute and Heritage Foundation eloquently points out the impact of restrictive land use regulations on the housing market and the economy.

Utt wrote:

"According to the leading housing data firm RealtyTrac, in 2009 Virginia ranked 16th worst among all states in terms of its foreclosure rate..."

"...the state's foreclosure problems stem from the state's exceptionally high home prices in comparison to the incomes of its residents, and these high home prices are due to land shortages caused by abusive zoning. Housing is considered "affordable" if median home prices in an area are no more than three times the median household income in that area. This ratio is called the "median multiple.""

In the 70's, California adopted "sustainable community" policies imposing strict land use regulations to discourage building and growth. As a consequence, in 2006 and 2007 the median multiple in California soared to more than 10 .

Some Virginia communities embraced "sustainable community" policies with similar consequences. For example, in Northern Virginia the median multiple hit 5.6, Richmond went to 4.1, and Hampton Roads to 4.7.

Not surprisingly, RealtyTrac's analysis of regional foreclosure patterns reveals that the state's highest foreclosure rates are concentrated in Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads and the Richmond area, which have the most abusive land use regulations in the state.

Sustainable development, sustainable communities, livable communities, and smart growth are all warm and fuzzy terms used to describe government control over where and how you live, to replace free enterprise with public/private partnerships, and to redistribute wealth.

These are not the principles of a conservative.