Sustainable Growth: A Threat to Private Property (Part 3)

Jim Harbison

This editorial is based on an article from the American Policy Center. There are four parts to this drive to destroy private property. The first is the rural process called the Wildlands Project which calls for returning 50% of the lands in each state back to wilderness status. It does this by creating buffer zones around government owned lands such as national parks or forests. Human activity within the buffer zone is limited and is increasingly restricted until all human activity ceases.

Once this is accomplished the buffer zone is again extended and the process is repeated. Another method to stop human activity is to restrict livestock access to river banks which forces ranchers out of business. They also lock down access to natural resources (minerals and forests) on government lands to shut down these activities. When this occurs the towns that were supported by these industries die and the population moves into large towns and the former towns are abandoned. These programs are also known as “Heritage” areas for land management, protection and re-introduction of bears and wolves, rails to trails, conservation easements, and open space. There are currently 31 Wildlands Projects, 22 in the West including New Mexico, seeking to lock away 40 percent of the nation’s lands.

The second part called Smart Growth occurs after they have driven people from the rural areas and into regimented and dense urban communities. Because of restrictions on development inside the controlled City limits housing prices rise. This is caused by a shortage of housing and the implementation of mandatory “green” initiatives or regulations. The Vision 2040 plan being adopted by the City of Las Cruces is an example of the restrictive guidelines that will force people into “growth nodes” and mandate if or where your private property can be developed.

The third part of this strategy requires the local Councils be controlled by a ruling elite class and the environmentally driven progressives supported by the many bureaucratic boards, commissions and non-government organizations (NGO’s) that live off the public trough. It is usually necessary to seek approval from many of these “socially driven” groups to make any changes or dispositions of your private property. In San Francisco, for example, the new federal building was required to install an elevator that only stopped at every third floor so that occupants are required to use the stairs as a forced method of exercise for “their own health”.

The fourth part is the Public/Private Partnerships (PPPs) purportedly free enterprise organizations used to keep taxes down and using business to make society better. Many PPPs are nothing more than government-sanctioned monopolies that can charge what they want and use the power of the government to drive out any competition. The success of PPPs is not based on the quality of the product and service but on accepting the mantra of Sustainable Development even if it means going against their own products. This is why Home Depot uses its commercials to oppose cutting down trees and British Petroleum advocates reducing the use of oil.

Sustainable Development is not driven by free enterprise, but rather by the UN’s Agenda 21 blueprint for Sustainable Development. Unfortunately under the guise of some “better for society” banner we get involved in organizations or causes that have hidden motives, goals, and agendas. My intent in raising this issue is to raise public awareness of some of the unpublicized but clear objectives of the UN’s Agenda 21, and the ICLEI, to adversely impact private property ownership under the Sustainable Development banner.

Sustainable Growth: A Threat to Private Property (Part 3)