Have you ever heard of the Elbert County Open Lands, Parks and Trails Plan ? I had not heard of it until this week, and I doubt that more than a handful of voters and property owners know about it. Looks like it’s about to become regulatory law in Elbert County.

It’s purely a guess, but I would estimate the value of the takings contemplated by the new regulations discussed in the previous blog item, plus the value of the takings contemplated in the Elbert County Open Lands, Parks and Trails Plan, runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

See:

C.R.S. 30-28-106 Adoption of master plan - contents
“The master plan of a county or region shall be an advisory document to guide land development decisions; however, the plan or any part thereof may be made binding by inclusion in the county’s or region’s adopted subdivision, zoning, platting, planned unit development, or other similar land development regulations after satisfying notice, due process, and hearing requirements for legislative or quasijudicial processes as appropriate.”
(Section 3 (a))

And See:

Proposed: EC Zoning Regs Section 16 -PUD New Section “D” Site Design Standards for Residential Developments
“These Design Standards are intended to work in conjunction with the Elbert County Master Plan to help ensure the goals and objectives of the Master Plan are addressed by residential developments.”
(page 1)

And See:

Proposed: Elbert County Master Plan for Housing
“Intent and Purpose of Conservation Communities:
Purpose:
8. To further the goals and policies of the Elbert County Master Plan and the Elbert County Open Lands, Parks and Trails Plan;”
(page 6)

Now Listen:

Thayer and Miller Discussion on regulatory vs. advisory plan

And Listen:

Thayer on Advisory vs. Regulatory Plan
(at close of 2/26/09 Planning Commission Meeting.)

My take:

The majority of planning commissioners and county planners seem to treat this question of a regulatory master plan as de minimus, and perhaps even subject to their own whim.

I don’t think so.  I think the above statute is pretty clear on the question, and the construct of housing master plan and PUD zoning modifications they have proposed, and are in the process of conducting public hearings on, clearly fits the terms of the statute.

They say that the proposed regulations are the result of community input and everyone should follow them.  Really?  What community?  How many people were actually heard on the substance of these questions?  Was there a vote or a broad-based canvas of the community?

No.  This whole thing looks like minority rule by determined believers in property-taking for their own image of the “public good,” and they’re quietly in the process of stealing our rights out from underneath us.

I would say get on the phone right away and tell the planning commission to keep their hands off our property, but the odds are you’d just be talking to a zealot who wouldn’t hear you anyway.

We’re going to need a real public vote in the next election on this question.  We’re going to need to put this on the ballot if we have any hope of protecting ourselves from this bunch.

Ric Morgan on government “taking”   (1 mb, mp3)

According to Mr. Morgan if county regulations require a property owner to give property, in this case land rights or water rights to Elbert County, it is a government taking prohibited by the 5th Am to the Constitution.

As of this writing, the proposed Master Plan section for Housing and the proposed Zoning Regulations for Planned Unit Development, require developers of 5 houses or more to convey 20% to 40% of their property to a third party who is acceptable to the Elbert County Planning Commission, or to Elbert County itself.

“All residential developments which create five (5) lots or more shall be zoned as Planned Unit Developments, Agricultural, or Agricultural-One. A minimum of forty percent (40%) of the “Gross Acreage” of the site shall be permanently dedicated open space, within residential developments, except those developments which are proposing ten (10) acre or larger parcels, which shall have a minimum of twenty percent (20%) open space.”

(Proposed Master Plan, pg. 4)

“8.) Open space should be conveyed to Elbert County, a metropolitan district, or not-for-profit entity, which can demonstrate to the County that it possesses the management capabilities and resources required to administer and perpetually defend the open space, for its intended purpose.
9.) Any land dedicated to Elbert County for regional parks or other open space shall include water rights in a sufficient amount to maintain vegetation and provide adequate fire fighting water supply.”

(Proposed PUD zoning regulations, pg. 11)

To the property holder who must give that property away, whether the property goes to Elbert County or to a third party conservation trust of some sort, the conveyance is really a distinction without a difference.  In both cases, the property owner is dispossessed of their property as a result of government action.

A government-ordered dispossession of property as a condition of enjoying the economic benefit that attaches to ownership of that property would seem to be a taking regardless of who the recipient is.

Conflict of Interest Issue  (< 1mb, mp3)

To add insult to injury, the proposed Master Plan and Zoning regulations have the Planning Commission and the BOCC sitting in judgment over re-zoning applications that may include Elbert County as an interested party (grantee of property rights) in the outcome of such transactions.

“Barack Obama set out a few modest goals in his address to both chambers of Congress last night: cure cancer, reform Social Security and Medicare, destroy al-Qaeda, end our dependence on foreign oil, promise education to every American “from the day they are born” to the day they begin work, and “save our planet from the ravages of climate change.”

Costly Shibboleths

The One blesses joint session of congress before distributing fishes and loaves.

VP and Speaker enjoy rapture.

Paula Koch at October 8th Planning Commission meeting

“As a citizen I just needed to get on the record, I am tired of paying for the legal fees that have been incurred by the BOCC not following the vision of the master plan and the regulations of this county.”

“[I] would love to see this continued until after new commissioners take office.”

Over the years Ms. Koch’s liberalism has become a familiar fixture in Elbert County politics.  As a promoter of regulatory planning, she’s been appointed to a Planning Commission of like-minded regulators.

Conversion of the Elbert County Master Plan to a regulatory document has been effected without a vote of the people and Ms. Koch helped by her encouragement of preventing the last BOCC from adjudicating the question.

The Planning Commission needed an appointment of an individual with a higher regard for private property rights than Ms. Koch has shown.  It is unfortunate that Commissioner Schwab passed up an opportunity to appoint someone who would defend all property rights, not just the rights of property holders who have a no-growth prejudice.

ELBERT COUNTY
Agenda
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HEARING ROOM
215 COMANCHE STREET, KIOWA, CO 80117
February 26, 2009 @ 7:00 P.M.

EC Zoning Regs Section 16 -PUD New Section “D” Site Design Standards for Residential Developments

Elbert County Master Plan for Housing

Comments

Last October 8th, the Elbert County Planning Commission intentionally postponed discussion on a set of amendments to the county master plan that had been requested by the Board of County Commissioners, to a date when that Board of County Commissioners would be out of office.

As one Planning Commissioner said at the time, “I would think we should continue it at a later date to where we don’t put it in front of the County Commissioners and have them approve it.”

This was not a decision on the merits of the question based in factual analysis and relevant law.  It was a procedural tactic used to enforce a prejudice of the Planning Commission against the Board of County Commissioners elected by the people of Elbert County.

It is the BOCC who carry the voters franchise, not the appointed members of the Planning Commission.

I didn’t go looking for a reason to distrust the governance of the Planning Commission, but there it was, plain as the nose on my face. That night in October, they clearly demonstrated, to applause and apparent jubilation,  an ability to supplant the rule of law with their own prejudice.

Members of the Planning Commission consider themselves to be the enforcers of the master plan.  Fair enough, however, they have shown that they are not to be trusted with regulatory authority.  That authority has traditionally been vested solely in the Board of County Commissioners.  These proposed planning documents should be expunged of any language that could be construed to change that precedent.

The problem the county faced with the existing master plan is that legislation was passed, and a court applied the rule to Elbert County, that master plans that reference zoning regulations become, by default, regulatory.  The last BOCC attempted to remedy this situation - in effect what became a defect - by expunging references from the master plan to county zoning regs.  The Planning Commission impeded the BOCC in accomplishing this.

Now comes a new master plan element that specifically references zoning regulations.  If the master plan is to become regulatory, it is a decision that the voters of Elbert County should make.  Without voter approval we have regulation without representation.

—————————-

On page 5 of the proposed Elbert County Master Plan Housing, item 3 begins with, “Land for open space shall be dedicated to Elbert County…to administer and perpetually defend the open space for its intended use.”

On page 11 of the proposed Section 16, PUD New Section “D” of the Elbert County Site Design Standards for Residential Developments, item 8 begins with, “Open space should be conveyed to Elbert County…,” and item 9 follows with, “Any land dedicated to Elbert County for regional parks or other open space shall include water rights[.]”

The Planning Commission seeks to have regulatory approval authority over developments that also include granting land and water rights to the county.  This is a clear conflict of interest.

Neither the Planning Commission nor the BOCC should have regulatory authority over development transactions where the county has a property ownership interest at stake as part of the deal.

—————————-

On pages 8 and 22 of the proposed Section 16, PUD New Section “D” of the Elbert County Site Design Standards for Residential Developments, regulations are contemplated to prohibit barbed wire on the top and bottom strands of 3-wire fencing.  One of the goals of the plan is to preserve the rural nature of Elbert County, and part of that rural nature involves cattle fencing.  This regulation would adversely affect acreage available for cattle production and seems counter to the preservation of the rural nature of the county.

———————————-

On page 16 of the Elbert County Master Plan Housing document, item 1 specifies conditions under which the BOCC may consider a variance to the plan.  This would unnecessarily limit BOCC discretion.

Similarly, on page 2 of the proposed Section 16, PUD New Section “D” of the Elbert County Site Design Standards for Residential Developments, the Planning Commission seeks to codify it’s practice of last October of unilaterally determining when the BOCC may hear a planning issue by limiting the BOCC from holding a public hearing until the Planning Commission issues their recommendation.  Once again, this would unnecessarily impede BOCC discretion in their elected governance of Elbert County.

“A 70 percent illegitimacy rate in black America, an incarceration and crime rate seven times that of white America, a 50 percent dropout rate in many urban high schools, African-American graduates reading and computing on average at eighth-grade levels. And about these problems what is the black leadership doing?

Unlike Bill Cosby, the heroic Holder was virtually mute. Rather, he is upset that “on Saturdays and Sundays” we don’t go to church or hang out together. But why are the free associations of Americans, of whatever creed or color, any of Eric Holder or Big Brother’s business?

Having insulted us, perhaps Holder will start doing his own sworn duty. For one area where he has a lead role is enforcing the nation’s laws — in particular, the U.S. immigration laws.”

Buchanan responds to Holder

Colorado Ranchers Pray for Death of ‘Death Tax’

Farmers also can use conservation easements. They donate land to a qualifying tax-exempt or governmental organization and agree to keep it as open space or use it for agriculture, said Durst.

Adding up all exemptions, Durst projects that less than 1 percent of farms will be subject to the estate tax in 2009.

It’s interesting how  Ron Durst, senior economist for the Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, and the Associated Press consider donating your land to the government to be a tax exemption.  Let me get this straight, if the government takes a portion of your wealth, that’s taxation, but if you give the government all of your wealth, then it’s a tax exemption. 

I guess so, but only because you’ll have nothing left to tax.

The real cowards in America are the ones who condone predatory redistribution of the American dream, not the ones who figure out how to make or do something productive, stay employed, live within the bounds of the law, stay married, pay taxes, raise kids in a two-parent home, pay their mortgage, and hold up their end of the American social contract.

It’s the ones who join the mob to prey on those productive souls.

Take it all away.  Stop enabling progressive predators.  “God Bless the child that’s got his own.”

“Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence is another possible mistake.

True, the state’s increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.

The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation.

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.

And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing.”

The following text is a transcript of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Putins speaks at Davos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_NUGl2lZao

Samuel Huntington wrote,

“Political leaders imbued with the hubris to think that they can fundamentally reshape the culture of their societies are destined to fail. While they can introduce elements of Western culture, they are unable permanently to suppress or eliminate the core elements of their indigenous culture.  Conversely, the Western virus, once it is lodged in another society, is difficult to expunge. The virus persists but is not fatal; the patient survives but is never whole. Political leaders can make history but they cannot escape history. They produce torn countries; they do not create Western societies. They infect their country with a cultural schizophrenia which becomes its continuing and defining characteristic.”

I think Huntington’s view is correct.  Assuming it is, we can adapt his principle to ourselves as follows. Our American culture is founded on individual liberty as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Freedom, and all of the consequences, legal expressions and behaviors that flow from the foundation of freedom make up the historical and dominant culture of America. Socialism is opposed to freedom because it requires that the freedom of all citizens be abridged to support the state’s redistribution of wealth, and the state’s behavioral dictates. And politicians who impose socialism on America may temporarily succeed in suppressing freedom, do economic damage, inflict poverty and create harm.  Ultimately, however, our American culture of freedom will re-surge and prevail.  Our cultural nature is the dominant force that we cannot escape.

No matter how many socialist programs the American left pile up, the nature of their programs will remain opposed to our culture. I admire the left’s tenacity and passion, however, I really wish they would apply their efforts to something that had the potential to actually succeed.

Pay close attention as the stimulus package results come in. Blame will be liberally doled out to Bush, conservatives, Bush, Republicans, Bush, Christians, Bush and um, oh yeah, Bush. They won’t for a moment recognize the fundamental antagonism between socialism and our free culture.

Read it and weep.

Porkulus Rex

Surreal Spending
The House is poised to take a final vote on the compromise $800-billion spending bill on, appropriately, Friday the 13th, with the Senate likely to follow soon after.

In my 36 years in Washington, I have never seen such a surreal environment, with hundreds of billions of dollars in borrowed taxpayer money being spent without committee hearings or even meaningful public debate over the thousands of new and expanded programs the bill funds. (more…)

Obamanomics - mp3 audio

“It is absolutely true that we can’t depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth.”

Oh Please!  With this intriguing bit of hyperbole, President Obama begins his justification for the stimulus package.

– AS IF we could depend on government AT ALL to create jobs or economic growth!

Governments redistribute a fraction of the dollars they collect, and consume the balance with overhead.  The wealth that governments redistribute crowds out private sector opportunities at the point of redistribution, cuts off private sector opportunities at the point of collection, and costs an overhead bureaucracy that adds no productive capacity to society.  It’s a loss proposition in the beginning, middle, and end.

Governments cannot create anything without first taking the means to do so from the private sector, a fact that completely eludes our leftist fear-mongering redistributer-in-Chief.  And he seems like such a nice guy.  Too bad his policies will bury us.

To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.