Sustainable development, smart growth and Kelo: Organized
theft by any name

By Tom DeWeese
web posted July 4, 2005

Put yourself in the homeowner's shoes. You buy a home for your
family. Perhaps it's even handed down from your father or
grandfather. It's a place you can afford in a neighborhood you
like. The children have made friends. You intend to stay for the
rest of your life.

As you plant your garden, landscape the yard, put up a swing set
for the kids, and mold your land into a home, unknown to you,
certain city officials are meeting around a table with developers.
In front of them are maps, plats and photographs – of your
home. They talk of dollars – big dollars. Tax revenues for the
city, huge profits for the developer. A shopping center with all
the trimmings begins to take shape. You're not asked for input or
permission. You're not even notified until the whole project is
finalized and the only minor detail is to get rid of you.

Then the pressure begins. A notice comes in the mail telling you
that the city intends to take your land. An offer of compensation
is made, usually below the market price you could get if you sold
it yourself. The explanation given is that, since the government is
going to take the land, it's not worth the old market price. Some
neighbors begin to sell and move away. With the loss of each
one, the pressure mounts on you to sell. Visits from government
agents become routine. Newspaper articles depict you as
unreasonably holding up community progress. They call you
greedy. Finally, the bulldozers move in on the properties already
sold. The neighborhood becomes unlivable. It looks like a war
zone.

Like being attacked by a conquering army, you are finally
surrounded, with no place to run, but the courts. However,
you're certain of victory. The United States was built on the very
premise of the protection of private property rights. How can a
government possibly be allowed to take anyone's home for
private gain?

Under any circumstances this should be considered criminal
behavior. It used to be. If city officials were caught padding their
own pockets or those of their friends it was considered graft.
That's why RICO laws were created.

Finally, five black robes named Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg,
Kennedy, and Breyer shock the nation by ruling that officials
who have behaved like Tony Soprano are in the right and you
have to vacate your property.

These four men and one woman have ruled that the United
States Constitution is truly meaningless. Their ruling in the Kelo
case declared that Americans own nothing. After declaring that
all property is subject to the whim of a government official, it's
just a short trip to declaring that government can now confiscate
anything we own; anything we create; anything we believe.

Astonishing. The members of the Supreme Court have nothing to
do but defend the Constitution and keep it the pure document
the Founding Fathers created to recognize and protect the rights
with which we were born. They sit in their lofty ivory tower,
never worrying about job security with their life-time
appointments. And yet, they have obviously missed finding a
copy of the Federalist Papers, which were written by many of
the Founders to explain to the American people how they
envisioned the new government would work. They have missed
the collected writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John
Adams and George Washington, just to mention a very few. It's
obvious because otherwise, there is simply no way they could
have reached this decision – unless implementing another agenda
was their purpose.

I don't have the benefit of the Justices' grand staffs or unending
salaries. But just a little research has turned up pretty much
everything Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer
would have needed to reach a logical conclusion that protection
of private property rights are the most important rights, vital to
the very foundation of a free society.

Our Founding Fathers left no doubt in their writings, their deeds,
or their governing documents as to where they stood on the vital
importance of private property. John Locke, the man whom the
Founders followed as they created this nation said, "Government
has no other end than the preservation of property." John Adams
said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property
is not as sacred as the laws of God; and there is not a force of
law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny
commence."

One would be hard pressed to find a single word in the writings
of the Founding Fathers to support the premise that it's okay to
take private property for economic development. To the
contrary, they believed that the root of economic prosperity is
the protection of private property.

So how did Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer
miss such a rock solid foundation of American law? Perhaps
they didn't. Perhaps they chose to ignore it in favor of another
agenda. Specifically, Agenda 21.

For several years, certain members of the Supreme Court have
been discussing the need to review international law and foreign
court decisions to determine U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Justice
Breyer has been the most outspoken for this policy, saying, "We
face an increasing number of domestic legal questions that
directly implicate foreign or international law."

What international laws are these? In general, the most pervasive
are a series of UN international treaties, including several that
address issues of climate, resource use, biological diversity, and
community development. Specifically, Agenda 21, signed by the
United States at the UN's Earth Summit in 1992, calls for
implementing what former Vice President Al Gore called a
"wrenching transformation" of our nation, through a policy called
Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development is the official
policy of the United States and almost every single city and small
burg in the nation.

Sustainable Development is top-down control, a ruling principle
that affects nearly every aspect of our lives, including; the kind of
homes we may live in; water policy that dictates the amount each
American may use in a day; drastic reductions of energy use; the
imposition of public transportation; even the number of
inhabitants that may be allowed inside city borders. Most
Americans have heard of a small part of this policy operating
under the name Smart Growth. Agenda 21 outlines specific goals
and a tight timetable for implementation. In June, 2005, the UN
held a major gathering in San Francisco where the mayors of
cities from across the nation and around the world gathered to
pledge to impose Sustainable polices.

In order to meet such goals, federal, state and local governments
are scrambling to impose strict policies on development and land
use. The use of Eminent Domain has become a favorite tool.
Sustainable Development calls for partnerships between the
public sector (your local government) and private businesses.

Now, as the public/private partnerships move to enforce
Sustainable Development in local communities, an unholy alliance
is also forming, allowing corrupt politicians to line their pockets
and gain power as they partner with select businesses and
developers to build personal wealth and power. They plot to
take land that isn't theirs for personal gain, while claiming it's for
the "public good." That's all the excuse they've needed to hide
their true intent.

However, things have been changing as such brutal, organized
theft has spread across the nation in the name of community
development and environmental protections. American have
started to fight back to protect their property. In Oregon, people
went to the ballot box and shocked lawmakers by passing
Measure 37, which says the government must either pay full
price for any land taken, or waive the regulation and leave the
property owner alone. In Wisconsin, the state legislature passed
a bill to stop Smart Growth policies that are destroying property
owners. In Michigan, the state Supreme Court overturned the
precedent-setting ruling it made more than 20 years ago that
allowed the use of Eminent Domain in taking property for private
use. In fact, it was that original ruling that had been used by
communities across the nation to justify their own Eminent
Domain takings.

Clearly, the nation has started to rise up to stop this assault on
private property. Without the power to grab property at will, the
ability for communities to implement Sustainable Development
has come into question.

Those who support Sustainable Development and Agenda 21
needed something big to put things back on track. The Supreme
Court, which has already stated that it must look to international
laws and treaties to decide American law, provided the answer.
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer chose
Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 over the Constitution
of the United States.

However, the effort may well be backfiring on the Sustainablists
as the nation is reacted in force to protect property rights. Now,
state legislatures and the U.S. Congress are rushing to produce
legislation to restore property rights protections. Even Americans
who have rarely uttered a political thought are suddenly
becoming feverish with zeal for the Fifth Amendment. Americans
may be learning all over again what the Founding Fathers knew –
that the right to own and control private property is the most
important right

That is all well and good, of course, but Americans must do
much more than just get upset. They need to get behind those
legislative efforts at every level of government to assure passage.
They must dig in at the local level to foil efforts by their mayors
and city councils to impose Eminent Domain against their
neighbors. We must run this organized theft (now masquerading
as the "common good") out of town on a rail. And don't forget to
leave room on that rail for Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy,
and Breyer.

Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center, a
grassroots think tank located in Warrenton, VA. The Center
maintains a website at www.americanpolicy.org.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com