OCR Text |
Show THE LAND USE ACT it PAGES 8 & 9 AAA H if The 0! ::::;:;::xS:; :.;.v.y.-w:-:- X' ::' Ill Independent 1IS!: Dedicated To The Constitution, Liberty, Morality,, and Truth Vol. 5, No. 10 UN 0) TITIJT LL few7te fawn fA M. ' HELMS. Mr. President, I must oppose this bill, S. 268, for very fundamental reasons. It is my conclusion, after studying this bill and listening to the debate in this body, that the bill is un- necessary in the first instance and in the second instance, the potential for abuse which pervades the theory underlying this bill that the Federal Government must Induce Sttes to exercise their sovereign powers far outweighs the potential benefits which may accrue by the resulting exercise of those powers by fee States. Nowhere during the consideration jof. this bill has any Senator juggestedVthat Ttne PQWeW wnlChthe"State are railed UPofi lo.TBC in ddmmjLjfoejLJanduse , YmTlfT 25C Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 anil in impTfmytfB usenprograrOrouIdin thT im. ajiywayJtefin-"large- d by the passage" of JthisJHederal controls 'law7TTieercTeo7"land-us- e 'taTEe broad sense, and zoning in the narrow sense, are derived from the police power vested in' States through their capacity as sovereign. controls to be In order for flftnfl-iexercise ol mat police power, a Valid me There must, be causal' uofuunsttoiFbme-- . vlsltiiennr 5elwel LhgTSnTroGbelng -berie-"H- ts tmposed onlhe Use ol ianffahd the to the tfUhMemieruis of tiieirheaTtB; safety and welfare4, 'lliese benefits must can- - bOnronmat lost. The State does have police power. It should exercise these, powers legitimately. It should protect and preserve the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Each man should and does have the freedom to use his property in any way that he sees fit, except when that use deprives another of the right to freely use and enjoy his land or the citizens as a whole to use and enjoy public land. In 1926 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Village of Euclid against Ambler Realty Co. that State and local governments could enact and enforce Sen. Jesse A. Helms .) through a valid exercise of the police power. Since that time, the Court has not be remote. The less proximate the been hesitant to reopen the broad question of the constitutionality of zoning benefits, the more arbitrary the control, laws insofar as these laws have been and at that point, the constitutional of challenged as a taking of private property-witho-ut priquestion concerning the taking vate property for public use without just just compensation. The great Of law control into .Next body concerning land-us- e being. compensation springs to the right to life and the right to BBer" has developed through our State courts ty. thertgni to own property is iunaa-menta- l! where it properly belongs. IP The freedoms guaranteed py I am concerned over the constituTmrConstituti6h and"to our roncept'of tionality of this bill because I believe that "GoveTflmenTT ilfiis right should not be Congress is attempting to define what taken' lightly When the Government elements of land-us- e control are a valid (R-N.C- " Leaders Ninn LL ffiffllO flflWr limits the things that a man can do with his property, that man is left with less property after the Government controls than he had before them, and consequently; some of his freedom has been Bra March 7, 1974 if T exercise of the police power and in this way, broaden the current law that exists in various States which expresses the control. limits of land-us- e bill have acknowlthis of Proponents edged the legitimate role and capacity of the States to regulate the use of land. That being the case, I come back to my original premise: that this bill is not needed. Nothing substantively can be done within our constitutional framework to enlarge or perfect the authority and capacity of the States to exercise their police power. This leads me to my second major point. Since the Federal Government cannot Improve upon the States right to control their land, I believe that the fact of the Federal Government's involvement will detract from the States legitimate function to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. Simply put, if I possess the exclusive right to exercise some power or perform some beneficial function and I share that right with another, I have diminished the value of the right which I previously had. Your 'Government is supposedly encouraging States to exercise their powers in this area by providing large sums of money to pay for the State's land-us- e program. But we planning and land-us- e find this bill setting up a review capacity, in the Department of Interior to determine if the States are satisfying Federal - Continued on page 8 B old Howard Kershner . i. UTAH INDEPENDENT 2459 Major Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Second Class Postage Sat Paid at lake City, Utah , The fate of Patricia Hearst (with fiance Steven Weed) at the hands of the SLA fsymbol at left) highlights the need for close of scrutiny organizations. extremist ' The father of Patricia Hearst has expressed a very kind and charitable view of the abductors of his daughter. He credits them with the desire to help needy people. He speaks of their motives being good within o CO a 1 a w o Oi limits of their understanding. Even though be true, they are nevertheless fatally injuring the very people whom they pretend to want to help. this-mig- o ft H the o Cft 01 Assuming that the kidnapers accept Mr.' Hearst's offer of i$2 million worth of food for needy people, what will happen? Mr. Hearst, will sell $500,000 worth of securities and the Hearst Foundation will sell $1,500,000 worth' of securities. Thus, $2 million will be taken from our country's supply of capital and converted into consumer goods. On the average, about $25,000 of invested capital is necessary to create one good job in our country. The withdrawal of $2 million from the country's capital account to supply the demands of the kidnapers, therefore means the loss of 80 jobs. What we need is more capital to create more jobs. There is a world-wid- e scarcity of capital. Our country has more capital than any other, but even here we are beginning to feel the pinch. f.'the action of these kidnapers starts a precedent, the drain on our capital could become critical in a very short time. The kidnapers would soon learn that their action was decreasing production and constantly making the people they wish to help poorer. They would succeed in impoverishing the rich, but almost in direct proportion they would also be worsening the plight of the poor. The poor cannot be made richer by making the rich poorer. All schemes for distributing wealth decrease the quantity of productive capital, lower production and impose greater hardships upon all of the people, the poor included. A Chinese coolie, with a wheelbarrow earns possibly a dollar a day, while ah American truck driver or operator of a heavy machine may earn $50 a day or' ' more. The difference is in the truck or the machine. That is possible because of accumulated capital. Confiscate the capital of the one who provides the truck or the machine for the workman will eventually go back to the these facilities are reduced. When wheelbarrow and the very low the stocks and bonds representing wage. The difference between high production facilities are sold, in wages and low wages is the amount order that the wealth may be of capital invested to make possible redistributed, other people must the job. buy them or the industry quickly The kidnapers are destroying runs out of capital. But when the capital. If their example is followed wealth of these other buyers is also extensively, our country would redistributed, who will buy the soon be decapitalized. That would stocks and bonds? Eventually there mean hard times for all. If pursued will be no market for them as the has been increasingly far enough, it would mean return wealth into to the' handicraft era, a drastic converted consumption decline in population and a much goods. Poverty and dire need will lower scale of living. steadily increase as this process It docs not so much matter who goes on. The kidnapers of Patricia Hearst owns a coal mine, as how much The owners are starting a move that would coal is being produced. cannot cat coal, wear coal, or sleep impoverish everybody in our in the mine. The only way they country. If pursued, it would lead benefit from their property is to to the greatest suffering, hunger, produce coal. The more money disease and hard times our country invested in coal mining, the greater has ever known". Civilization and a the production. If private high standard of living are possible because of capital ownership and operation of a coal only mine produces more coal then it is accummulation. Sto"p the process better for all concerned, that we or reverse it. and we are all headed back toward the handicraft age and have private ownership. Those who advocate a totalitarian government. It is not by accident that the distribution of wealth, do not seem to realize that this always involves Moral Law says, thou shalt not decreasing capital resources and, covet and thou shalt not steal, for for the moment, increasing unless these commandments are consumption. In the long run, it observed, capital accumulation is also decreases consumption, for it impossible. Observance of the Moral Law is constantly reduces the amount of capital available for production. the basis of civilization. If we are Such people do not seem to now returning to the level of understand that our wealthy coveting and stealing the property people do . not possess great of others, we arc undermining our quantities of money. Their wealth civilization and abandoning all is invested in productiv c facilities. hope or conquering disease and When the wealth is distributed. poverty. Continued on page 1 1 |