OCR Text |
Show Page 8 The Utah Independent March 7, 1974 - Land Use Bill LAND USE Continued from page criteria required for an eligible land-us- e program. I am firmly convinced that this Federal review will evolve into Federal control. When the bureaucrats in the Interior Department get their hands on this legislation, volumes of regulations will pour forth defining every aspect of a land-us- e plan and a land-us- e program. Then, the States will benignly comply, because the State employees charged with developing a program acceptable to the Interior Department will, be the same individuals who stand to lose their funding if the program does not satisfy Federal review. The Governors and other representatives of State government have been induced to support this bill, beqpuse of the prospects of receiving large amounts of Federal funds. I believe that they have made a serious miscalculation and that their States will come to regret that support. ' The States are trading away their birthright in the form of sovereign powers for a very cheap price. Those who want to centralize power in big Government here in Washington are indeed getting a bargain in this bill at the expense of our States, our constitutional form of government, and ultimately at the expense of all the American people. I urge my fellow Senators to take a hard second look at this bill before they willingly and knowingly vote to deprive their States of a substantial part of their sovereignty. g jjggj Senators Not Aware . about the intent of legislation, the definition of words, the meaning of phrases and the applicability of provisions. I feel, Mr. President, that if we could read the minds of Senators who, during the past few days, have voted on countless amendments which I have heard them confess that they did not really understand, we would have to admit in all charity that the Senate is not only fully aware of the implications of this bill.. Moreover, there is my conviction that In this time of great inflation and economic crisis, we should not be commiting the Federal Government to further built-i- n costs. Just this morning, Secretary Shultz complained in testimony before the Senate Finance Committee Chat 75 percent of the Federal budget is, as he described it, Uncontrollable, precisely because this Congress and present and previous administrations have committed the taxpayers to supply funds for .programs years in advance, g jjijjjq l. 2. RADICAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES Jurisdiction over land use changed from states to Federal Government. Freehold Change in traditional John McClaughry, a State Legislator in the State of Vermont, has published a strong warning on S. 268, the Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act" passed by the Senate and now before the 4. 5. 6. Change in Fifth Amendment which provides that no private property may be taken without compensation. Extension of Executive Branch and bureaucratic rule. Extension of Federal police power. Purpose of the Federal Government further extended to promote economic and social change unrelated to any enumerated power given in the Constitution. as enhancing or diminishing the rights of owners of property as provided by the Constitution of the United States or the constitution of the State in which the property is located." 203(f)! However, McClaughry agrees with Senator Fannin that this phrase has no real useful effect in that it does not make any clearer the hazy boundary between compensated takings and the raw use of police power regulation which brings about uncompensated taking of rights to individual property. House. CONTROL LAND; CONTROL CITIZENS The bill is, in short, an elaborate effort by the Federal government to bribe the States to adopt and implement comprehensive land use control' programs.... There is probably. ,no more direct route for the consolidation of government power over the individual citizen than the direct control over all land use in his 8 This bill will spur the creation of powerful new institutional machinery to invade the rights of private property owners in the name of the public interest. The former chairman of the Vermont State Environmental Board on numerous occasions claimed with pride that his land use plan took everything it was possible to take from landowners without crossing over into the area of takings' which require compensation 2. . counties were in favor of it. Bill Koerner a man who said he'd sat on one of the surveys, he being a realtor was i . questioned -- . . - NO MORE PRIVATE SUBDIVISIONS? The land use control program practically insures that no subdivisions will ever again be built by private enterprise for low and. moderate income Vermonters. 3. Individual companias are already hard at work on the problem of environmental s MORE CENTRALIZATION i . . t pollution. .J , : . McClaughry concludes: l Comprehensive land prowhich seize the of the grams upon power market-oriented State to overcome forces lead undeto and unforeseen necessarily sirable consequences, which result in a clamor for additional controls, resulting in an accelerating centralization of power in the state government and diminution of private rights and action." FREE-ENTERP- N . Mr. McClaughry said he could only find one feeble attempt to safeguard the individual property owner: Nothing in this Act shall be construed : RISE THE ONLY ANSWER use-contro- I am convinced that every single problem of land use and environmental preservation can be solved in conformity to a property philosophy, although in some cases it will require the State to pay property owners for the acquisition of certain rights deemed beneficial to the public, instead of merely stealing those rights. (Letter to MM .. ' j What is Overriding National Interest"? FEDERAL PROGRAM, PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES ON LANDS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTING LAND USE.... SHALL BE , CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAND USE PRO NON-FEDERA- L immediately to the hearing. She said that she knew that some of the Senators that were present were under the impression that the audience was balanced in feelings. She would like to ask all who were opposed to the bill if they would drove 14, 1973) Reprinted From the FREEMEN REPORT he'd I . Senator James Buckley, June if God-give- n, regulations have de creased 'the number of lots available for - about compromise, on the bill or just plainly didn't want any of it. He told them to reject it completely, and went on to inform them that property rights were and they did not have the right to .consider taking any of those Tights away. He wasn't invited to any more hearings. Bill told us and the committee that he wasn't invited to any more Blue Ribbon Committee meetings and only those who agreed to' compromise, were.. He also mentioned that a man named Oliver Lefevre was present that felt as he did and he wasn't invited there again either. Both men are on the board of realtors, which was the area which was surveyed. The auditorium was packed and those that couldn't sit down before meeting started were asked to move out into the hall, where they couldn't hear, (and those taking pictures, wouldn't show the amount of people present). The spirit of opposition was extremely strong although Senator Petterson seemed to ' make' it look ' as though the ;r feelings were balanced. I'm sure this statement spurred a lady from Orem whose name couldn't get recorded, to get up and state she'd read the bill only that afternoon, and Increased small homesites. WAS THERE! Senator Petterson ofSalt Lake County presented the Land Use Act Bill and said a survey had been made and that 28 out of 29 . 1. The necessity of obtaining permits from district environmental commissions is a great obstacle. It leads to a welter of confusion, arbitrary . decisions, long delays, frequent reversals, technically unsupported findings, and vast uncertainty. .All of these procedural problems have a strong deterrent effect on any kind of development Or improvement of land." HOUSE Building in Auditorium. 4. McClaughry based his concern on his first-han- d observation of a similar proin the .State of Vermont. The posal following were' his specific criticisms: PERMITS: A GREAT OBSTACLE" THE Senate Committee Hearing at 4:00 p.m. in back ofState Capitol INVASION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC WELFARE state. property rights. 3. SENATE I FEWER LOTS AVAILABLE Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, with all respect for my distinguished colleagues who are persuaded absolutely that this bill is an excellent one, I must observe that scarcely ever have I heard so much confusion FROM HEARINGS ON THE LAND USE BILL Means Fed. Control 1 MEMOIRS GRAMS WHICH CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, EXCEPT IN CASES OF OVERRIDING NATIONAL INTEREST, AS DETERMINED BY THE PRESIDENT. (Sec. 207 (a)) . stand and instantaneously all arose excepting the Senators and about a half dozen women who identified themselves as the League of Women Voters. As people said things that the audience approved they clapped and cheered, which insulted Senator Karl Snow, who was Chairman and also a presenter of the bill. At one point he threatened to discontinue the hearing if the people wouldn't their opinion. stop- - voicing (I thought they would have wanted to know the feeling of the people as they were there to represent them later to the rest of the Senate .) Another gentleman, Gary Watkins, got up and told the , WHO SHALL BE THE JUDGE? be most in its probable effect. It is generally conceded that the bill will have very significant economic, social, and institutional impact across BUCKLEY Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, the purpose of my amendment is simple. It was drafted in response or as a reaction, if you will, to some general and, I think, serious concerns that have been expressed during the course of the debate on this legislation. The concerns to which my amendment is addressed are twofold. First of all, it is generally conceded that we are embarking on landmark legislation that will far-reachi- the country. ng Yet, as is so often the case with pioneering legislation of this kind, it is impossible at this moment in time to anticipate with any .kind of precision the nature of the impact that it will undoubtedly have once the land use planning and programs to which it will give stimulus become effective. Second, during the course of the debate on the Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1973, concern has been expressed over the fact that despite the care with which the legislation has been framed in terms of having as its ob- -' jective not to mandate a specific approach to land use planning, but rather to stimulate States to come to grips with the problems we are facing as to land use, and in doing so, by stimulating the planning process, to perhaps influence the States to meet more specifically the constitutional responsibility in this area which is clearly theirs. Nevertheless, in spite of the language in the report, and in spite of the language in the bill, there is concern over the potential for naked Federal intervention into areas of authority that the Constitution reserves to the States, a potential which is deemed real because of the possibilities for bureaucratic harassment that many consider to be inherent in the present bill. Who, for example, will be the ultimate judge of the adequacy of a States land ' use program? I believe that these concerns are legit-imate Rec. . (Cong. 73 p.S11655) panel and people, ''My grandmother walked across the plains to get here and it meant a great deal to her to have these freedoms; and asked them (the senators) not to be party to giving them up." And quoted the bill would take our right away. He then turned to the committee and said, "I will stand before the bar of God and tell Him what they (the Committee) had done. There was a hearing for the House of Representatives on Continued from page 8 |