Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Virginia's Senator George F. Allen, Jr. Pushing Anti-Property Rights Initiative 

Here at ADC, we don't take a position on "macaca" and the related controversy involving Senator Allen (R-Va.). You can read a news story about that here.

What's of much greater concern is Allen's involvement in (and support for) the so-called Journey Through Hallowed Ground, which would establish new and intrusive federal land use controls across a swath of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia. We posted a story about this in April 2006 - you can read it in this blog entry.

Read more about Allen and the so-called Hallowed Ground project here on the American Policy Center's site.

Here are several paragraphs from the above pages:

Washington, D.C. - Nearly one year after the U.S. Supreme Court's shocking Kelo v. New London decision touched off a firestorm of bipartisan support for stronger property rights protections, some anti-property rights groups are receiving support from a surprising source: Senator George Allen (R-VA).

Senator Allen is the chief sponsor of legislation that would create a massive federal "National Heritage Area" that would stretch from Charlottesville, VA, through Frederick County, MD, and end in Gettysburg, PA. Such areas are best described as heavily regulated corridors where property rights may be strictly curtailed.

Allen's bill would deputize special interest groups -- many with clear anti-property rights agendas -- and federal employees to oversee land use policy in the corridor.

"Senator Allen often describes himself as a 'Jeffersonian' conservative, which he defines as someone who doesn't like 'nanny, meddling, restrictive, burdensome government,'" said Peyton Knight, director of environmental and regulatory affairs at the National Center. "However, if you fail to support your rhetoric with substance, you're all hat and no cattle."

Sen. Allen's initiative in some ways resembles a pork-barrel earmark, as it disburses funds to pre-selected preservationist interest groups. Unfortunately, it is even worse than an earmark, as it would threaten property rights by:

1) Creating a "management entity" to oversee land use policy in the area composed of groups that have a record of being hostile to property rights.

2) Directing this management entity to create an inventory of all property it wants "preserved," "managed" or "acquired."

3) Giving the management entity the authority to disburse federal funds for the purpose of land acquisition and restricting land use - an enticement for such activities.

"This is a transparent effort by ‘not in my back yard’ elitists to milk millions of dollars from the nation's taxpayers to mandate gentrification of their rural landscape. These bluebloods want their pretty views and bucolic fields preserved in perpetuity at the expense of property rights, small landowners and farmers, and taxpayers," said Robert J. Smith, a senior fellow at the National Center.

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?