By Don Casey
April 18, 2005

A consortium of twenty local governments1 and want-to-be-governmental2 organizations are setting the pattern for draconian land use ordinances in north central Alabama. The consortium, under the leadership of the Regional Planning Commission established the benign appearing Upper Cahaba Watershed Study in 2002.  The purpose "of this study is to identify and create planning-based tools (laws) that local governments within the Upper Cahaba basin may employ to protect water quality,..3".  "Protecting water quality" is merely an excuse to control the land.  The land area under scrutiny covers half of Shelby and Jefferson counties (the most populated and affluent areas of Alabama) and portions of St. Claire County.  The overall cost for the study and recommended ordinances is likely to be in the million-dollar range4.

What benefits can the residents of the area reap from this supposed judicious expenditure of taxpayer's funds? - A Conservation Subdivision Ordinance5.  The "ordinance" was the topic of discussion for the Technical Committee at their Monday, March 8, 2004 meeting.  It was acknowledged at the meeting that some local government have incorporated "sustainable development, and/or smart growth as policy goals"6 in their "comprehensive plans"7.  The Technical Committee discussed at length the "Conservation Ordinance".  "Sustainable development and "smart growth" are part and parcel of the United Nations agenda.7a

The minutes of the meeting describe the discussion of self-appointed bureaucrats regarding the "density" issue.  "The local governments need to decide whether they would like conservation subdivisions to be density neutral8".  A "density neutral" designation would allow the same number of homes to be built in the subdivision as the zoning originally permitted, but on half the acreage.  "For example, if a 100-acre site is zoned for one home per acre, a cluster development might build the 100 homes on half-acre lots and leave the remaining 50 acres as permanent open space.  This open space could be owned and maintained by a homeowners association, a non-profit land trust, or the local government."9

"Density bonus," another issue discussed by the "Committee" would authorize the occupancy rate of people per square foot of land to rise above the normally authorize figure.  The maximum number of people per foot was not referenced.  But it was "recommended that governments do not specify minimum lot sizes in their conservation subdivision ordinances. This encourages clustering of development and gives the developer as much flexibility as possible in designating the open space."10  (emphasis added) Eliminating the minimum lot size has allowed zero lot lines (a structure built on the property line) and fifteen-foot wide houses.  Pelham's Hidden Cove is an example of this modern day shot gun house priced at $100,000 plus.

How much "open space" is enough? - "The ordinance should require that a minimum of 40 - 50% of the total area of the property be set aside as open space."11

"Local governments need to decide how they will define "open space" so that developers are clear about which types of land must and should be set aside for permanent protection."13

The two preceding quotes render private land ownership a mere designation that may, at the discretion of the bureaucratic body strip your rights from 100% of the deeded property to 50%.  A belief that extortion at the planning stages of a subdivision can be made legal will most certainly result in legalized theft in other areas - redevelopment and revitalization would be two examples.

Referencing the "permanent protection" phrase in the preceding quote -  The bureaucrats have obviously concluded that property must be protected.  Thus government must "permanently protect" property from the people and succeeding generations.

After extorting property from the rightful owner the bureaucratic board would establish a system reminiscent of the feudal system of the dark ages.  Control of the property is transferred to a "trust" while the owner is made responsible for its upkeep which would most certainly include TAXES.

"Local governments have several options concerning ownership and maintenance of the open space.  The ordinance may allow for dedication to the local government, donation (extortion) in fee simple to a land trust or conservation organization, or donation to the subdivision's Homeowner's Association (HOA).  The ordinance can either provide for flexibility by giving the developer the option of which entity to choose for ownership, or it can specify which entity or entities are entitled to own the open space.  The owner of the open space should be responsible for maintenance.  The ordinance should also mandate a procedure should the owner of the open space cease to exist. Also, if the HOA is the owner, then the ordinance should require automatic, mandatory membership in the HOA for all homeowners."11 (comment added)

Socialized ownership of a "conservation subdivision" is just the beginning, retrofitting older communities will soon follow and "sustainable communities" will require "sustainable residents" - Are you ready?.

1. http://www.region2020.org/currentprojects/uppercahabawatershed.shtml

2. Region 2020 http://www.region2020.org/currentprojects/uppercahabawatershed.shtml

3. http://www.cahabastudy.com/Technical%20Com%20Minutes/technical_committee.htm

4. Comments from Larry Watts - Regional Planning Commission September 23, 2002, Technical Committee Meeting - The $300,000 EPA grant has been approved for Phase 2. - e. Phase 1 tasks will provide $275,000 to consultants. http://www.cahabastudy.com/Technical%20Com%20Minutes/technical_committee.htm

5. http://www.cahabastudy.com/Technical%20Com%20Minutes/technical_committee.htm

6.  IBID

7.  IBID

7a  Mr. Lawrence, advisor to the US President's Council on Sustainable Development and member of the US Government delegation to the 1996 Habitat II Conference and has also been Director of the Centre for Sustainable Communities at the University of Washington and Chief Planner in the City of Seattle stated "In the case of the U.S., our local authorities are engaged in planning processes consistent with (Local Agenda 21) LA21 but there is little interest in using the LA21brand. Participating in a UN (United Nations) advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear 'one-world government' and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined 'the conspiracy' by undertaking LA21.  So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.  www.unedforum.org/publications/ millennium/mill%20paper2.pdf

8. http://www.cahabastudy.com/Technical%20Com%20Minutes/technical_committee.htm

9.  National Association of Home Builders http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=630&genericContentID=19085

10.  http://www.cahabastudy.com/Technical%20Com%20Minutes/technical_committee.htm

11.  IBID