These condos are being marketed to county leaders as housing for retirees, which in the case of the 13 unit I can say I believe it. The contractor is installing an elevator in the building. But the 31 unit condo is to be built upon the old Twigg Motor Company building and will not have one. So we are to believe the retirees are going to be walking up flights of stairs? Hmm, I just don't see that happening. Also rent is supposed to be between $1000 and $1300 a month, for that kind of money one could rent any number of homes in the county. Then there is the problem of services for the elderly .... yes we have doctor's offices and drug stores close by, but the nearest hospital is over 15 miles away. So would someone again try to explain to me why a retiree would choose to live on a second floor condo with no elevator and minimal health services in the near vicinity. My personal thought on this is that these units will turn into section 8 housing and we can welcome all the issues that come with section 8 housing to our quaint Courthouse area.
Both of these developments follow our new comprehensive plan and if you live anywhere outside of the Mathews
This land use category is proposed to include much of the County that is oriented to large tract agriculture and forests. The recommended density is one dwelling unit per ten acres. These low-density development recommendations are proposed in order to maintain the rural nature of the county, preserve important agricultural areas and forests, and respect the varied constraints for development. Land uses included within this category would include agriculture, forestry, and accompanying very low-density residential uses.
Current zoning law states that residential development in these areas should be restricted to 2.5 acres or more per dwelling. This is a purposed step up in restricted land use by 400%. Not only is this document purposing that large of increase, but consider what will happen to land tracts that are less than the required 10 acres. These tracts of land will continue to increase in accessed value, but will be of little or no value to those that own them. The property owners will own land that is unbuildable, not because the land will not support it. No, it will be unbuildable because a bureaucrat or some individual at a non-government organization dictated it so. This is nothing more than a blatant subversion of individual property rights under the pretense of protecting the county. My question to all of this is ...Whom is the county being protected from … its property owners?
The next area designated for change in development patterns is the areas in which are referred to as Rural Residential. This area of Mathews is extremely restricted in size and scope in relation to existing allowed uses.
Rural Residential
This land use category is proposed to include areas of the county that are still rural in character
and exhibit very low density residential uses. The recommended density is one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres. This category would provide for small tract, low intensity agriculture and residential uses with larger lots. Also, building heights should be of an appropriate scale to maintain community character.
This is the current law for the bulk of the land contained within the county's boarders, but under the new comprehensive plan the area in which 2.5 acres per dwelling is allowed has been greatly reduced. Under the purposed changes within the plan the area is to reduced to 7% of the land contained within the county's boarders..
The
Village
This land use category includes the historic commercial center of the County, Mathews Court House. This compact development center consists of a core of mixed residential, commercial
and community services that may include small businesses, upper story residential, live/work units, and surrounding groupings of residential uses.
Within the village there are a variety of residential types and densities ranging from single-family homes to small groups of dwelling units (e.g., duplex, or townhouses) at a density of 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The village exhibits an interconnected street network and is pedestrian oriented so that residential and business uses are within an easy walking distance of one quarter mile (or five minute walk). The village area is well landscaped, exhibits pedestrian scale signage and lighting, and incorporates traffic calming measures on the streets to ensure an inviting and safe experience. Buildings should be positioned close to the street with parking on the street or in small, shared lots located to the side or rear of buildings. Rehabilitation of existing buildings for alternative purposes should be encouraged; new buildings should respect the existing architectural context and building patterns.
This purposed change if adopted will forever change our county and not for the good either. The purposed 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre will cripple the current infrastructure of the area ( roads, power distribution, and the county's ability to meet the needs of that size of condense population). The Courthouse area is not capable of handling the increased traffic that will come with the possible amount of individuals that could potentially be living with in the set boundaries of the Village. The current minimal requirements for a duplex or single family dwelling is one dwelling per 1/2 acres. The purposed increase is 4 dwellings per acre to 8 dwellings per acre. That is a potential increase of 200% to 600% in the amount of families living within the boundaries of the Courthouse area. Now there is no way anyone can conclude that this would be classified as a positive change to our county. Consider what would happen to these families during a case of an ice storm and prolonged power outages. What about nor' easters that are capable of flooding the area. These purposed changes are not in the best interest of the people or the county. It is though in lock step with Agenda 21 and its provisions of government control of populations.
I will not bother to go into the other purposed land classifications, because the few I have covered so far should paint a rather disturbing picture. The comprehensive plan is designed to displace people and force high density habitation of the residents of the county. It accomplish this by increasing purposed land sizes in which single family dwellings may be built upon, by heavily restricting and the removal of property owner rights, and forcing land owners to abandon land that will become to have a high assessed valued, but worth little to nothing due to the purposed land requirement sizes.
Now one may ask, " What does any of this have to do with the U.N.'s Agenda 21?" and the answer to that is, "Absolutely everything!" Agenda 21 was adopted by the United Nations in June of 1992. But the tale of how Agenda 21 came to being takes us back to 1974. That is when the birth of the idea that would become Sustainable Development came to the fore front after the U.N. passed the Declaration for the establishment of a "New International Economic Order" (U.N. A/RES/S-66/3201 - 1974)
This declaration put forth the idea that governments should virtually control their economies. The Declaration was ignored by most nations, but the seeds planted of government control were to take root in future U.N. documents.
In 1976 the U.N.'s Conference on Human Settlements which made no attempt in hiding the fact that its end objective was to remove private ownership rights from the people and give those rights to the government. I have listed several key sections below demonstrates how the U.N. would suggest this to be accomplished.
Section 1.a, subsection c, article 5: Such a policy should be devised to facilitate population redistribution to accord with the availability of resources.
Section D, Preamble, subsection 1: Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice ; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.
Section D.1, subsection A: Land is one of the most valuable natural resources and it must be used rationally. Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means or improving the capacity of human settlements to absorb changes and movements in population, modifying their internal structure and achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits or development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.
Section D.2, subsection C, Articles 1-5: Such control may be exercised through:
- Zoning and land-use planning as a basic instrument of land policy in general and or control of land-use changes in particular;
- Direct intervention, e.g. the creation of land reserves and land banks, purchase, compensated expropriation and/or preemption, acquisition of development rights, conditioned leasing of public and communal land, formation of public and mixed development enterprises;
- Legal controls, e.g. compulsory registration, changes in administrative boundaries, development building and local permits, assembly and re-plotting:
- Fiscal controls, e.g. property taxes, tax penalties and tax incentives;
- A planned co-ordination between orderly urban development and the promotion and location of new developments, preserving agricultural land.
In 1987 the UN released a report by the World Commission on Environment & Development called "Our Common Future". This report was were the ground work of the New International Economic Order and the Conference on Human Settlements merge into what would be called "Sustainable Development".
The U.N. then requested the World Commission on Environment & Development to produce a plan for long term strategies for development for the year 2000 and beyond. Five years later in 1992 Agenda 21 was revealed to the world at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development. Agenda 21 is a 40 chapter plan that address every aspect of life by means of governmental intervention and polices. It should be noted that Agenda 21 has not been brought up for a vote of ratification in the United States Senate. It was tabled after the purposed development of wild lands within the United States was shown.
The above map should be enough evidence to convince any American that Agenda 21 is a plan that is designed to radically change our country, our government, and our way of life. Sadly though in 1993 President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #12582 which created the President's Council on Sustainable Development on June 29, 1993. The Council's task was to translate the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government. This Council developed a policy for the United States called "Sustainable America - A New Consensus".
It is not difficult to connect the dots and see how U.N.'s Agenda 21 is the driving force behind the ever-increasing regulations we find ourselves being burdened with. Every Federal Government Agency is following, implementing, and expanding the policies put forth by Agenda 21. We can stop this assault on our inalienable rights, but it will require becoming active in your local and state governments.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!!!
Links for those wishing to do there own research---
Comprehensive Plan County Section Updated 10/13/10
1976 U.N. conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I)
United Nations 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment & Development called "Our Common Future"
Agenda 21
Conference on Environment & Development
"Sustainable America - A New Consensus"
You have done your homework well David.
ReplyDelete