The United Nations says:
Land … 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. … Public control of land use is therefore indispensable. … (U.N. Conference on Human Habitats, Vancouver, 1976)
Any American who fails to find this declaration disgusting, should spend some time reviewing this nation’s founding documents. One of the primary functions of government, originally, was to protect the property of private citizens – including land. Thomas Jefferson promised, in his fifth State of the Nation address in 1806, to:
… exert my best endeavors to administer faithfully the executive department, and will zealously cooperate with you in every measure which may tend to secure the liberty, property and personal safety of our fellow citizens. …
No more. Now, the executive branch, the legislative branch and even state governments consider land, and the resources it contains, to be subject to government control, while the duty and privilege of paying taxes remains with the deed holder.
The people who agree with Jefferson, Adams, Madison and the other founders of this nation will be outraged should they read HB 422, introduced into the Illinois State Legislature. The author of this bill has no intention of securing the “liberty, property and personal safety” of his fellow citizens. It’s also pretty certain the author has no understanding of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says “… nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
HB 422 – An Act Concerning Wetlands – begins with the assumption that “wetlands” are public property, with no hint of an obligation to compensate the owners, whose use is categorically denied – unless the state issues a permit.
According to our founders, if the state (government) takes land from an individual, the state owes the individual compensation. According to HB 422, the individual is denied use of land the state says is a wetland, and to gain the privilege of using his own land, the owner must “mitigate” – that is, pay the state – up to five times more than the value of the land he wishes to use.
If the Constitutional principles of freedom were applied, it would be the other way around. The state would say: “Sir, we don’t want you to use this land, because it will benefit the public if left in its natural condition. Therefore, we are going to give you an equal quantity of land elsewhere for your use, or the equivalent value in cash.”
Environmental organizations have countered this argument with the asinine, but catchy, slogan, “Compensation to the landowner is paying the polluter to pollute.” Should a landowner’s use of his own land damage a neighbor, or “pollute,” there are ample legal remedies on the books. This argument, in no way, reduces the state’s obligation to compensate the owner of property taken by the state.
Another cutesy argument is that “the land has not been taken, only the use of it.” Those who advance this stupid argument would surely be willing to give up the keys to their car while being forced to continue making the payments, insurance and tag fees.
This horrible law authorizes “compliance cops,” state employees who are free to tromp on private property to see if landowners are in compliance. It provides an appeal process – to the same agency that issues permits, and it places the burden of proof on the landowner if the landowner chooses to take the state to court over its decision. It also provides up to $10,000 per day in fines for anyone found in violation.
Illinois is not unique in this theft of private property. The federal government and virtually every state have even worse laws on the books. The fact is the U.N.’s 1976 declaration “Public control of land use is therefore indispensable” has replaced the principles of freedom guaranteed by our Constitution, and it has been done by government employees and environmental organizations with the consent, or indifference, of our elected officials.
There can be no freedom without private property; there is no such thing as private property, the use of which is controlled by government. This policy transforms the meaning of the word “owner,” to “tenant.”
The people in Illinois can still reject this atrocious legislative straitjacket, by insisting that the bill be defeated. The rest of the country has a much more difficult task; undoing what the radical land-use-control advocates have done over the last two decades.
We need a whole new crop of founders.
