-->
Search the ArchivesNavigationContact InformationThe Citizen Newspapers For Advertising Information Email us your news! For technical difficulties |
Westmoreland supports bill that will gut local land use and zoning restrictionsTue, 10/03/2006 - 4:13pm
By: Letters to the ...
U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland has gained a lot of attention for his lack of intensity on solving the nation’s problems, meddling in local affairs with the TDK Extension, and for receiving campaign funding from the TDK landowners at the same time. However, you will be even more surprised that Rep. Westmoreland is supporting the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006 (H.R. 4772). Now on the face of things, the name of this act implies something of a virtuous nature which protects the average citizen from government abuses. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rep. Westmoreland, in the development business himself, is supporting a land speculation and development tumult, free of state and local regulations. H.R. 4772 is designed to crush the ability of state and local governments to apply reasonable planning standards in their jurisdictions. The main supporters of this legislative perk are real estate developers and construction association advocates. The measure is designed to eliminate local zoning power by bypassing local and state courts and going directly to the federal courts, thus circumventing any actions under the color of state law. So much for “home rule” and allowing cities, counties and states to shape their communities in a manner deemed beneficial by their constituents at the local level. House Report 109-658 states the need for the legislation as follows, “[H.R. 4772] would allow property owners raising solely federal takings claims to have their cases decided in federal court without first pursuing a litigation detour in State court.” In laymen’s speak, this means local developers are having problems force-feeding their proposed developments (not meeting local planning standards) into local communities. Therefore, H.R. 4772 will dodge local planning and zoning standards predicated on local and state law, and federalize all such claims. Why would anyone be in favor of bypassing local planning standards and creating a federal system to dictate the character and design of local communities? Here is a possible H.R. 4772 scenario. A large developer wants to build a large industrial site on land (zoned for residential purposes) adjacent to a public school and some neighborhoods. The local government determines that the proposed use for development is not consistent with local planning standards and the comprehensive plan. In an H.R. 4772 environment, the developer/landowner bypasses all local and state courts and files a “takings” claim in federal court. It is then left up to a federal court to impose a ruling upon the local jurisdiction without considering local or state law designed to promote reasonable use, adequate infrastructure and ordered future growth. In the example, if the developer offered the landowner $20 million for his property and the federal courts rule in their favor, the local jurisdiction either has to allow them to build or pay them 20 million taxpayer dollars for the land. Obviously, because of the costs associated with purchasing the land, the local government, most likely, would allow them to build whatever they wanted regardless of what is in the community’s best interests. H.R. 4772 gives communities across the country a reason to worry. Please defend the ability of local communities to control their land planning without federal manipulation. Write Rep. Westmoreland and tell him you don’t want a federal judge controlling the character of your community. (U.S. Representative Lynn Westmoreland; 1601-B East Highway 34; Newnan, Georgia 30265; fax: 770-683-2042.) Federally dictated over development and traffic congestion is not the answer. Steve Brown Brown is the former mayor of Peachtree City. The Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006 has passed the House 231-181. Rep. Westmoreland voted in favor of the act. login to post comments |