Board of Supervisors’ land grab

November 12, 2012

Opinion by TOM and ELSA DAWSON

The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors is at it again. They appear to be pushing through as many fee increases (read higher taxes) limiting use of private property and slowing economic growth and job creation by intruding with more and more regulations, permits, and ordinances on every hand.

These are just a few of the many changes being forced on our county motivated by the United Nation’s Agenda 21.

On November 13, at 1:30 p.m., the Board of Supervisors will vote on the ag cluster subdivision ordinance which currently says land owners may, with great difficulty, separate off 100 foot by 100 foot lots (or larger) for up to 5 percent of their ag zoned property. This would be for the purpose of building homes for aging parents or children. The land owner could also sell the lots in order to finance an agricultural business venture such as a wine tasting or olive oil tasting facility. Varian Ranch is an example.

Another cumbersome rule requires a land owner to set aside the remaining 95 percent of their property for ag use or open space only, regardless of changes in the economy. A rancher or farmer may need to implement a different kind of business in order to survive and to keep his employees working. This ordinance kills those possibilities.

The proposed changes would eliminate the owners’ abilities for even making application for an ag cluster subdivision, excluding 998,674 acres from consideration. Currently, property within five air miles of population centers may apply for subdivision. The new ordinance will slice this down to two road miles, a severe loss of property use and rights. Many other restrictions, too numerous and complicated to write about here will be imposed.

The Board of Supervisors has not given sufficient notice; they published a vague paragraph written in “legalese” that very few people can understand.

The Board should be sending notice to all affected property owners by mail since the action so profoundly limits their property rights. This ordinance change amplifies old restrictions and contains many new serious restrictions on property use for no apparent reason. Not only should the public be informed of these issues through media outlets, they should also have sufficient time to research and debate, giving voice to their opinions.

The afternoon of November 13th, at 1:30 PM, we have an opportunity to come to the Board meeting and exercise civic responsibility. We must resist the enviro-socialist juggernaut, which will eventually destroy all property rights. If we want to change the direction of the “smart-growth” land grab, we must show up and tell our Board that we oppose this subdivision change.

 


33 Comments

  1. The Gimlet Eye says:

    Portland, Oregon: City administrators are trying to eliminate the use of automobiles (except for themselves) by limiting parking spaces, a trend that is underway across the country.

    [For example, a permit was issued to build an 81-unit apartment with no parking spaces. This already has happened in many countries in Europe where permits cost a fortune and there are few parking places. The article fails to mention that this is part of the UN's Agenda 21, which is a blueprint for getting people out of the countryside, where they can be fairly independent, and crowded into cities, where they more easily can be monitored and controlled.]

    Oregon Live Posted 2013 Mar 23

    http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/03/portlands_approach_to_no-parki.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. stopagenda21 says:

    Allodial Title
    Allodial – “Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal.”

    Allodial Title is the heart and sole of the construct of the United States of America. This is how you hold title to your land, free and clear of any taxes or encumbrances. The government cannot come onto your land, you are sovereign on your land. Imagine owning land where you knew, if all went wrong, you could at least go and grow vegetables and survive – this is what the USA is meant to be.

    Following the fraud of the Federal Reserve Banking Act and the owners of that bank causing World War One and the Great Depression and the bankruptcy of the USA, banksters deceptively eliminated Allodial title and the heart of the USA was torn out.

    It comes as a shock when you realize that you do not own what you thought you owned.
    Go to the Bureau of Land Management to find out who owns your land.

    In the Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolutionary war, the American people were given their lands in “Allodial Title”. Citizens owned all the property free and clear. At some point the U.S. government returned the country to the feudal system of property ownership, forcing an obligation to pay duties / tax.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8

    • Structure says:

      Too bad about those pesky externalities. It was so much more pleasant when one could just externalize all the negatives on others.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  3. grayotter says:

    I came here because this is SLOw County. We don’t need the excessive growth of Big Cities, with Big
    Malls, insane parking lots and crowded freeways. I grew up in Carpinteria. Now it is becoming an
    extension of Los Angeles! Where does it stop? I ‘m hoping here! Those investors with Big $$$ Signs in
    their eyes when they moved here should go back home to the Big Cities where they came from and stay
    there. This county doesn’t need to continue to be polluted by excessive growth! I may be accused of
    being greedy because I live in a wonderful place and am not willing to share it, but look at Los Angeles,
    Orange County, San Fernando Valley, Bakersfield, Fresno, etc. In my lifetime Los Angeles and Orange County never had smog or crowded roads. San Fernando had lots of horse ranches. Bakersfield and Fresno were small comfortable communities…At o e time the residents of these areas said, “Not in my backyard. I don’t want anymore growth!” They lost! Look at them now. Are you willing to accept that crap! If so, go back to where you came from. SLOw County does ‘t need you!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 18

    • racket says:

      Interesting perspective.

      Are you willing to pay to keep things the way they were when you got here; or are you going to use politicians to make people like the Dawsons underwrite your desires?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 13

    • pasoman says:

      Dear Grayotter,

      You are a classic example of the problems we face; loss of our property rights! Oh, BTW, please do us a favor and tell us how you earn(ed) your money to live here, or are you retired, if so from what job?

      Your attitude is ABSOLUTELY typical of people who move here, “I’m here now close the door behind me and don’t let anyone else come in”. Can’t you see how ridiculous that attitude is? Those of us who’s families have been here for generations don’t mind you coming up here. But please leave that sophomoric attitude of close the door behind me back where you came from.

      Look. If we own pieces of property that aren’t big enough to make a living from, why do you deny us the right to use it for the highest and best use? That being building homes so you, and your friends, can move here. Why do you think we can afford to keep our property in open space for you to enjoy at no cost to you? You want open space? How about buying it?

      You and people like you need to think of someone other than yourselves. Thinking of others first, that’s the original SLO County attitude. Not your “close the door behind me” attitude you brought with you.

      One last question… How did the house you live get built? With attitudes like yours? Surely not. Lol

      This newcomer attitude is truly pitiful. Truly pitiful and selfish!

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2

  4. justme says:

    Ultimate global control through the guise of “environmental-conservation”. “They” will decide who mines, drills for oil, logs, builds what, when and where. Ultimate control of the world’s resources by some central power center somewhere. Technically they will own all resources.
    The coming Amero, the Euro,the merging of Mexico, U.S. and Canada, chips implanted in people, no privately owned guns anywhere in the world, etc.
    It’s not a land grab, it’s a world grab.
    Again, follow the money, nothing happens w/o financing. B-A-N-K-S-T-E-R-S again and always.

    Who do you fight? Our own sons in uniform out in front of our own homes?
    End the FED(S).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 12

  5. Californiadiver says:

    Agenda 21 is voluntary and nonbinding.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12

    • zaphod says:

      Inside agenda21

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7

      • Californiadiver says:

        Thanks for that link. It clears things up.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    • stopagenda21 says:

      Voluntary and nonbinding until it’s radified by the senate

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      • zaphod says:

        Why do you hate our democracy?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        • stopagenda21 says:

          zaphod
          I guess I could ask you the same question. The problem here is out of control regulation. Agenda 21 is bad for America.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

          • zaphod says:

            if it ratified by our legislative process, that is good enough for me I like democracy . not perfect but better then the alternative eh?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    • Citizen says:

      If the US Senate approves the Agenda 21 proposals as treaties, then they will no longer be voluntary or nonbinding.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  6. stopagenda21 says:

    Good Luck

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

  7. racket says:

    Dude:

    You’re outnumbered. There’s 272,000 people in SLO County. There’s maybe 1000 who own real estate affected by this. The 271,000 “non stakeholders” can take whatever they want from you. Sorry.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 24

    • racket says:

      The premise is exactly the same as taxing the rich:

      There are few “rich.” There are many many “others.” It’s the will of the people take from the rich and give to themselves.

      Same thing is going on with the Dawsons.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 11

    • pasowino says:

      I don’t think anyone is taking anything. Property owners will still own their land. Property owners will still be able to continue to use their land for ag purposes. It doesn’t make environmental sense to allow all these “clusters” so far away from the cities limits. I realize that this will eliminate an income opportunity for the impacted land owners. The problem is that with every home that far out of town now requires additional fire protection, additional sheriff patrols, additional wear and tear on roads, additional pollution from 2 SUVs per home driving back and forth to town for work, kids, shopping everyday. The traffic alone probably has unintended consequences where stops signs have to be replaced by traffic signals, etc, etc.

      As a land owner, albiet, not effected by this potential ruling, I can appreciate where the landowners are coming from, but I didn’t buy my land to subdivide it and sell it off to make a profit at the expense of the environment. I’m not accusing the Dawsons of malicious intent (most certainly unlikely), but intended or not, the reality is this is not smart growth, unless we don’t care about the environment and preserving our ag land. Don’t forget that Thousand Oaks used to be farm land. Sunnyvale was all oranges. Now look at them.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 17

      • racket says:

        Absolutely they are taking something. They are taking an “ability” that used to reside with the Dawsons, and claiming as their own in the name of the public good.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 10

        • pasowino says:

          You’re right, but we’ve had many abilities taken for the benefit of the public good. That’s the key…public good. I used to be able to spray DDT, I used to be able to pour used motor oil down a gopher hole, I used to be able to throw car batteries in the trash, I used to be able burn my trash… You get the point. Sometimes, to benefit the well-being of the public/environment, the government has to step in. I hated the idea of having to wear a helmet when on a motorcycle, but it’s a smart thing to do and it saves lives. I get it (now).

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 12

          • racket says:

            All good points.

            My point is that the public (at least those that believe Smart Growth is a good thing) gets the bennie, and the Dawsons pay for the bennie. If I were the Dawsons I too would cry foul. Is it fair for them to pay to further our agenda?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12

  8. shelworth says:

    Too bad it’s what the majority wants. Soon there will be no private property, (as it is considered now) to worry about. People laugh at the little baby steps that take away our freedoms, (such as the trans fat ban or limiting soda to 16 oz), or the coming United Nation ban on our right to bear arms. But every little step brings us closer to the inevitable end; total loss of all freedom. Saying “I told you so” when it happens will be a very small consolation to me.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 42 Thumb down 15

    • pasoman says:

      It’s like the old story goes… Put the frog in hot water, he jumps out. Put the frog in cold water and slowly raise the temperature, he gets cooked.

      I think we’re cooked! And we’re out number by these people who moved up here from down south.

      Stick a fork in us we’re done….

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

  9. kelleyred says:

    CEQA was signed by Gov. R. Reagan and the original intent to include the Environment as part of the thinking in the physical development of your community. The “E” in CEQA is an actual list and that list is an ever growing laundry list of items like Noise, Public Service, Service Systems, Greenhouse Gases, etc. So when they say that new Ag Cluster doesn’t significantly affect CEQA all they mean is that it doesn’t impact their LIST. SO WHAT. It impacts the LIFE and CHOICES of people who property. That of course, is not on their LIST. The Dawson’s have it right. We must resists enviro-socialist juggernaut.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 37 Thumb down 11

    • pasoman says:

      CEQA has now become an excuse/tool for stopping growth. There is NO problem technology can’t solve, but we can’t seem to stop a minority of “progressives” from stopping our progress.

      Ironic isn’t it? “Progressives” against change?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

Comments are closed.