THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VI, Issue # 85, April 28, 2004
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
GOVERNMENT ACTION CLOSING LAND TO DEVELOPMENT:
CONSERVATION OR CONFISCATION?
By Alan Caruba
FULL STORY:
In April, the New Jersey Builders Association finally managed to muster an attack on proposed state legislation whose purpose it
is said is to “conserve” a wide swath of northern New Jersey called the Highlands.
In Congress, there’s also a proposed Highlands Conservation Act (H.R. 1964 & S.999) that would give more than a $100 million to
the governors of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey for the same purpose. States are invited to identify land in
the two million acre Highlands region that would be put under the control of government, thus effectively destroying the rights of
private property owners in those states. This naked land grab hides behind claims of preserving clean drinking water, wildlife
habitat, and endangered species.
There is a parallel piece of proposed legislation in Congress designed to conserve and “protect” what are called “National Heritage
Areas.” It would give the federal government, in cooperation with various environmental groups, power over privately owned lands
by designating vaguely defined National Heritage Areas (NHAs). Though the National Park Service denies it would affect the
rights of the private property owners, the property owners, at any time in the future, could find themselves subject to intense
pressure to sell.
The New Jersey Highlands plan would create a “regional council” with veto power over large-scale development in about half the
region that stretches across seven northwestern counties and contains the water supply for half the state’s residents. What no
one will admit, however, is that the regional council will be composed of handpicked tree-huggers.
“From Day 1, this administration has had a policy of no growth, anti-housing, and regulations intended to deny modest and
middle-income families a place to live,” said Patrick O’Keefe, the builder’s chief executive officer. This legislation will be the scene
of a now-classic battle between environmentalists and many, if not, all of the mayors and other elected offices across the region.
The latter will argue that, without development, their local economies will be affected, driving up their need to impose higher
property taxes, and the former will say that the water supply must be protected.
O’Keefe answers the Greens, saying that water argument is specious because new environmental regulations already protect the
water supply. Anyone who has ever tried to buy or sell a home in New Jersey knows that environmental regulations and
concerns play a large role in that transaction.
In mid-April, alerted to the danger, more than six hundred people from Morris County, New Jersey, showed up at legislative
hearing, some wearing t-shirts saying, “Don’t Steal My Land” and “Where Will The Families Live?” This is at the heart of what
is happening. John Barba, President of the New Jersey Builders Association, said, “There are 100,000 young adults living in the
Highlands, the grown children of Highlands families. Where will they work and live? They’ll have two choices, live in their
parent’s homes or leave the area.”
Governor James E. McGreevey, a Democrat, is already one of the least popular governors ever elected, with the exception of
James Florio, also a Democrat, who was voted out of office after one term for imposing a huge tax increase on everyone and
embracing every environmental restriction imaginable.
At the federal level, the National Park Service, already acknowledged as doing a poor job managing vast tracks of federal land,
is advocating the passage of the National Heritage Areas Act, which would partner the NPS with state and local entities. Already
twenty-four NHA’s encompassing 160,000 square miles of mostly privately owned lands have been created since 1984.
As Cheryl Chumley of the American Policy Center, an activist think tank, points out, the entire State of Tennessee has been
designated a NHA. “Since November 12, 1996, taxpayers from every other state help preserve the ‘national significance’ of
Tennessee to the tune of $10 million, spread over a 13-year period.” It’s that term, “national significance,” on which the
entire NHA scheme hangs, and it literally means anything anyone at the NPS or any environmentalist wants it to mean.
As the General Accounting Office warns, “No systematic process is in place to identify qualified candidate sites and
designate them as National Heritage Areas.” So, for the sake of argument, let’s say your home or farm is in one. Will the
U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment actually protect you when someone from the government or a private environmental
group shows up and tells you that they want to buy it in order to provide “a viewshed”, i.e., a nice view from the highway,
minus your home and everybody else’s?
The socalled private property owner’s protections in the proposed NHA legislation may look good on paper, but there is no
provision for even telling people a NHA is proposed where they live. As Chumley notes, “The Founders did not intend that
property rights be traded among special interest and government groups at whim, but are rather to be protected by the U.S.
Constitution against the grasp of radical Greens and pandering politicians.”
That is the problem with the NHAs and with the proposed regional council in New Jersey which would, for all practical
purposes, control the fate of all existing privately owned property in the Highlands area and insure that no new homes,
apartment complexes, or business enterprises be built.
The Fifth Amendment says “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” By designating
large tracts of land as “protected” for whatever reason, the rights of the private property owners and the value of their land
falls into the hands of people who want to return their property to a state of wilderness to be enjoyed by wild life.
The Highlands Conservation Act and the National Heritage Areas Act are nothing more than government confiscation in the
name of socalled conservation. The Federal government owns more than forty percent of the landmass of the nation. States
also own large portions. The population, however, is growing and they have to live somewhere. If it were up to the Greens,
everyone would be squeezed into cities. They hate suburbs because they hate cars, but mostly they hate private property.
All this is going on in various guises at the federal to the state level, cooperating with land hungry environmental
organizations, many of which have millions of dollars at their disposal. Should the government match their funds with public
dollars? No. Should regional councils or National Heritage Areas determine the use of private property? No. Should
government be able to abrogate the rights of private property owners? No. Should you be paying more attention to what’s
going on? Yes.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Alan Caruba is a veteran business and science writer, a Public Relations Counselor, Communications Director of the American Policy Center,
and Founder of the National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about media-driven scare campaigns. Caruba writes a weekly
column, "Warning Signs," posted on the Internet website of the National Anxiety Center
(www.anxietycenter.com). A compilation of his past col- umns, entitled Warning Signs, is published by Merril Press. In addition
to Warning Signs, Caruba is the author of A Pocket Guide to Militant Islam and The United Nations vs. the United States,
both of which are available from the National Anxiety Center, 9 Brookside Road, Maplewood, New Jersey, 07040.
Copyright 2004 Alan Caruba
Published with Permission of Alan Caruba
ACaruba@AOL.Com
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VI, 2004
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights, Page Two
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights, Page One
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy