Thread: Viewsheds: More Government Intervention Into Private Property Rights

October 24, 2012 by Cheryl Pass
Viewsheds: More Government Intervention Into Private Property Rights

The concept of “viewsheds” is a bit of a dilemma. All things being subjective in the the realm of aesthetics, your idea of a “viewshed” might be different than mine. No one wants to look at an eyesore, but your eyesore might be my gemstone, or my livelihood. I’m all for beautiful vistas and scenic enjoyment. However, I’m all for private property rights. So how does one combine those two things and come up with a coherent policy that is good for all? Common sense would prevail, or one would hope so.The concept of “Viewsheds” is new to American jargon. Merriam Webster Dictionary defined as: “The natural environment that is visable from one or more viewing points.” It’s first known use was in 1981.
My how justification expands quickly in today’s environmentalists’ methods and ideology. The Urban Dictionary states:

“A viewshed is an area of land, water, or other environmental element that is visible to the human eye from a fixed vantage point. The term is used widely in such areas as urban planning, archaeology, and military science. In urban planning, for example, viewsheds tend to be areas of particular scenic or historic value that are deemed worthy of preservation against development or other change. Viewsheds are often spaces that are readily visible from public areas such as from public roadways, public parks or high-rise buildings. The preservation of viewsheds is frequently a goal in the designation of open space areas, green belts, and community separators.”

Isn’t that nice? From 1981 to 2011, thirty years, someone’s idea of expanding land use controls that have nothing to do with private property rights has blossomed into an entire philosophy of radical land usurpation for the sake of “Views.”
For purposes of illustration I came across a document describing the dilemma regarding Thomas Jefferson’s home, Monticello, in Charlottesville, VA. I’ve been there. I loved it. It was wonderful to see it and learn from it. But the area now has a “Comprehensive Land Use Plan.” And Monticello has a foundation to advocate for its preservation.
The view from Monticello to the east and the south overlook a vast piedmont landscape into Fluvanna County. A power plant was planned for construction in that area. This power plant involved natural gas and would connect with the national power grid. The power plant would benefit a lot of people.

“The Foundation responded that the lights and the plumes atop those smokestacks could be visible from Monticello. “Depending on the weather sometimes you can see 50 miles from the hilltop. In a rural area, eight or 10 miles is in the neighborhood.”

If I read that right, The Monticello Foundation wants to control all of the land within 50 miles of eyesight from Monticello. 50 miles of land for the purpose of scenic views. The article also refers to yet another environmental designation attaching to another new Federal idea called the Rural Historic District. RHD. The RHD means more layers of regulation of land use. Well, if you look at all of the land left in the country that is not under the control of cities, you could just put all rural land under an RHD. After all, could you not make the case that the entire country is a RHD? It was historically all rural at one point. But I digress.
We have a similar situation arising here in Gaston County. There is a State Park at Crowders Mountain, from which, once climbing to the top, you can see for miles. In fact you can see all the way to Charlotte, NC on a clear day. Now the environmentalist lobby is trying to keep development out of the line of sight from any viewing position on Crowders Mountain. How many miles should be kept out of development for the sake of the “Viewsheds?” The question of Crowders Mountain “Viewshed” is not yet settled, but the wording in “Vision” plans is clear. “Viewsheds” are to be taken into consideration and given priority over development. Check your local “Vision Plan” and you will find it so.
I guess the amazing thing to me is that once the environmentalists in America realized they could trash property rights by controlling the use of land, they then figured out they could expand that control by demanding “Viewshed” rights. There is no end in sight to their environmental fanaticism. Pun intended.
I’m not sure I have a good solution. Perhaps one should limit the distance of “view” in question. How far should “view” rights extend? If you own a residence in a “scenic” community, can you not just claim “View” rights based on the RHD and demand all other comers take a back seat to your new “government granted rights” that, by the way, are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution? Then again, when it is truly historical, such as Monticello or Mt. Vernon, or Gettysburg, what is reasonable? Is your “view” a right?
Welcome to the new Amerika, where rights are granted by government and special interest groups, instead of the rights granted by our Creator.
Editor’s Note: This article is part three in a series. Click here to read Part 1. Click here to read Part 2.

Read more: Viewsheds: More Government Intervention Into Private Property Rights

Viewsheds: More Government Intervention Into Private Property Rights

October 24, 2012 by Cheryl Pass
The Audacity of Illegal Land Confiscation

The more I look, the more I see, the more I read, the more I learn, the more I lament the sorry state of American freedoms.Not at a snail’s pace, walking trails called greenways are now taking private property at breakneck speed. Thousands of acres of land are being taken out of the hands of private property owners every day in this country for the ubiquitous, albeit unfounded, idea that Americans need more nature walks to traverse.

This story is an example of a Tennessee home owner’s land is threatened by greenway:

RUTHERFORD COUNTY, Tenn. – One man’s home he built himself nearly 30 years ago is in jeopardy. It’s not due to neglect or financial issues, but to make way for a greenway.
In 27 years, David McCurry said he turned what was a junk yard into his family’s paradise.

Recent plans of a greenway coming through his nearly five acres of land, leaves him wondering what will happen to his peaceful paradise just outside the city limits of Murfreesboro.

Here is another example:

Annette and Marvin Bartlett were not happy when they learned Farragut plans to build a greenway through the seven-acre property family members have lived on for almost 50 years.
“They cut down mature trees, pave a path like an airstrip right through your front yard and call it a greenway,” Annette Bartlett said.

After talking with an alderman about their concerns, however, they learned a greenway is just the beginning.
The town’s decision to locate the path on their property was based on expectations that some day, the land will be subdivided and developed.

I point these out because it is becoming all too common. The city council where I live has adopted the anti-private property rights initiative of establishing greenways. The council has come at this from no less than three directions…maybe four. The first was signing an agreement with something called the “Carolina Thread Trail.” The second was adopting a “Vision Plan” that specifically identifies the addition of greenways as a goal of the city. The third is coordination with the transportation committee called the MPO (Municipal Planning Organization), which is proposing to divert transportation money away from roads and into the building of…you guessed it…greenways. The fourth is attachment to something called a Regional Government. In our case it is called the Centralina Council of Governments whose stated goal is to implement Smart Growth. Smart Growth proposes greenways and open spaces to be part of any planning goals.

Let’s say you rescind one or two of those agreements, you are still stuck with the others. One way or another, greenways will be put in place usurping the private property rights of many to serve the few, using our tax system by purchase or by incentives or by eminent domain to take land from those who have worked to own it and paid property taxes for the privilege. If they can’t get you through the utopian goals of the “Vision Plan,” they’ll come at you through the transportation planning department. If they can’t get you there, they will refuse grants from the Regional Government. And if they can’t get you on that one, they’ll sue you for not implementing your agreement with the Thread Trail.

So, what is a citizen to do? Our local tea party is looking for council members who will rescind all agreements with Trails orgs. and who will rescind the Vision Plan. We are looking for council members who will stand up to the MPO and tell them our transportation money is not to be used for greenways and bike trails except in areas that are already owned by government. We are looking for council members who are familiar with the Constitutional rights to own private property and who define property rights as a top priority for our local government.

Who wants to live in a place where the government can step in for the sake of a walking trail to take your property? The audacity of government officials who would define the common good as an excuse for taking private property for a walking trail is beyond reprehensible. And I would note that these greenways never cross the private property of city council members, county commissioners, or the select few who are chosen to sit on the ridiculous “stakeholder” councils. The audacity is stinking to high heaven. Yes, that heaven where our rights are derived.

Who are the citizens who think it is their right to traipse across someone’s private property? Those who think this, for their mistaken idea of some altruistic sake of commiserating with nature, should be candidates for trespassing fines and arrest. Instead, we have councils promoting obsequious cooperation from all around them to literally slap private property owners in the face. Other property owners…not themselves, of course.

Not satisfied with just greenway land, audacity leapt bounds even further in this Oregon law where government can and will take Scenic easements. Scenic easements are also called Viewsheds. In other words, they want views and scenery to surround their greenways and trails. So if your land just happens to be within viewing distance, your house or structures might offend the utopian connoisseurs of nature. We can’t have that, now can we? The word “viewsheds” can be found in our local plans as well.

Here is an excerpt from this law:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, after the date of the approval of the plan for the Willamette River Greenway or any segment thereof under ORS 390.322 (Submission of plan to Land Conservation and Development Commission), the State Parks and Recreation Department may acquire scenic easements in any lands described in such plan or segment pursuant to ORS 390.318 (Preparation of development and management plan). Each such easement may be acquired by any means, including but not limited to the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

Audacity of illegal land confiscation: It seems to be contagious.

Read more: The Audacity of Illegal Land Confiscation