Citizens For Private Property Rights
(970 Members)
P.O. Box 441
Santa Ysabel, California 92070
760-789-2534February 15, 2004
Rural Lands Initiative
The Power To Control Land -- Is The Power To Control People
The Rural Lands Initiative on the March 2, 2004 Ballot is repugnant, obnoxious, and inimical to the principals of government under which we live. That the San Diego City Council majority, trying to become the most anti-property rights council in history endorses it -- is obscene.
On CNN's Crossfire Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club stated, "When you buy land in this country, you buy the right to own it, not the right to use it ...That's what the Constitution says." When the United Nations 134-nation Habitat Conference adopted a Resolution stating, "private ownership of land contributes to social injustice and public control of land use is therefore indispensable," many people dismissed it as just so much Socialist rant.
The Rural Lands Initiative (endorsed by the Sierra Club) marries the Sierra Club's interpretation of the Constitution to the United Nation's distaste for private property and brings it to San Diego. This Initiative is Duncan McFetridge and SOFAR's (Save Our Forests & Ranch Lands) second attempt in 5 years to control other people's property in San Diego. Duncan McFetridge owns neither farm, forest nor ranch but this doesn't stop him from wanting to "save" every one of them not only from their present owners but also the rest of us.
This is not fiddle-faddle. Almost 700,000 acres of land are to be "protected," in effect, socialized. Under the Initiative, a majority vote of the community, all the registered voters in San Diego County, would be required before any of these 700,000 acres could be developed. A bar so high it constitutes the kiss of death upon rural property owners. The Initiative unfairly
allows 85% of the voters who live in cities, to vote away the property rights of 15% of property owners living in outlying communities. This is like forcing you, before you can add a room addition on to your home, to get the approval of all the voters of San Diego County.
If adopted, this initiative will squeeze as many people as possible into existing neighborhoods through increased housing densities, create greater traffic congestion, require expensive mass transit, and higher taxes, as its supporters promote the Los Angelization of each of the 18 cities within San Diego County. All under the guise of "saving the land" (coincidentally, while preventing new construction in the areas in which they live).
To thinking people it's obvious that the best way to reduce overcrowding in our neighborhoods and traffic congestion on our freeways is to disperse low density development away from the cities. Disperse housing -- don't jam it all together even though in some places infilling may be appropriate. All of us should have the freedom to choose where and how we want to live,
as long as we're willing to pay for it.
The power to control growth, the power to control land -- is the power to control people. Growth is people! Just what do you think Duncan McFetridge, his cohorts and others mean by controlling growth? First you innocently establish a precedent in the forests and outlying areas under the guise of "protecting" other people's lands and then inexorably creep towards the cities to control ever more land and people. Individual freedom cannot exist without private property and it is private property ownership that has proven to be the catalyst for human creativity, prosperity and happiness. What's at stake is not so much an economic issue as it is a moral imperative of individual freedom. It's self-evident that the zealots who are promoting the Rural Lands Initiative do not believe in private property. They ache to control where other people will live, work and play. This is reprehensible.
Pause for just a second and you realize that if new homes are prohibited or severely restricted on 700,000 acres in outlying areas, more people must be crowded into urban neighborhoods, your neighborhood, along with the traffic congestion that follows.
Don't be honeyfuggled, VOTE NO on Prop. A --The Rural Lands Initiative!
Fred Schnaubelt, Chairman 2004 (619) 280-2082
