For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
—Ephesians 6:12

EW Jackson, a black conservative and the Virginia GOP’s 2013 nominee for Lieutenant Governor, is under siege from the demonic hellhounds of the left.

An unabashed Christian and a fiery orator, Jackson took the state GOP Convention by storm, Saturday, with a speech so powerful that it instantly converted hundreds, if not thousands of undecided and pre-decided convention attendees.

Defying all odds and embarrassing most pundits, EW Jackson won—handily, decisively, and in spite of opponents’ desperate and dirty campaign trickery.

Immediately upon victory, though, Jackson became the target of vicious Progressive disdain.

Democrat Senator Ralph Northam, himself a 2013 candidate for Lieutenant Governor, characterized the pro-life Jackson as having an “extreme social agenda” and damned him for being a threat to “women’s health.”

Yet, Northam—an MD who practices pediatric neurology at Norfolk’s Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters—is a reliable vote for the pro-death, Planned Parenthood lobby and repeatedly uses the Orwellian “women’s reproductive rights” as a euphemism for infanticide.

Northam was not alone.

In an attempted hit piece on the GOP nominee, The Huffington Post portrays as outrageous Jackson’s comparison and contrast of the KKK to Planned Parenthood:

“The Democrat Party has created an unholy alliance between certain so-called civil rights leaders and Planned Parenthood, which has killed unborn black babies by the tens of millions. Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was. And the Democrat Party and the black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide.”

But Jackson is correct. Planned Parenthood, an organization lauded by Democrats from Barack Obama on down, was born of racial evil, and today continues its hideous, decades-long mission of eradication.

Who is extreme, Dr. Northam?

Who is outrageous, Huffington Post?

• The party that in 2012 shamefully kicked God from their platform because they could no longer reconcile their extreme secularism with His Truth.
• The party that embraces the wholesale slaughter of unborn children (future men and women) under the deceptive banner of “women’s health.”
• The party that enslaves people to the government plantation in the name of compassion, robbing them of dignity and freedom, all in the name of political power.

That is, the Democrat Party.

So let it begin. The left’s spiritual battle against EW Jackson was a fait accompli and will intensify in ferocity as November draws near. Democrats have exchanged the Truth for a lie in their hellish pursuit of Mr. Jackson—because what (and especially Who) he represents, threatens their very being.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
—Isaiah 5:20

“The General Assembly, recognizing that our system of representative government is dependent in part upon (i) citizen legislative members representing fully the public in the legislative process and (ii) its citizens maintaining the highest trust in their public officers and employees, finds and declares that the citizens are entitled to be assured that the judgment of public officers and employees will be guided by a law that defines and prohibits inappropriate conflicts and requires disclosure of economic interests. To that end and for the purpose of establishing a single body of law applicable to all state and local government officers and employees on the subject of conflict of interests, the General Assembly enacts this State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act so that the standards of conduct for such officers and employees may be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.” These are the words of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act of which was passed in 2003.  [emphasis added]

The government appointed Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT)—which recommends public funding allocations for private non-profits in Albemarle County and Charlottesville—is a chronically conflicted body. In reviewing the appropriation of County and City tax dollars, the above referenced Conflict of Interests Act sheds new and damning light on the ABRT reports and recommendations over the past several years. In short, if you are an ABRT member or an elected/government official, chances are good that the non-profit organization with which you are affiliated will receive public funding.

This year alone, the Agency Budget Review Team recommended nearly $1,000,000 to line the coffers of organizations directly or peripherally associated with sitting ABRT members. The chart below shows that of 18 total ABRT members, 8 at the very minimum appear to be either board of director members or employees (or in one case, a recent past employee) of the very non-profit organizations for which ABRT recommended funding.

The Fiscal Year 2014 Funding for Community Agencies report, page 5, delineates the ABRT: “The team consisted of 11 citizen members, the United Way-TJA President, a representative of the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation, the Charlottesville Assistant City Manager and the Charlottesville Director of the Human Services.”

Without shame or apparent concern, Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville governments are highlighting the fact that some of their ABRT members consist of beneficiary non-profit organization members as well as those in the employ of the government itself.

Charlottesville’s Vice Mayor, Kristin Szakos is deeply entangled in the ABRT scandal, as well. Her husband, Joe Szakos, is the Executive Director of left-wing political activist group, Virginia Organizing. Szakos voted affirmatively in recommending $17,500 to her husband’s non-profit organization, from which he receives compensation in excess of $10,000 per year (according to her Schedule H-2 Statement of Economic Interests). County ABRT cronies also voted to fund Virginia Organizing an additional $4000.

Sadly, Kristin Szakos is not the lone nest-featherer in Charlottesville City Hall. Mayor Satyendra Huja is on the Board of Directors at Piedmont Housing Alliance and they were recommended to receive $96,906 from City taxpayers as well as another $34,500 Albemarle County tax dollars. Huja voted in favor of the city budget that contained the funding request. And like his Vice Mayor, Kristin Szakos, Huja did not abstain from voting when he clearly should have.

The State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act specifically references:

§ 2.2-3109. Prohibited contracts by other officers and employees of local governmental agencies.

A. No other officer or employee of any governmental agency of local government shall have a personal interest in a contract with the agency of which he is an officer or employee other than his own contract of employment.

§ 2.2-3103. Prohibited conduct.

No officer or employee of a state or local governmental or advisory agency shall:

• Solicit or accept money or other thing of value for services performed within the scope of his official duties, except the compensation, expenses or other remuneration paid by the agency of which he is an officer or employee.
• Offer or accept any money or other thing of value for or in consideration of obtaining employment, appointment, or promotion of any person with any governmental or advisory agency;
• Offer or accept any money or other thing of value for or in consideration of the use of his public position to obtain a contract for any person or business with any governmental or advisory agency;
• Accept any money, loan, gift, favor, service, or business or professional opportunity that reasonably tends to influence him in the performance of his official duties.
• Accept any business or professional opportunity when he knows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the opportunity is being afforded him to influence him in the performance of his official duties;

While the State and Local Conflict of Interests Act specifies reasonably clear standards for State and Local officials in the performance of their duties, we have a government-appointed advisory committee (ABRT) which smacks of cronyism and self-perpetuation, flying in the face of the law’s intent.

Viewed through public taxpaying eyes, ABRT actions in conjunction with associated non-profit membership relationships—and the gratuitous votes of elected officials—certainly cast an appearance of a conflict of interest and even impropriety over the entire Agency Budget Review Team process and the subsequent dispensing of public dollars.

This clever lampoon of Charlottesville’s ubiquitous quest for environmental purity originally was performed April 22, 2013 on WINA’s The Schilling Show.

Click below to listen:

A City That’s Green
By Scott Bandy

I know C’ville’s the greatest
but City Hall’s full of gung-ho State-ists
So I lost two years back
and some think I am daff
But Charlottesville’s still swell
if not, I wouldn’t
be here to tell
And I dream of a place
where we get together
and laugh

A permeable lawn
roads shared for bicycling
Viewsheds being *sine qua non [*Latin / Pronounce si-ne kwah-nohn]
Pre-Sort re-cycling
Panhandlers which you look at
hoping they don’t be obscene
a LEAP compliant habitat
In a city that’s Green

Protests for living wage
A UVa routine
So I’m fat as Chris Christie
and comb my hair like Wolverine
The tree commission’s fealty
keep carbon footprints lean
with a buy local first plea
In a city that’s Green

Between pressing due arrears
and to faith render amen
We catch Andrea Copeland
on Local Access Channel Ten
Oh the social engineers
lest what’s left – be uncontest
the blue collar trades disband
as the rest try do their best
A picture perfect Charlottesville
as thus never been seen
Sift through the chaff
to dream and laugh
In a city that’s green

In his recent Ohio State commencement speech, President Obama soothed graduates by telling them not to pay attention to what they have heard, not to fear government, and to reject the idea that “tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. Was he worried the grads had seen videos of the SWAT enforcers in Boston?

A week before that speech, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) was questioning DHS, the mother of all SWAT teams, saying, “It is entirely… inexplicable why the Department of Homeland Security needs so much ammunition.” Not to mention armored vehicles and automatic weapons.

Former congressman Ron Paul weighed in a few days after the Boston disgrace with, “… a military-style occupation of an American city,” and that it looked like a “military coup in a far off banana republic.” He added, “This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the (terrorist) attack itself.”

What is worries those concerned about the accelerating erosion of the constitutional rights of Americans is not the attack by a couple of teenage terrorists, but the lockdown of an American city on 15 April by a 9,000-man army of tanks and black-clad cops. If you are surprised that the true nature of America’s first taste of martial law was not shown on your evening news, you can see a video and photographs at http://www.infowars.com/shocking-footage-americans-ordered-out-of-homes-at-gunpoint-by-swat-teams/. Imagine it happening on your street — at your front door.

What happened in Boston? Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and Mayor Thomas Menino responded to public outrage over the marathon bombing by putting Boston’s greater metro area of 4.4 million under house arrest, calling it by the Orwellian phrase, “shelter in place.” While Bostonians were “sheltering in place,” helos flew overhead, armored vehicles controlled the roads, snipers nestled on rooftops, and black uniforms controlled the streets hammering on doors. Where did all that military equipment come from? It was from DHS, spending over $7 billion in the last ten years for the body armor, weapons, ammunition, training and vehicles to be used in American towns and cities. The only thing missing, so far, are drones.

The irony of it all is that after the helicopter scanners, after thousands of paramilitary troops took citizens from their homes at gunpoint and marched them down the streets, the SWAT teams did not find the teenaged fugitive. He was arrested because a single homeowner found him and turned him in.

Besides the irony, there is a dire message in the Boston SWAT party. The message is that Americans are not protesting and not doing anything to defend their rights. Today, our absolute constitutional rights are treated by government and its agencies as only partial, as not applying to every citizen, and as revokable by the government at any time. The sad fact is that the police can, and do, take advantage of the fact that most Americans do not know their rights.

Under the Obama administration, it is hard to know your rights even under laws enacted by congress, never mind the constitution. Last month, Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security Secretary, listened to Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) ask, “You are not entitled to set policies, are you, that violate the mandates of congressional law?” Her answer was that she “disagree(s) with almost everything” that the senator said. If senior administration officials can ignore enacted laws, then it is just as easy for them to ignore the constitution. And they do ignore both, from indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, to drone kill lists, to surveillance of phone and email communications, to prosecution and persecution of whistleblowers.

So questions arise. Do you know your rights and how to defend them? Do you know what the 4th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees? Can the police search your house without a warrant? The sad answer is that we have strayed a long way from the days when colonial Americans revolted against British soldiers who searched their homes with warrants they had written themselves. The 4th Amendment of the Constitution was designed guarantee a citizens right to be left alone. But today, U.S.federal officers can write their own warrants under the Patriot Act, just like those British soldiers. Did you know that law allows federal agents to see your mail, and your legal and medical records, without a warrant from a judge? The Patriot Act sacrificed freedom for safety — and we got neither.

There seems to be no limit to how far Americans will allow the government to chop away at the roots of their free way of life. Two weeks ago, Florida legislators gave Ric Bradshaw, Sheriff of Palm Beach County, $1 million to set up “prevention intervention” units. According to the Palm Beach Post, Bradshaw is establishing a hotline for citizens to report the “guy down the street (who) says he hates the government, hates the mayor…”. The sheriff assured the lawmakers that “it will all be done in a way that respects people’s autonomy and privacy.”

Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Don’t ever think, “It can’t happen here.” It has already happened.

And the next time you are asked if you are willing to give up some of your liberties in exchange for a promise of security, the answer is simple: “Remember Boston!”

Chet Nagle is a graduate of the Naval Academy, a former Pentagon official, a former CIA agent, and the author of Iran Covenant.

Mr. Schilling, first and foremost, thank you for helping to bring this huge problem to light. I do imagine that these problems are happening at all the middle schools around here. The difference is that no one knows about what is happening, thus it is not worried about. I happen to have a child who is not at all comfortable with the happenings and shares everything they see and hear with me. It is shocking that more attention has not been paid to this. What is even more shocking was the reaction from the board members in attendance excluding. Mr. Strucko. Obviously there is a lot that goes on at Walton that I can share, however I cannot corroborate any of it. Sharing this info. with you only serves for me to try and fuel your fire in affecting change for these kids, which for me is what this is all about. Creating a school for my children where they are not scared. I am not naive to think that instances don’t or should not happen, the breakdown at Walton is at the top. They are not dealing with these issues (cursing at teachers, fondling in the hall, dress code) like they should. It has created a culture where these kids know that nothing will happen to them other than maybe a few words or LBD (lunch break detention). There are 2 people at the top here, it is hard to say that they are not responsible. Yes the happy faces were on last night and the correct phrasing was used in most cases, but really! They should be embarrassed. Are their egos that big that they cannot admit defeat and move on. They are being played like fools. Step up to the plate and make changes. All I heard from Ms. Dwier-Selden is the need to improve communication with the parents. If it ends with that, we are in trouble.

When home, the questions and answers that Ms. Selden-Dwier had prepared were shared with my child. My child sat down and read it, looked up, smiled, and asked if he/she was allowed to use the term “BS”. Sad that a child would be able to blow right through that smokescreen. On to the rumors, and only the major ones (cause those are the only ones that matter, right).

We can start at the beginning, when the principal search began for Walton last year. This is all second hand info., but evidently there was a search committee formed. They had a list of candidates that did not include Ms. Selden-Dwier. They narrowed it down then all the sudden she popped up on the list, but was not in the running. The selection people (school board?) took the evidence under advisement and appointed Ms. Selden-Dwier principal. Who? Where did she come from. Your guess is as good as mine, but maybe you should ask Pam Moran, they are good friends I hear.

Everyone surely has heard about the 2 students that were caught backstage in full intercourse. Was this consensual, I don’t know.

I hear they got 3 days suspension. Maybe this is county policy, but again students at that school were told by multiple staff members (I cannot confirm admin) not to share any of this info. with anyone who may ask about it. Waltongate continues. Where is administration during all of this. Why are kids wandering around the school when they should be in class?

I cannot count how many teachers (with and without tears) I have heard that have divulged their fear for themselves and the school. They are getting cussed at by 12 and 13 year olds in class, and when they are sent to the office, the kids return soon after with words of wisdom from “the office” to improve their life skills. These teachers are tired of the lack of support from admin. What they do is nothing, because it does not do any good. That is the culture we have created at Walton.

My plea to you Mr. Schilling is to not let this topic fall by the wayside. Walton is the example here, but this has sweeping consequences that can affect every school in this county. We need you to make things better for these kids that are scared to go to school. Yes that is right, scared. The first thing my child does when they walk in the door from school is head to the bathroom. That is because of the fear of what might happen to him/her or what they might see when they go in the bathroom. Smoking, illegal drugs, bullying etc.

It breaks my heart to hear a child say that they cannot believe no one cares enough to change this place (Walton) and that is what is being said.

I have heard from one to many that when they know you are the one talking, your child suffers. It is a shame. I realize that this may not be useable information without my name, but at least you know a bit more about the situation and maybe you can help spread the word.

A Concerned Parent

News, yes. But not new. Five years ago headlines were: Loaded Hand Gun on School Bus and Loaded Hand Gun in Local Middle School.

There is so much that doesn’t make the news.

No one covers the dress code violations. It is OK in some Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS) to let your butt cheeks hang out of your booty shorts. Media must be aware that drugs and drinking on buses and in schools are regular ACPS events. That doesn’t make the news either.

Students at Walton Middle School regularly and repeatedly have been caught violating rules. Now the school administration has failed so badly that students are having sexual relations on school property during the school day with impunity. When they should be in class they are in each others’ pants.

ACPS Administration Fails Local Students And Parents: that should be the headline on local news.

The schools have been out of control for a long time.

The current principal at one elementary school used to have parents watch classrooms alone, without supervision, without background checks, while he held meetings with teachers in the school library.

No one cares at ACPS.

The high school athletic departments signed contracts illegally and have never accounted for thousands of dollars of missing money.

No one cares at ACPS.

The computers used by our school students were virus-infected so badly that many were unusable. The usable ones were distributing malware into the homes of students. This was all shown, with proof provided by the Department of Homeland Security, to the ACPS Central Office technology department.

No one cares at ACPS.

The Albemarle County Public Schools don’t care. They follow the Chris Dumler model. We will do what ever we want. Rules do not apply to us. We are above you, we are better than you and will not listen to you.

THIS ENDS NOW. Walton Middle School Parents and Students are going to lead the way.

The Parents and Students of Walton Middle School have called a meeting tonight, 6pm May 7th at the school, to force the schools to address their failures.

It was the Parents and Students who demanded this meeting happen. No one from the schools gave a hoot until they saw their backs were against the wall. In typical fashion the school administration is trying to spin their way out of another failure in the system.

This email arrived at 5:01 pm on Monday, May 6th.

From: “WALTON MIDDLE SCHOOL” <email@blackboardconnect.com>
Date: May 6, 2013, 5:01:02 PM EDT
Subject: School Improvement Meeting

A message from WALTON MIDDLE SCHOOL

Good afternoon.

We will hold our quarterly school improvement meeting on Tuesday, May 7, 6-7:00PM at Walton Middle School. This meeting will review school climate data and begin the improvement planning process for next year. We are also in the process of soliciting any parents who might wish to participate on our school improvement team for next year. The team meets quarterly after during the school year. Please feel free to contact Alison Dwier-Selden at school if you might be interested.

Thank you and have a good evening.

This e-mail has been sent to you by WALTON MIDDLE SCHOOL. To maximize their communication with you, you may be receiving this e-mail in addition to a phone call with the same message. If you wish to discontinue this service, please inform WALTON MIDDLE SCHOOL IN PERSON, by US MAIL, or by TELEPHONE at (434) 977-5615.

They can pretend this is a regularly scheduled meeting; it is not.

The community will not tolerate the ignoring of the rules any longer in our schools.

When police are called to a school for ANY reason, parents must be informed as to what is happening and what is being done.

No longer will any student be allowed to attack another student, any teacher or any administrator.

No longer will any school teacher, director or administrator be allowed to make up special rules for their school without first obtaining school board approval. And, they will not be allowed to ignore any rule that the school board has approved.

The community is speaking out. Albemarle County Public Schools’ Central Office had better listen.

No longer will drugs, drinking, guns, and sexual relations be tolerated in our school buildings or on our school buses. Period.

(Note: The following information has been obtained from reliable sources, but local authorities would not confirm details.)

A non-English speaking family, apparently distraught over their adult daughter’s decision to have an abortion, locked themselves in the waiting room of Planned Parenthood’s Albemarle abortuary on Thursday.

According to reliable sources:

• At approximately 8:27 AM, Charlottesville’s Emergency Communications Center (ECC) received a 911 call from someone at Planned Parenthood.
• An Albemarle County police unit was dispatched “priority 2” (no lights or siren) to the facility.
• Upon receipt of a 2^nd 911 call, which was followed by an open 911 line (i.e. no response on the caller’s side) another unit was dispatched, this time, “priority 1” (with lights and siren)
• The woman seeking the abortion was approximately 21 years old, possibly with the last name of “Hernandez.”
• At least three members of Ms. “Hernandez’s” family intervened by breaching Planned Parenthood security and then securing the entrance doors behind them.
• An ID presented by one of those involved (presumably, Ms. Hernandez) was a license from North Carolina, which when run by police, came back under the identity of an entirely different person.
• Spanish-speaking officers were sought as those involved were limited English proficiency.
• The Planned Parenthood incident took approximately one hour to “resolve.”

When queried for information, Albemarle County Police spokesman, Carter Johnson was responsive but tightlipped:

From: “Carter Johnson” <johnsonc@albemarle.org>
Date: May 2, 2013 10:15:47 AM EDT
To: Rob Schilling
Subject: RE: Planned Parenthood Incident

Rob,

There was a disorder at Planned Parenthood this morning.  A family did locked the doors of the waiting room but the disorder was peacefully resolved.  Planned parenthood is not pressing charges. No one was injured.

Hope that helps!

A plea for further details was issued:

From: Schilling Show
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 10:49 AM
To: Carter Johnson
Subject: Re: Planned Parenthood Incident

Thanks, Carter. Can you please provide names and ages of those involved? Also, incident and resolution times, and copies of 911 calls if they exist?

Johnson refused to release additional info and deferred to the ECC for 911 call details:

From: “Carter Johnson” <johnsonc@albemarle.org>
Date: May 2, 2013 11:01:11 AM EDT
To: “Schilling Show”
Subject: RE: Planned Parenthood Incident

Hi Rob,

I can’t release the names and ages of those involved because Planned Parenthood is a medical facility and they were there for a medical procedure.  The call came in to 911 at 8:27.  As for a copy of the calls, you would have to request that from the ECC.  We are not the custodians of those records.

An inquiry to the ECC netted further stonewalling:

From: “Kathy Richardson” <KRICHARD@albemarle.org>
Date: May 2, 2013 05:31:25 PM EDT
To: “Schilling Show”
Subject: RE: FOIA Request: 911 Call

Good afternoon,

I was informed that this is still an ongoing criminal investigation and therefore those records will not be produced at this time. Pursuant to your request under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act I am denying your request under Virginia Code Section §2.2-3706(H)(1). Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Richardson’s contention that this was an “ongoing criminal investigation” was in stark contrast to Carter Johnson’s initial statement that the incident was “peacefully resolved” and that Planned Parenthood “is not pressing charges.”

When asked to resolve the discrepancy in statements, Richardson responded tersely:

From: “Kathy Richardson” <KRICHARD@albemarle.org>
Date: May 2, 2013 07:15:19 PM EDT
To: “Schilling Show”
Cc: “Carter Johnson” <johnsonc@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: FOIA Request: 911 Call

I have been informed by both Carter and Denise Lunsford that this is still an active investigation and was asked to withhold the records citing that exemption. My position has not changed unless they advise me otherwise.

A request of Carter Johnson for further clarification and statement resolution was unaddressed as of publication time.

Many unanswered questions arise from this incident:

• Why was this incident not reported on by the Charlottesville mainstream media?
• Why did police spokesman, Carter Johnson, imply that the case was closed if it was not?
• Why were the identities of adult family members (who were not patients there) protected simply because the incident took place at a “medical facility”?

The Albemarle Police Department, the Emergency Communications Center, and the Albemarle Commonwealth’s Attorney have proven their ability to stonewall. Can they now prove their commitment to transparency and good public service?

According to deficit forecasts in President Barack Obama’s latest budget, the national debt will surpass $20 trillion by 2016. If this occurs (and it is almost certain to occur), then Obama will add more to the national debt during his presidency than all prior presidents combined, despite collecting projected record-high tax receipts each year of his last term in office.

Obviously, there is a spending problem in Washington, D.C., and the reason for it is no mystery. The largest expenditure in Obama’s budget—and the largest federal outlay in every budget since 1970—is an expense item labeled “payments for individuals,” which includes  spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, disability payments, and other federal welfare subsidies. These payments comprised 65 percent of all federal spending in 2012 and are expected to grow to 70 percent in 2016. (By contrast, national defense spending was 19 percent of the federal budget in 2012 and will decrease to only 14 percent in 2016.)

The federal government has essentially become a wealth redistribution center, for it collects enormous sums of money through taxation ($2.45 trillion total in 2012), and then distributes this money to select people in countless “payments for individuals” ($2.3 trillion spent in 2012). The leftover money isn’t nearly enough to pay for the interest on the national debt, not to mention the other government functions that must also be funded, like national defense. So the federal government borrows more and more money by the day just to keep operating.

This level of spending and borrowing simply cannot be sustained, according to Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner. Sitting before the Senate Budget Committee last year to discuss Obama’s 2013 budget, Geithner confessed that the federal government’s level of social welfare spending could not endure for long. He said, “Even if Congress were to enact this budget, we would be left with—in the outer decades as millions of Americans retire—what are still unsustainable commitments in Medicare and Medicaid.”

These welfare commitments are not just unsustainable; they are also unconstitutional, for the Constitution grants no power to the federal government to redistribute national wealth. James Madison explained that “the government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

In spite of the Constitution’s limits, federal welfare spending began in earnest in the 1930s with President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. And in the face of many legal challenges, the Roosevelt Administration defended the government’s broad spending authority under the “general welfare” clause in Article I, section 8, which states, “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; . . . .” Basically, Roosevelt argued that any kind of federal spending is permissible under the Constitution as long as it aims to provide for the general welfare. This is not what our founders intended.

James Madison assured during the ratification debates in 1787–88 that the “general welfare” reference in the Constitution was never meant to stand alone as a broad grant of federal power to spend at will. He explained in The Federalist No. 41 that it was an “absurdity” to suggest that Congress’ spending powers were unlimited by the “general welfare” clause when the Constitution identified in the very same sentence—“not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon”—the specific, narrow powers of the federal government. He stated, “Nothing is more natural or common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain or qualify it by a recital of particulars.” Congress’ ability to spend was to be confined by the more specific enumerated powers that immediately followed the “general welfare” clause.

As a Congressman, Madison continued to stress the Constitution’s limitations on federal spending, writing in 1792, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” He later said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grants a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Similarly, Thomas Jefferson insisted that elected representatives had no power under the Constitution “to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare.” The reason for this limitation was clear, for he explained that “giving a distinct and independent power [to Congress] to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase.”

For some time, the Supreme Court shared this understanding of the Constitution’s limits on federal spending, ruling that Congress could only spend money in support of the Constitution’s enumerated powers. For example, in Carter v. Carter Coal (1936), the Court wrote that the Constitutional Convention “made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare, and no such authority exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted.”

But in 1937, the Supreme Court suddenly reversed its position and sanctioned Roosevelt’s broad spending power. And since that time, politicians peddling in “payments for individuals” have expanded federal social welfare programs without regard for their sustainability or their actual constitutionality—and without any real accountability.

So it should come as no surprise that President Obama—a long-time advocate for “redistributive change” in America—would ignore his Treasury Secretary’s warning about our nation’s dangerous fiscal course and instead accelerate federal welfare spending in his 2014 budget. Obama has proven to be just another pandering politician, eager to satisfy the fleeting wants of the people today, no matter what the cost may be tomorrow.

by Steven Lopez

Many of you may have read that the North Dakota legislature passed new regulations that would protect unborn babies the minute a heartbeat is detected. This is important because almost every surgical abortion (1.2 million annually) is performed on a baby with a beating heart and developing brain.

That’s 3,287 innocent victims dying on American soil every day. It’s a silent 9/11 every 24 hours.

The beating heart legislation in North Dakota reframes the debate for America. It’s a far cry from the “mass of undifferentiated cells” the mainstream media and Planned Parenthood have been regurgitating for decades unchallenged. The truth doesn’t sell well for the abortion industry: a defenseless baby with a beating heart and developing brain being dismembered by a licensed physician at the behest of the mother and father.

It’s not surprising to read liberal journalists reflexively respond to heartbeat legislation as “unconstitutional”. Unfortunately, very few of them have read the Constitution and even fewer of them have read Roe v. Wade and its precursor Griswold v. Connecticut.

So what is the truth? The answer might surprise you.

Abortion is not constitutional.

That’s right. There is no right to abortion contained in the Constitution. I’ve read and re-read the Constitution and it simply doesn’t exist.

So why do liberals keep saying that limiting abortion is unconstitutional? Well, it’s because we’ve allowed a legal charade to stand as law for 40 years.

When we revisit the legal opinions we discover that the United States Supreme Court also couldn’t find anything about abortion in the Constitution, but that didn’t stop them from legislating from the bench (which is unconstitutional). They created from thin air a “right to privacy” to justify unfettered access to birth control and later abortion.

Where did the “right to privacy” come from if not the Constitution?

The answer is the Supreme Court turned its back on the Constitution and became the equivalent of judicial poets. They stated that the “right to privacy” came from the “emanations” and “penumbras” of the Constitution. Constitutional scholars are still scratching their heads attempting to unravel a judicial opinion that would have made Robert Frost proud. Which is a nice way of saying, “We’re just going to make this up and hope nobody complains.”

I mentioned earlier that Roe v. Wade was predicated on another decision entitled Griswold v. Connecticut.  You might be wondering who is Griswold and why it matters? The answer should come as no surprise to those who have been on the front lines of the rescue effort to save our unborn babies, “Appellant Griswold is Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut.”

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html

The Griswold decision laid the foundation for abortion on demand. The sad truth is that many Americans wanted unfettered access to birth control with groups like Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood leading the charge. Liberals demanded “reproductive rights”. They wanted to have sex without consequences. And they weren’t alone … men who previously had to marry women were only too happy to usher in an era of wanton sex.

No more paying for the cow if the milk is free!

But there were consequences. No matter how much we repeated the mantra of “safe sex” the real world kept creeping into the equation. Condoms broke and the pill failed resulting in “unintended pregnancies”. The very idea of sex resulting in an “unintended pregnancy” would have been laughed at if it were not for the success of the liberals creating the myth of “safe sex”.

According to the abortion industry’s own statistics nearly 54% of all abortions occur despite the fact that the couple was using some form of birth control. And for the other 46% abortion is their primary means of birth control.

Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Liberals believe sex education is best way to reduce abortion. Many of them argue that groups like Planned Parenthood should be allowed to educate our children on how to safely enjoy sex outside of marriage. They conveniently ignore the fact that 50% of the women who walk through Planned Parenthood’s doors were there before and received their “education” prior to aborting a baby.

If Planned Parenthood had the answer to the abortion epidemic repeat customers would not be 50% of their abortion business. It’s like saying a drug dealer should educate our children on how to responsibly use narcotics.

Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/11/21/or29.pdf

There is no economic incentive for Planned Parenthood to reduce abortion since that is their business model. However, it is in their best interest to create a series of half truths and blatant lies to increase the number of couples engaging in premarital sex because that leads to pregnancy and eventually abortions.

The results have been horrific for this country. You can chart the rise of sex outside of wedlock in the mid 60s with the meteoric rise in: abortion, divorce, single parent households, STDs, etc. The liberation of sex from marriage was the death knell for the traditional family in the United States.

Herpes Growth Rates

And it was the literal death of over 55 million American babies and counting. That’s more deaths at the hands of licensed physicians than all United States war casualties combined. Today abortion is the #1 cause of death in the United States – double that of heart disease or cancer.

You might be wondering where were all the modern day Abraham Lincoln’s standing up against a rogue court? And where were the governors refusing to obey an unconstitutional law? If any of them existed their stories were lost to history as the media began framing the next debate, after the lie had been swallowed.

Rather than a public and political outcry against judges who had overstepped their legal authority we began to rehash their thoughts on when it was okay for the states to intervene on behalf of the unborn. Liberals rejoiced when the debate focused on “viability” since that debate presumed the Supreme Court had a sound legal footing.  At this point the tyranny of abortion was complete.

Some of you may read the word “tyranny” and think it shouldn’t apply to abortion.  Here is what the word means, “Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly.”

The Supreme Court unjustly, illegally, and without regard to human rights granted an absolute power to mothers in this country who then used that power (usually in concert with the father) to kill their defenseless baby. The tyranny of a king against his subjects is usually the worst example we can imagine, but even the subjects of a king can rebel and overthrow a tyrant.

A baby in the womb has no defense against a rogue Supreme Court and parents who view sex as a form of personal entertainment at any cost. The highest court in the land had once again failed miserably when it came to the question of human rights — as it had failed prior to the Civil War when it sided with the slave owners in the infamous Dred Scott decision.

Source: http://digital.wustl.edu/d/dre/index.html

Yes, the Supreme Court defended the right to own slaves.  In fact, the Supreme Court never came to the rescue of the slaves. It took a Civil War and an amendment to Constitution to end the tyranny of slavery.  “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”—14^th Amendment (excerpt)

It’s a tragic irony that rogue justices use the 14^th amendment to justify abortion.

If Abraham Lincoln were alive today I doubt he would waste his breath debating the Constitution with liberal judges who ignore basic human rights. In the Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858 he simply referenced the Declaration of Independence, “I should like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another man say it does not mean another man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get this statute book in which we find it and tear it out.” –Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858.

Sadly it didn’t end with the slaves. The exceptions included our unborn children.

History can be instructive since abolitionists prior to the Civil War faced a similar uphill battle with the Supreme Court, Congress, and the southern legislatures firmly on the side of plantation owners. As we confront the tyranny of abortion we should ask the question, “How were the abolitionists able to overcome such overwhelming odds and change public opinion?”

Interestingly, the answer comes from the mouth of Judge Douglas who was defending the rights of slave owners in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, “Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead of all the little Abolition orators, who go around and lecture in the basements of schools and churches, reads from the Declaration of Independence, that all men were created equal, and then asks, how can you deprive a negro of that equality which God and the Declaration of Independence awards to him?” – Judge Douglas, Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858.

The abolitionists went to the churches and schools and read from the Declaration of Independence and asked the citizenry a question. It’s the same question we should be asking, “How can you deprive unborn babies the right to life that God and the Declaration of Independence award them?”

Every Pastor, every parishioner, and every teacher should be confronted with this question.

The same words that eventually became a rallying cry to free the slaves will one day set our unborn children free, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence, July 4^th, 1776.

According to the Declaration of Independence we’re not “born” equal… we’re CREATED equal. And the founding fathers were not given to weak kneed appellations. These rights are not mere suggestions or a strong preference, they’re an unalienable right.

The word unalienable means, “Not to be separated, given away, or taken away”. In other words, nobody has the legal authority to take away an unalienable right. Not even a rogue Supreme Court or parents who want to privately abort their child with the aid of a licensed physician.

Every U.S. colony adopted the Declaration of Independence as law. Today we celebrate its signing every 4^th of July, but perhaps we should be having memorials for all the babies whose lives were lost because Americans were unwilling to defend our unborn children’s God given right to life.

But the tide will change when parishioners and politicians become familiar with fundamental rights and the history of abortion. The pro life movement commands the intellectual high ground. Tyranny is never built on a hill – it’s in the sewers and its defenders are the authors of lies and deception.

We’ve been given the gift of freedom because someone died for it. To be born free is a cultural experiment that is still in its infancy. And whether it continues will be determined by the actions of men and women who have the freedom to preserve it by defending it – or by their inaction allow the darkness to prevail and enslave our nation once again.

It’s easy to become cynical and jaded when considering our abject failure to defend our unborn children over the past 40 days, but despite the failure of our political and religious leaders JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL. Consequently, none of us should watch television at night thinking that we will be spared because we called upon the name of God on Sundays while ignoring the human rights tragedy surrounding us during the week.

Abortion is not the first human rights tragedy that our forefathers have confronted. I’ve read about lukewarm churches in Germany that would sing their hymns louder to avoid hearing the cries of the victims as trains delivered human cargo to their eventual death at Nazi concentration camps.  The hymns they sang were not intended for the ears of God, but to silence their own conscience and stop them from serving God.

The God of truth and the author of free will is watching and waiting. Abortion forces men and women of good conscience to choose between their own self interest and the interest of others whom they’ve never met. If this nation continues down the path of silent complicity I worry that the celestial jury box will be filled with 55 million slain Americans and the presiding judge will be their Father in heaven who loved them dearly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4hjDKAIKE0

First it was a proposal for a series of “free” government-sponsored pizza parties in a diabolically unabashed vote-buying scheme.

That was followed by co-opting Charlottesville city hall for a hyper-partisan, pro-Obama healthcare rally.

Next, she publicly slammed nTelos, a perfectly good company, just for being a “corporation.”

Then it was advocacy of “free” porta-potties for the law-breaking occupiers of Lee Park.

Now, she’s done it again.

Charlottesville City Councilor and Vice Mayor, Kristin Szakos, has blundered once more, this time condemning her most coveted, special-interest constituency: “low-income” residents.

During a March 18, 2013 City Council discussion of the Charlottesville Tree Commission, Democrat Szakos—self-styled defender of the poor and down trodden—said that Charlottesville’s low-income residents “don’t know a tree from a brick.” (see video above)

What!?

This Freudian slip of monumental proportion may damage Szakos’ re-election chances as she faces a five-way battle for two open slots in the upcoming Democrat City Council primary.

As a result of her loose lips and borderline-insane policy decisions:

• Could Kristin Szakos be “Talliaferro’d” by her own party?

• Might Kristin Szakos be denied the coveted “Mayor of Charlottesville” crown, that which she previously deferred to Satyendra Huja in a Bollingesque, off-record transaction?

• Will Kristin Szakos be the odd man out on primary day?

All blunders, corruption and shady deals aside—may the best man win, Kristin—and keep telling us what you really think!

Prepared by Charles Battig   March 23, 2013

(Sections of the original Comprehensive Plan Document (CPD) are copied together with my associated comments following my introductory General Comments)

Disclaimer: I have received no payment for preparing this analysis. However, my taxes have funded the salaries of those County and Federal employees who have prepared the CPD and who presume to speak for the “we” and for “Albemarle.”

General Comments

Enabling VA State Code VA Code 15.2-2223 specifies that comprehensive plans are to be “general in nature.” On this basis alone the proposed plan deserves to be rejected out-of-hand as it proposes to micromanage every aspect of the life of County citizens.

Chapter 5 of the CPD lists nine areas subject to analysis, evaluation, regulation, and monitoring.  They include   Natural Resources, Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources, Economic Development, Land Use for the Rural Areas, Land Use for the Development Areas, Housing, Transportation, Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems, and Community Services and Facilities. Why do these goals sound familiar? They mirror the U.N Treaty on Biodiversity of 1992 (UN Agenda 21Chapter 15: Conservation Of Biological Diversity: http://habitat.igc.org/agenda21/a21-15.htm and http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=52&ArticleID=63 ), and land management proposals by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1981. The land use policies required by the UN treaty were also expressed in dozens of other UN documents and at other UN conferences, and incorporated into the agendas of NGOs for implementation through programs and legislation at the local, state, and federal levels.  The U.S. Senate rejected ratification of the UN Biodiversity Treaty in 1994, but the TJPDC and Albemarle County planning staff have seemingly done an end-run and have coordinated efforts to place their “son-of-UN-biodiversity treaty” into the revised CPD. Also represented in the CPD are the 1991Wildness Project and The Rewilding Institute, originated by convicted eco-terrorist Dave Foreman, are similar objectives of legislating “diverse, interconnected areas of viable habitat for native wildlife” (page 5.4.9. CPD).

What aspect of a nominally free citizen’s life would be untouched by these imposed regulations? Who has decided that such regulations are needed?  What happened to our Founding Fathers’ guiding principle of limited government? Have Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and John Adams just become local money-making tourist attractions, rather than the philosophical founders of our Country and County? The U.S. Constitution is based on the premise of enumerating the limited powers of the Federal government to those granted by the citizens.

This CPD envisions an expanded role for County government via a mindboggling bureaucracy to measure, document, implement, monitor, regulate, and enforce new regulations on most every aspect of private property usage based on vague “biodiversity” mandates. The CPD has taken the legitimate need to lay out the accepted aspects of County government, and has bloated them into the proposed bureaucracy of a super “nanny state.” Albemarle County would be the grantor of citizens’ rights, thus turning our Constitution on its head, with the County telling its citizens what they might be permitted to do…literally.

Any allusions to community input and approval of this plan ring hollow.  Actual attendance at public comment meetings has been extremely sparse.  Data from the Livability Project documented that less than 0.25% of County residents participated.  By my personal observation most of those who attended these meetings were generally the same small group of people.  That same survey included the finding that the number one and number two desires of County residents were “decrease regulations” and “protect private property rights.”  These desires are trampled over by this CPD.

As one of a number of those who participated as a “community group” in the Livability Partnership (referenced in the CPD), I was required to sign an agreement authored by Mr. S. Williams, Executive Director, which included the statements: “Livability Partnership is not a decision making group. The group will not take votes or make recommendations…Livability Partnership is also not a consensus building group…we do not expect members of the Livability Partnership to agree with or express their support for the final recommendations in the Livability Implementation Plan.”  In other words, participants could not expect their views to alter the pre-determined mindset of the TJPDC group.

The public has a right to understand how unelected bodies such as the TJPDC and County Staff, funded by taxpayers, can propose to impose their views of what the public may and may not do.  An examination of the language in the CPD documents the view of a socialistic Utopia.  An all-encompassing, fuzzily-defined ‘biodiversity” is the new greater-good, and benchmark for all human activities.

Lastly, the CPD is also illustrative of the rule by technocracy.   This assumes that if only the “experts” are put in charge, they will craft the “optimal” plan for the running of government.  However, if all experts have been trained to analyze and resolve proposed problems in the same manner, then group-think and in-bred stagnation of imagination is the result.  The American Planning Association (APA) is the parent organization for most planning “professionals” and their group-think. The APA produced PAS Report 556, Smart Codes: Model Land-Development Regulations, which includes 21 model codes on a variety of topics promoting Smart Growth Principles.  APA Smart Codes provides an overview of the structure of land-development regulations and is a guide to the development of model smart growth ordinances, including models that may be adapted by local governments.   Rather than save some room for ad hoc solving of unanticipated problems by traditional hearings, petitions, negotiations, and legal process, the County planners have delivered their pre-packaged protocols for all the problems of which they can conceive in the CPD. The running of Amtrak has not escaped their prevue.

Fredrick Hayak succinctly demonstrated the inherent reasons for the historical failure of such social planning in his book “The Fatal Conceit” in which he labels as the “fatal conceit” to “act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.”

Analysis of Selected Portions of the CPD

CPD Chapter 2 (page 2.1.1):

2.1 Values and Vision: 

#1. “Designated Development Areas”…

The desirable qualities of the County are early-on restricted to the designated development areas; the rural areas are not included.

#2 “Albemarle County values its:

· Mountains, valleys, streams, forests, farms, and meadows

· Excellent educational opportunities from our public and private schools, college, and university

· Economic drivers which are business, industry, and the University of Virginia

· Neighborhoods, places to shop, and places to worship

· Parks, greenway trails, and recreational areas

· Historic and cultural resources

· Community partner, the City of Charlottesville, as the area is considered One Community”

There is no mention of the people who actually live here in this list of “values,” only physical attributes.

Growth Management Policy:

Page 2.2.1

 #3.“While the County does not endeavor to attract new residents…” 

 But the County encourages new businesses to locate here; someone forgot to tell the planners.

  #4.“Resource protection is the basic theme behind the County’s policy.”

 Why not “resource utilization” since resources are of little value if they are walled-off as untouchable.   Protection from what?  Why not prudent utilization in place of protection?

  #5.“This preferred design, described as the Neighborhood Model in the Land Use.”

This is another name for “Smart Growth” with high population-density neighborhoods.  A paper in the APA Journal (Journal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2012, Vol. 78, No. 2) has examined the premise of lower emissions and other presumed benefits of the Smart Growth model.  The conclusions of the authors of this first scientific study of such claims: Smart Growth Policies: An Evaluation of Programs and Outcomes Conclusions:

“The current planning policy strategies for land use and transport have virtually no impact on the major long-term increases in resource and energy consumption. They generally tend to increase costs and reduce economic competitiveness… Smart growth principles should not unquestioningly promote increasing levels of compaction on the basis of reducing energy consumption without also considering its potential negative consequences. In many cases, the potential socioeconomic consequences of less housing choice, crowding, and congestion may outweigh its very modest CO2 reduction benefits.”

I have presented this finding to the Albemarle County Planning Commission, but no change in their devotion to Smart Growth has resulted from this new research.

  #6.“The private sector also has not yet provided some of the services expected and desired by the community, and in the form desired in convenient and more accessible locations to residential neighborhoods in the Development Areas.”

The County Planners seem thwarted by the realities of the competitive market place which bases its decisions on cost-effective economic analysis of any potential market area.

Page 2.2:

 #7. Encouraging residential development in the Rural Areas is not consistent with protecting the Rural Areas…In addition to directing growth to the Development Areas, planning efforts focus on ways to discourage new residential development in the Rural Areas (except where it directly supports agricultural uses…Encouraging residential development in the Rural Areas is not consistent with protecting the Rural Areas…giving road improvement preference in the Development Areas – is key in limiting rural residential development

The negative mindset of the planners regarding development in the Rural Area (95%) of the County flows from their devotion to Smart Growth.  They will not accept the possibility that residential growth in the Rural Area can take place in an environmentally sound manner; they present an either/or false choice between “sprawl” and Smart Growth. People who freely choose to live in the Rural Area do so without the expectation of the same level of County services as in the Developed areas, but they do not deserve to be short-changed either in County benefits deserving from the property taxes they pay. 

 (February 15, 2012, Charlottesville-Tomorrow reports the TJPDC Livability findings: “Most of the 508 respondents ‘said they would prefer to live in the rural areas of Albemarle County if there were no barriers in choice of housing.’ Sixty-one percent said they commuted from outside the Charlottesville-Albemarle area because they found housing elsewhere more affordable or a better value.”)

 Page 3.1

2013 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN   INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Comprehensive Planning in Albemarle County:

#8.  “…establishes the County’s policy to help guide public and private activities…”

“Guide,” not micromanage.

#9. “…ensure that it is consistent with community views…”

Community views, not Planning Staff views.

Page 3.2

#10. Regional Planning PACC – Albemarle County – City of Charlottesville – UVA

Of all the organizations listed, how many are run by elected officials responsible to their constituents?

#11.  Sustainability Council… The Thomas Jefferson Sustainability Council was created in 1994 by the TJPDC…was given the charge to “describe a future where our economic, human, social, and environmental health are assured.”

“Assured” is a synonym for “guaranteed.” This vision of the TJPDC is that of Rousseau and the socialists.  Where in our Constitution, or in the writings of our local heroes (Jefferson, Adams, and Madison) is there a premise of a guarantee of other than of opportunity.  This Marxist doctrine of guaranteed results adopted by the TJPDC and the County Planners must be repudiated and deleted.  The 15 listed accords omit the companion “objectives” and “evaluations” present in the original document:  http://www.tjpdc.org/pdf/sustainability%20accords.pdf   These accords lay the foundation for an authoritative over-ride of personal liberty; China and Russia are examples of authoritarian rule resulting from socialism mandates. They are also examples of the misery inflicted on the poor by such policies.

Page 3.5

#12. “Albemarle County continues to want to meet the needs of the present without compromising future generations’ ability to meet their needs.”

The TJPDC and County Planners seem to be shy about their tie to United Nations dogma. Here I have copied the official United Nations definition of “Sustainability.”   Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report, from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) was published in 1987.  It defined sustainability as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”   Do you see a striking resemblance?  At least the CPD should give the U.N. the credit.

Page 3.6

#13. Livability Project:

In 2011, the TJPDC began work with the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and UVA on the Livability Implementation Plan for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) area. The process to develop this plan, referred to as the Livable Communities Planning Project, built upon the region’s 1998 Sustainability Accords…

This project was/is funded by a $999,000 Federal HUD grant to the TJPDC.  The grant application was titled as a “Sustainability” grant, but the name was quickly changed soon after.  Executive Director Mr. Stephen Williams was most reassuring regarding the concerns of citizens as to the objectives of the grant process. Charlottesville-Tomorrow quoted him:  “We have no intention to dictate to people what they can do with their land, or to place any new requirements on them,” he added. “We are not in the business of telling people what to do. We are asking what can be done on a voluntary basis to increase sustainability in the region.”  As I read through the CPD, the numerous headings beginning with “The County Shall” do not sound “voluntary” to me.

Continuing:

#14. The Livability Partnership Group was made up of more than 60 representatives of community organizations. The organizations ranged from neighborhood associations, political parties, environmental interest groups, housing advocacy organizations, hobby guilds, and more. All three of the project groups participated in the Livability Project.

Indeed.  However,  participation required members to sign an application in which Mr. Williams noted that it was not to be a consensus building effort, nor should members expect TJPDC policy to be influenced.  Listing such “participation” does not mean approval of the final product by Community members, nor does it mean that their suggestions were adopted.

Continuing:

#15. The goal of the project was to develop:

1. A Performance Measurement System to analyze where the region stands with respect to transportation, the environment, housing, economic development, and energy use;

2. One map reflecting future land use designations and transportation projects for the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle;

3. A list of recommended Livability policies to inform the Charlottesville and Albemarle Comprehensive Plans, and the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan;

4. Recommendations for code and ordinance changes to help implement recommended Livability policies; and,

5. Recommendations for voluntary individual and community-wide actions that will support livability within the community.

At the writing of this Plan, items 1 – 3 were completed and can be found in a report in the reference materials.

When I scroll down to see the referenced completed “Items 1-3,” I see the following message:

 “Livability Report

This report is still under development by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.”

I consider County citizens fortunate that the TJPDC group did not make it to Item 4. Creating ordinance changes would seem to have been the goal all along.

#16. Pages 3.7 to Page 3.11

Note that each of these multitudes of wish lists of potential County control begins with “The County Shall.”   Note that no considerations of taxpayer cost or of cost-effectiveness are listed for these regulatory and bureaucratic expansions.

Chapter 4 The People of Albemarle County

#17. Page 4.5

 “With increased population, planning will continue to be important to ensure that natural resources continue in abundance and sufficient housing and jobs are available for future populations.”

Planners know how to ensure abundant natural resources; based on what?  Which natural resources will be chosen?

 Chapter 5: The Plan for Albemarle County

#18. Page   5.1.1

 “Ecological functions are ways in which nature meets and fulfills human needs.”

Some planner is heavy into Gaia Earth Mother mysticism/teleological thinking.

#19. Page  5.1.2

Ecosystems

“These three levels (species diversity, genetic diversity, ecosystem diversity) interact in an extremely complex manner, and these interactions provide the life support of all species.”

Do the planners claim to understand these interactions?  Is today’s snapshot of “biodiversity” the “best-of-all-worlds” version?   The implication of all these measurements is an incomplete and static view of biodiversity.  The chief scientist of the Nature Conservancy Peter Kareiva, who co-authored “Conservation in the Anthropocene,”   notes that conservation’s task is no longer to “preserve the wild, but to domesticate nature more wisely…conservation must not fall back into the ideological and impractical fortress mentality, a mentality that is insensitive to humans with needs that might supersede biodiversity…” “Conservationists will have to jettison their idealized notions of nature, parks, and wilderness… and forge a more optimistic, human-friendly vision…”

Maybe not here in Albemarle County…

#18. Pages  5.1.2-5.1.12

“Biodiversity” is short for biological diversity – the variety of living organisms of all kinds – animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms – that inhabit a particular area or ecosystem.” “…In some cases, the species need large areas that may not correspond to any single recognized parcel of land or that connect via corridors that cross many parcels. A general pattern of large tracts of land and unbroken corridors is as important as the size of any individual parcel…Land development causes fragmentation of habitats and reductions in connectivity which has a major impact on biodiversity in a landscape. Fragmentation is the carving-up of habitats into ever-smaller areas, with the accompanying lack of connections, called “corridors.”

The planners seem unwilling to accept the views of the Nature Conservancy paper, and treat biological systems as extremely fragile, in need of their micromanaging and curtailment of private property rights of land owners. The U.N. influence in the County planning mind-set is illustrated by the “The Wildlands Project and UN Convention on Biological Diversity Plan to Restore Biodiversity in the United States.” The Wildlands Project would set up to one-half of America into core wilderness reserves and interconnecting corridors, all surrounded by interconnecting buffer zones.   http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20091223.htm

 It was defeated as a U.N. treaty by the U.S. Senate in 1994 when it was withdrawn from a vote.  However, the TJPDC and County Planners have resurrected it here, and use “biodiversity” to justify their claim on all activities in the County.

PLAN FOR NATURAL RESOURCES:

#19. Page  5.1.13

The County, with the guidance of the Natural Heritage Committee, needs to develop systematic knowledge of the type and distribution of biological resources in the area.

At what cost; to what level of detail?

#20. Page 5.1.13

“The County should establish concrete goals for the Albemarle landscape, including targets for overall forest cover, the preservation of existing forest blocks, and the restoration or establishment of additional forest blocks. The County should also use the StreamWatch analysis of the relationship between land use (particularly forest cover and impervious surfaces) and water quality to classify stream health in the County’s watersheds, and to develop appropriate management approaches for them.”

This begins the ground work for a huge new governmental bureaucracy; who sets targets? Based on what valid scientific assumptions? At what cost? At what loss of private property rights or even human rights?

#21. Page 5.1.14

“The action plan should be based on a landscape-level analysis that incorporates data on the County’s landforms and on the location and quality of habitats  (including fragmentation and connectivity, as well as their current level of biodiversity). Aquatic biodiversity should also be addressed through a sub-watershed analysis. The goal of these analyses would be to identify priority areas for conservation and restoration so that the County’s policies and resources could be used to protect biodiversity in the most effective manner.

Building on this analysis, the County should develop the action plan to focus on conserving ecological integrity at the scale of the landscape. The landscape approach focuses on a wide scale (square miles rather than square feet) and on the management of major land features (e.g., forest blocks, watersheds, urbanized areas) to both conserve ecological diversity and support sustainable economic uses of the land. Important landscape features can be prioritized for conservation measures (such as conservation easements) or for restoration efforts. This plan should also establish conservation approaches for aquatic conservation through land-management techniques designed for specific watershed.”

This is the UN Biodiversity Plan being introduced into Albemarle County.  Biodiversity mandates trump private property rights and ignore  financial  and human costs. The “Objectives” and “Strategies” described in detail in the following pages of the CPD illustrate the level of micromanagement proposed.

#22. Page 5.1.14-15

“…existing list of important sites developed by the Biodiversity Work Group (link) can serve to identify sites in need of protection in the near term.”

This continues the planners’ obsession with “protection” as their excuse for intrusive regulations and role as environmental policemen.

#23. Page 5.1.5

“Other than the Shenandoah National Park and other publicly owned parks and school sites, almost all of the land in Albemarle County is privately owned.”

Not for long, if the ACE and similar Conservation Easement programs are expanded as is promoted in the CPD.  Approximately 19% of the County is under such easements. When is enough, enough?

# 24. Page  5.1.14

“Strategy 4b.2: Hire staff to work in the Community Development Department on stream buffers and mitigation plans, restoration, credit programs and efforts and work with banks.”

Hire staff! Who pays?

#25. Page 5.1.18

Strategy 4c.1: Implement State requirements for new programs like total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and continue to go beyond State requirements as currently done.

Who has authorized this overachievement policy? At what additional cost?  Why?

#26. Page 5.1.19

“Strategy 4e.1: Provide information to decision-makers, residents and future residents on the limitations of the igneous and metamorphic stone formations to provide for a reliable well water supply to support residents of the Rural Areas”

The folks in the Rural areas already know this.  That is why they drill test wells before purchase.

#27. Page 5.1.20

“Strategy 4e.2: Continue to follow growth management strategies to keep demand from Rural Area residential development from exceeding the available groundwater supply.”

Who has determined the “available” supply?

#28. Pages 5.23-30

Implementation of Natural Resource Strategies

What level of protection/control/monitoring has been determined to be sufficient, and at what cost?  Is the endpoint when no one is allowed to live in the Rural Area?  These proposed regulations and zoning changes might just accomplish that.

#29. Page 5.2.1

“Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources”

Albemarle is rich with historic resources that represent the County’s cultural heritage and establish a strong community identity. The resources include archeological sites from various time periods, such as 12,000-year-old hunting camps and former villages of the Monacan, to buildings and farms established early in this Country’s history, to post-World War II structures and sites.”

This entire section of 34 pages is focused on these and related physical attributes together with a multitude of ways devised to control everything in sight.  I see little reference to the philosophical constructs which the people who lived there entrusted to us.  Thomas Jefferson would likely be horrified by the private property controlling statues envisioned by the TJPDC herein.  These designations are so worded that the whole County could be designated as a “Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resource” and thereby reduced to museum status for the Tourist Trade enjoyment.

#30. Page 5.2.12

“Strategy 4a: The County should help to protect Monticello’s Viewshed using these measures:”

Protect it from whom or what? Who has decided that there is a problem? The  listed strategies that follow all layer on more micromanagement impediments to private property use.  The US Capitol seems to function in the middle of a built-out city without a problem to its “viewshed.”

#31. Page 5.2.22

“Strategy 2c: Update EC Design Guidelines to better reflect expectations of the Neighborhood Model for the Development Areas”

Is the Stonefield project an example of “better” or not?  So far, the project seems designed according to the APA’s “new Urbanism” and “Form-Based Codes”  which appear intended to make automobile usage inconvenient.  The current layout gives the automobile driver the feel that he is driving through a “Roach-Motel” of Lego Cubes.  Roach-Motel…you check in but you cannot check out, at least conveniently.  The new-urbanists riding their bicycles, stuffed with a French baguette and bottle of wine, from the nearby clustered housing  is the target audience.

#32. Page  5.3.1

Economic Development:

“The purpose of the County’s economic development policy is, first and foremost, to provide the local citizenry an improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life.”

Thomas Jefferson thought it was to provide equality of opportunity.  It was the Socialists who wanted to provide for the citizenry equality-for-all in results.

#33. Page  5.4.9

Land Use for the Rural AreaObjective 1: Maintain a pattern of land uses defined by farms, forests and other natural elements, and traditional crossroads communities, rather than by large lot suburban development.

The single largest way to maintain the land use patterns in the Rural Area is to have the land used for rural uses and not for residential development. As mentioned earlier, the Rural Area is an attractive place for some new residents to build and live. The ability to build on an additional 45,000 lots without a subdivision review, or to subdivide by-right without a rezoning or legislative review and utilities, makes the Rural Area an easy alternative to building in the Development Areas. However, rural development often creates conflicts between residential uses and rural economic activities. For example, neighboring farm activities such as spreading manure or hunting, may seem a nuisance to new residents unfamiliar with rural landscapes.

The TJPDC and County Planners solution is to promote a variety of impediments to private property use and attempt to foresee all possible problems.  The  traditional ways of  resolving disputes by interparty bargaining,  compromise, mutual agreements, and legal recourse  are ignored in favor of their intrusive planning protocols.

#34. Page  5.4.10

“Strategy 1b.1: Continue the viability of conservation easements in rural resource protection by:

· Assisting, promoting, and funding conservation easement programs;

· Promoting voluntary donations of conservation easements that prevent development and protect valued resources;

· Creating a stable, dedicated funding source for the ACE program;

· Increasing the County’s capacity to monitor the use of land under easement; and ensure adherence to the terms of easements.”

The concept of County funding of the ACE Program is unfair to the non-participating County taxpayers.  County property taxes are used to provide a benefit to a “privileged” landowner who will reap a lower County property tax bill, and receive a State and Federal income tax deduction/benefit for voluntarily selling some development rights or otherwise limiting use of his property.  The other property owners face higher property tax bills as the ACE beneficiary has reduced the tax-base of his property. Let the person wishing to benefit from a conservation easement find funding for his own tax haven; not at the additional tax burden expense of other County private property owners.

The purchasers and administrators of conservation easements have been known to sell the desirable properties to other insiders at an artificially cheap price.  In addition, they often act as de facto middle men for the Federal government, managing the property according to Federal mandates.

What is the target percentage of County private property desired to be placed under conservation easements? Who has decided and by what authority the maximum amount? 50%,100%?   How much is enough? It is about 19% already.

#35 Page  5.4.11 through 5.4.29

“Strategy 1c.1: Set a maximum lot size/acreage for development-right lots in subdivisions and RPDs.”

This and the following pages illustrate many examples of micromanagement by the planners which is designed to limit personal property rights and choice, all at the altar of UN Biodiversity.  These pages convey the planners’ stated ambivalence of actually using our natural resources and incurring some sort of “eco-guilt.”

#36. Land Use for the Development Areas:

Page 5.5.1:

 “The Land Use Plan provides direction for physical development in the County. It reflects the community’s vision as well as the County’s projections for economic, population, and housing demands. It balances these projections against growth management goals and emphasizes the preservation and responsible utilization of limited resources.”

Who has defined this “community’s vision”?  What are these “limited resources” and who has defined them as such?

 “Although the Rural Area comprise 95% of the County, residential, commercial, industrial, and mixed use development is not expected there.”

What is the validity of the arbitrary 5%/95% allocation between Development Areas and Rural Areas?  The “back to the past” picture is one of a medieval walled city.

#37. Pages  5.5.2 and 5.5.3

“One of the key features for helping residents and visitors know when they are in the Rural Area is a visual boundary. A clear boundary helps to visually define where land development is expected and where it is not expected.”

It should be noted that, although the proportionality of Development Area land to Rural Area land has been around 5% to 95% for many years, the proportional relationship was never established by the Board of Supervisors as a goal or policy.

Are citizens in a quandary over not knowing where they are?  The BOS never voted to establish the 5%/95%  rule!

#38. Page 5.5.9

 “Development Area Land Area  Density and Design:  the Neighborhood Model”

Much of this is Smart Growth by another name; the benefits of which have been disputed in the APA paper mentioned earlier.

#39. Page 5.5.21

 “It is natural for residents to fear the effects of change as the County makes efforts to create more dense and urban neighborhoods in the Development

Areas. Specific fears often expressed are more traffic, crime, overcrowding of schools, and a loss of privacy.”

These are the very faults of Smart Growth documented in the APA paper mentioned earlier.  The residents are right to fear!  They are being forced into a living mode which they do not want, just because the planners and “new urbanists” have decided what is best for them…rule by the elite class and a trademark of the socialists.

#40. Page  5.5.23

“Strategy 3a: Plan and provide for necessary infrastructure improvements that are currently impediments to developing vacant sites.

Albemarle County can help to support development of infill lots as well as redevelopment by identifying needed improvements to infrastructure such as streets and utilities, funding, and constructing those improvements. It is also important that when public projects are proposed, planned infrastructure improvements are done in a timely fashion so that they may be incorporated into new developments as necessary.”

Are taxpayer funds to used to make a private development workable because of planning/zoning impediments?

#41.  Pages 5.5.26-27-33

“This Comprehensive Plan recommends that the County begin studying ways in which the Zoning Ordinance might be amended in support of urban agriculture. It will be important to designate appropriate locations for urban agriculture. For example, keeping of farm animals within an apartment complex may not be suitable, but it might be acceptable on a single-family lot. Consideration will be needed on whether the County should align its regulations with the City’s. If not, then minimum standards will be needed for poultry, livestock, and bees, along with enforcement of those standards. At present, urban agriculture opportunities should not be extended to the keeping of pigs and cattle since these animals pose concerns for the safety, welfare, and protection of neighborhoods and residents.”

This gives birth to another massive new bureaucratic infrastructure, this one to regulate would-be City farmers, and brings  visions of Third World living-in-poverty housing.

Housing:

#42. Page 5.6.2

“This change is due, in part, to the County’s Growth Management Policy and the high cost of raw land in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. Recent surveys conducted for the Livability Project indicate a strong demand for single-family detached homes. Some of this demand is being met in surrounding counties, such as Augusta, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson.”

Because of an active County policy of discouraging development in the 95% of the County, and pushing development into the other 5%, this is what one would expect.  This Smart Growth policy makes housing more expensive, and encourages more vehicle use to escape the increased housing costs and property tax burden. The APA paper  quoted earlier documents these negative outcomes.

#43. Page 5.6.4

“Affordability…Historically, housing in Albemarle County has been more expensive relative to the rest of the State”

See #42 above.  This is just the law of supply and demand.  Planning decisions have financial consequences.

#44. Page 5.6.6

“At present, however, there are no mechanisms to ensure that affordable units remain affordable.”

Will the planners next be advocating “rent control”?

#45. Page 5.6.6-7

 “In Albemarle County, the majority of affordable housing should be provided in the Development Areas and should be well integrated within neighborhoods rather than in enclaves. Construction of affordable housing is expected from the development community.”

What will be the expected reaction of existing neighborhood residents to the imposition of the new “Affordable Housing” mix?

#46. Page 5.6.11

“One of the casualties of a loss in staff in the Housing Office has been loss of the ability to develop and maintain an inventory of sales or rentals of proffered units and whether or not those units remain affordable when they are sold. Research is needed on finding ways to have these units remain affordable. Staff time for this activity requires funding.”

Is using existing staff more efficiently not an option?  Why not have Relators provide the data?

#47. Page 5.6.12

“Architectural design would need to be considered in a zoning amendment of this type as well as density. Exploration of ways to creatively add affordable units should be done and the zoning regulations changed as needed.”

The planners’ solution to all problems always seems to be more governmental control via regulations.

More property would be “affordable” if more attention were directed to encourage a more welcoming business environment, which would generate  jobs and elevate incomes out of the “affordable housing” criteria.

#48. Page 5.6.15

“No less than 25% of units in the Development Areas are multi-family units and are townhouse/attached units”

Who has decided that 25% is the correct minimum? Is there a maximum?

Transportation:

#49. Page 5.7.1Transportation is one of the most important services provided by government. Not only does the transportation system provide for the mobility of people and goods, it also influences growth patterns by providing access to land. Transportation links people to their jobs, schools, shopping, community activities, and entertainment…Moving people and goods by way of the County’s road and highway network will continue to be the dominant method of travel in the near future

A frank admission of the obvious…

#50. Page 5.7.2

“A connected, mixed used community can improve health by reducing vehicle emissions which, in turn, reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by people. A reduction in VMT improves air quality by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by vehicles. Interconnected streets, as well as promoting alternatives to vehicular travel, like mass transit, walking or biking, has the potential to improve or mitigate air quality problems by also reducing VMT.”

The planners continue to refuse to consider the scientific study reported which found that the Smart Growth/Compact Development model does not deliver on this assumption. See earlier reference to APA paper.

#51. Page 5.7.2

“Cost-Efficient Use of Public Dollars…Benefits more travelers with the same amount of money (move more people, not vehicles)”\

The vast amount of data on public mass transit documents it as a “money loser” requiring large amounts of taxpayer subsidies.

#52. Page 5.7.2

“More Transportation Choices.  Not constrained to using auto to get around. Mode, time, location, and route choices”

At what taxpayer cost?  Is it cost-effective?

#53. Page 5.7.2

Economic Vitality…“Less time lost; time = money”

Absolutely true, and that is why people love their cars.  They can go where and when they wish, rather than being a slave to the bus schedule with its intermittent service.  How many bicyclists to you see shopping in summer heat or winter cold? We do not have the population density to make public transit cost-effective ,except in a few limited areas.

#54. Page  5.7.3

“Concentrating growth in the Development Areas will continue to increase the efficiency and affordability of public infrastructure, including the transportation system. Focused growth will decrease the need for new and improved transportation facilities and infrastructure outside of growth areas, thereby providing more funding to invest in maintaining the existing system.”

All true, except the planners neglect the human factor, and  that people have a variety of reasons to want to live where they chose to do so; not because some planner thinks that the cook-book solution to behavioral control is his area of expertise.

 #55. Page 5.7.9

The major transportation goals for Albemarle County’s rural areas are to preserve rural character while improving safety and multimodal transportation choices. Residents suggested leaving the rural roads as they are, whenever possible, focusing on road safety improvements such as shoulders and guardrails, straightening curves, and increased regular maintenance, rather than paving and widening rural roads. Road improvements should support intended growth, and not encourage growth outside of the Development Areas, as well as provide access from farms to markets along strategic routes.

So roads should be left as they are except where they are not…so widening and paving are not safety improvements…a bit of muddled thinking here.  However, the planners’ aim is to make the Rural areas less desirable for citizens, and to make automobile usage inconvenient.

#56. Pages 5.7.15-16

“Bicycling provides an alternative mode of transportation to vehicular travel. Bicycle travel is accommodated through use of on-road bicycle lanes that share lanes with vehicular traffic…”

Bicycle transportation is alternate, but it is not equivalent to car transportation.  The local bicycle activists seem to have had  a heavy hand throughout this Transportation section. Is the County preparing to require bicycle and bicycle operator licenses to ensure that this projected wave of bicyclists is qualified to operate in a safe and responsible manner, and observe all vehicular traffic laws?

Does sharing lanes with vehicular traffic mean that the number of vehicular lanes will be narrowed or eliminated? What about two-lane rural County roads?

#57. Page 5.7.24

“Strategy 4f: Except for agricultural and forestal purposes, limit construction of new roads in the Rural Area, especially where road building would impact or fragment natural habitats.

Strategy 4g: Require that new road projects and road improvement projects include measures that avoid degrading habitats or actively improve them (for example, wildlife tunnels where roads cross migration corridors, stream crossing designs that consider habitat connectivity as well as flood level impacts, etc.).”

This is part of the Biodiversity mindset being advocated by the planners.  This gives an open-ended invitation to planners to restrict private property rights since “impact or fragment” can be construed as potential universal results of any construction project.

#58. Page  5.7.26

“The Albemarle–Charlottesville region has demonstrated that it is a profitable and growing marketplace for passenger rail. The 2013 General Assembly passed atransportation funding bill (HB2313) that includes more than $500 million over the next decade for intercity passenger rail.”

Do not make any plans based on HB2313 as the Virginia Attorney General has determined parts of it to be unconstitutional.

Parks and Recreation:

#59. Page  5.8.1“Greenways-blueways and green systems can add economic value by potentially increasing property values and increasing tourism and recreation-related revenues.”

Possibly true, except when such systems are carved out of private property by planning edicts and zoning, without monetary compensation to the property owner.

#60. Page 5.8.1

“The National Park Service maintains Shenandoah National Park, which is owned by the federal government and is located in the Rural…”

Are you at all familiar with how the NPS came to acquire this property?  It is not a pretty tale.

#61. Page 5.8.3

 “4. Provide an economic benefit – Greenways can promote the area’s economy while maintaining environmental assets directly in terms of eco-tourism and, indirectly, in terms of increased property values.”

Except when they are carved out of private property without just monetary compensation…

#62. Page  5.8.9

“The Greenway Map currently calls for building 52 miles of trails. The trail locations proposed on the Greenway Map are conceptual in nature.”

Do any of these trails cross private property?  Will the  permission of the owners be required and  honored?

#63. Page 5.8.13

“The County’s Transportation Plan recognizes that a system of pedestrian and bicycle improvements is needed to provide for multimodal access throughout the County and, especially, throughout the Development Areas. Making connections to important centers in the Development Areas, as well as making connections to City parks and other County-owned parks, means that sidewalks and paths along streets will…”

 Not all transportation modalities are appropriate or practical throughout the County.

#64. Page  5.8.13

“Propose recommendations to the County, such as amendments to current zoning and subdivision regulations to facilitate implementation.

 Refer landowners to appropriate land trusts; be pro-active in acquiring right-of-way or donation of land for greenways”

Zoning and regulations to coerce the uncooperative land owner…? Donate or else…?

#65. Page  5.8.24

“Creating greenways and blueways, and constructing greenway trails and blueway improvements requires both money and volunteers.”

It may also require access to or across private property.

Community Facilities and Services:

#66.  Page  5.9.16

Keep buildings and spaces at a human scale so that street views are attractive and pedestrian friendly.

“Building size and orientation on the site (and to the street and neighborhood) should be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood to the extent possible and appropriate. As a general rule, buildings should have their front entrance oriented to the street, with parking relegated internal to the site and away from the street.”

This represents Form-based design building codes:

http://www.a2gov.org/a2d2/designguidelines/Documents/Seminar2FormBasedCodes.pdf

By building to a formula, the architects tend to produce cookie-cutter designs with facades reminiscent of Disneyland or Potemkin-like facades seen in the “City Walk of Universal Studios,” or Stonepoint locally.

#67. Page  5.9.16

“Housing density is not directly related to facility development; however, when locating and building facilities, the expectation for residential density nearby should be taken into consideration to avoid sprawling site development, which under-utilizes sites and does not create or contribute to compact, walkable neighborhood development.

This presents the planner’s false choice between two “extremes.  “Sprawl” is the emotionally charged word for planners who seem not to be able to consider a true mix of land use.

#68. Page 5.9.18

“Strategy 3a.4: Achieve U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) basic level certification on all new public buildings so long as planning and energy modeling determine that the upfront expense does not unreasonably exceed the long-term savings.”

Why do it at all if costs exceed long-term savings?

FACILITY STANDARDS FOR SCHOOLS:

#69. Page 5.9.23

 “Provide physical facilities that enable the School Division to provide a high quality educational system for students in Albemarle County.”

There is no mention of consideration of unnecessary exposure of school children environmental harms.  As the community has oft invoked the “precautionary principle,” it is surprising that there was no consideration by the County School Board of possible health risks associated with introducing Wi-Fi into the K-12 schools about a decade ago..  This health concern is readily resolved by using a wired connection for each computer and turning off the Wi-Fi microwave radio transmitters in the classrooms.  http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/herbert-lausd/   I brought this health concern to the attention of the Albemarle School Board, and to the Albemarle BOS last year.

There are more points to critique in the CPD, but by now the pattern should be evident.

Although the federal government had successfully operated without an income tax for 124 years under the Constitution, the American people in 1913 chose to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment, giving Congress the “power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.” It is reasonable to expect that the people would not have granted such a broad power to the federal government unless circumstances required it. So what prompted this desperate action? Why was an income tax suddenly necessary in America 100 years ago?

In truth, it wasn’t needed at all. Total federal tax revenue was at an all-time high in 1913, and tax receipts that year were almost 25 percent higher than they were in 1909, the year Congress submitted the Sixteenth Amendment to the states for ratification.

Moreover, there was no debt crisis. In 1909, the national debt was only 8.2 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 1913, the debt-to-GDP ratio had actually dropped to 7.5 percent. In comparison, the nation’s debt-to-GDP ratio in 1791 was 37 percent, which resulted from the federal government’s assumption of all state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War. And despite this large debt, the federal government succeeded in paying it off entirely by 1835, without a tax on income.

Given the manageable national debt and rising tax receipts in 1913, there really was no need for another source of federal revenue, and many proponents of the income tax didn’t even speak of its necessity in that day. They instead argued that the tax might prove useful in some future, unspecified situations. Senator Norris Brown, who was the first to propose the Sixteenth Amendment in Congress, opined that the income tax might be wielded only “in national emergencies” or “when necessary to the life of the republic.” He further said, “Whether the [income-tax] power shall be exercised, when it shall be exercised, or whether it shall be exercised at all, are other questions entirely aside from the question of whether the government shall be vested or stripped of the power.” In essence, many supporters of the income tax viewed it as a tool of convenience for the federal government—a power to be used infrequently, if ever, with a limited impact on the people.

But then there were other progressives who viewed the income tax as essential in transforming the national government into an instrument for social justice. They knew that a controlling centralized government needed the financial backing necessary to achieve their progressive aims of providing for the people and leveling economic conditions. So they encouraged other Americans to support the Sixteenth Amendment as a means to sacrifice their property for the greater good, to government. One such advocate referred to the income tax as a “most just and equitable tax” and urged, “Men should contribute to the needs of the state as God has prospered them.”

It was not long before progressive Democrats began demanding these contributions from the people by law. Two months after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, President Woodrow Wilson summoned a special session of Congress to ask for new taxes on income. The country was not at war, and there was no national emergency. Regardless, the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted Wilson’s proposed Revenue Act of 1913, and the first constitutional income tax went into effect that year.

The federal income tax initially had a small impact on most Americans, but this was short-lived. By 1918, the tax exemption level dropped below the median income, so many more individuals were compelled to pay an income tax, and the top income-tax rate jumped to 77 percent.

Similar income-tax expansions occurred under Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He increased the tax burden on lower-income earners by reducing personal exemptions and by eliminating the earned income tax credit. And he repeatedly raised taxes on higher-income earners—their rates increased from 63 percent in 1932 to 81 percent in 1940 and then up to 90 percent in 1944.

Although the highest tax rates have dropped over time, the collective income tax burden on the American people has only gotten heavier, for over 90 percent of all federal revenue (more than $2 trillion) is now collected under the income tax. There are other costs associated with this tax as well. American businesses and individuals spend approximately $431 billion each year on income tax compliance costs, which include tax preparation, administration, and enforcement costs. In addition, the income tax system often forces businesses and individuals to alter their behavior in ways that result in lower-valued outcomes than would have occurred in the absence of tax-driven decision making. According to a Government Accountability Office study, these economic efficiency costs are estimated to be between 2 and 5 percent of GDP—in a $15 trillion economy, this cost is anywhere between $300 and $750 billion.

Given the income tax’s broad reach, intrusive informational requirements, time-consuming preparation, costly compliance, and coercive control on the people, it is no wonder why our Founding Fathers left it out of the Constitution. They favored consumption taxes instead and gave Congress the power to levy “duties, imposts, and excises” in Article I of the Constitution.

Writing in The Federalist, No. 21, Alexander Hamilton explained why consumption taxes were so desirable. Consumption taxes would maximize economic liberty, he said, because the amount of tax to be paid “by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal. And private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions.” Hamilton added that consumption taxes were also consistent with the Constitution’s limited design, for any attempt by the national government to overburden the people with taxes would be self-defeating. He wrote:

     It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed—that is, an extension of the revenue. . . . If duties are too high they lessen the consumption—the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasure is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens, by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.

While a natural restraint on federal power is inherent in a consumption tax, no such limit exists with an income tax. As we have seen throughout history, the level of income tax imposed by Congress has been completely arbitrary and virtually unlimited. And because the Sixteenth Amendment is so broad, politicians have been able to use the income tax in ways that exceed its fundamental purpose of raising revenue for government. The income tax has effectively become a tool to implement social policy. Those in power can carve out special tax breaks and subsidies for politically favored groups or industries, and they can create new federal regulations that would otherwise be unconstitutional but for their income tax penalties for noncompliance (e.g., the Affordable Care Act).

It is safe to say that most Americans who voted to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment had no idea what the income tax would become over time. Looking back on 100 years of history, it should be clear to us now that their faith in government to responsibly apply the income tax was grossly misplaced.

So perhaps we should return to the tax system that our founders instituted. Perhaps we should recognize, as they did, that government operates by coercion, not benevolence, and that those who speak of its goodness are only seducing us into submission. Thomas Paine once wrote, “It can only be by blinding the understanding of man, and making him believe that government is some wonderful mysterious thing, that excessive revenues are obtained. . . . It is the popery of government; a thing kept up to amuse the ignorant and quiet them into taxes.” After 100 years of income tax obedience, are we still so easily amused?