 |
|||
|
|
February/March 2007 Orlean Koehle
One day last July, Orlean Koehle opened her mailbox and found a surprise; a postcard announcing a hearing about changes to the local land use plans the County Board of Supervisors were poised to adopt. The message urged all landowners who had a creek or river running through their properties to attend the meeting. Orlean said information about the hearing came not from the County Board of Supervisors, but from area real estate agencies, concerned about the negative impacts the Plan could have on local markets. The Planning Board apparently expected little opposition to the General Plan and figured to pass the new regulations at the July meeting but 1,400 determined people figured differently and their persistence had a profound effect on the outcome of the Plan. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, an elected body, and the Planning Commission, an appointed body, had devised a plan to regulate private property on a grand scale. For starters, the plan, “General Plan, 2020,” mandated a 100-foot setback for landowners who had a creek running through their property. Those unlucky enough to have a river on their land would have to forfeit a 200-foot setback. The landowners learned they would not be able to use the setback land for anything; it would instead be reserved for the general public to hike along the creeks and rivers, enjoying nature and scattering trash. As the meeting wore on, the news got worse. Landowners would not be allowed to build any fences along the setbacks unless they were wildlife-friendly; 18 inches off the ground and no higher than 4 feet. “That’s not a fence,” said a man in the audience, “that’s a clothesline.” The audience was stunned by the audacity of the Board. This was the first anyone had heard of the grand scheme. No one had asked any of the landowners if they minded if the county took control of their property. No one had offered to buy the land in question or even invited any of them to the bargaining table. Come to think of it, there was no bargaining table. As soon as Orlean learned what the meeting was about, she figured she and her neighbors would have to get their ducks in a row in a hurry if they stood any chance of heading off the Board’s plans. “At the July hearing,” she said, “I came with some invitations for those who would like to organize to fight this.” Orlean made some calls trying to find someone who could advise them, with little success; that is, until Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center, told her about Stewards of the Range and their program to help landowners fight government aggression. “About 40 people showed up at the [first] meeting we held at our neighbor’s winery,” Orlean said. The little band of fighters, now “The Sonoma County Land Rights Coalition,” wasted no time in contacting Fred Grant, president of Stewards of the Range to enlist his help to thwart the county’s plans. “When Orlean contacted me,” Fred said, “she and the other landowners were already well organized and had reviewed the Board’s plans. I went through the steps they would need to follow and helped them write their petition enumerating their grievances, that they then circulated throughout the county.” California state law dictates that each county’s general plan must be reviewed every few years, but the law didn’t automatically require changes. Orlean’s research revealed that the Board had taken its lead from the American Planning Association (APA). APA is the group that put together the “Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook” requested by the Housing and Urban Development Department, which was the basis for the unsuccessful 2002 federal land use-planning bill, the Community Character Act, S. 975. The APA also supported Rep. Don Young’s attempt in 2004 to resuscitate the old Conservation and Reinvestment Act land grab, with his Get Outdoors Act, H.R 4100. Not only did the County want the setbacks, it further encumbered the land with biotic habitats. Inspection of county maps revealed that 15,000 county properties had been tagged as biotic habitats. The affected landowners were puzzled by their selection as they had never been contacted by county officials regarding the designation, nor had they noticed anyone surveying their property. When questioned about the designation, the County replied that it merely identified properties that “may” have endangered plants or animals. If the property owners want to restore their property values they must lay out big bucks, $30,000 to $40,000 in some cases, to have a certified biologist examine the property for endangered species. If nothing is found, the owner may breathe a little easier, that is until the County dreams up some other way to confiscate his property rights. The third leg of the Plan is water wells. The Board determined that in order to protect the water resources, it would be necessary to place meters on all the 40,000 private wells in Sonoma County. The County would require an easement so their people could come onto the properties and monitor the wells. The landowner would have to buy the monitoring devices and then pay to have them installed. The estimated costs range from $1,500 to over $4,000. Ever since the tyranny alarm bells rang last July, the Coalition kept the heat on the Commission by attending all of the meetings to air their protests. Their persistence was rewarded, when, at the October meeting the Planning Board announced it would abandon its proposals to prohibit development in 100-foot setbacks. The Coalition still had the well issue to deal with and, with the
January Planning Board meeting looming, they had to act fast. It was
in December that they arranged for Fred Grant to meet with them to
prepare for that all-important well meeting. Grant spent all one Saturday
going over the strategy, until everyone was satisfied with their plans. “It was viewed as the county stepping further into property rights than it should,” said Greg Carr, the county’s comprehensive planning division manager. “It is a significant pullback in terms of the aggressiveness of a well monitoring program.” Even though the Coalition has stood its ground and won some important concessions from the Planning Board, its members realize the war against creeping socialism is far from being won. Everything they have gained they have done themselves. Orlean said she had tried to get some help from her congressmen and had spoken at length about the problem with an aide to her U. S. Representative, Lynne Woolsey. “The young lady seemed very interested,” Orlean said, “and I gave her loads of information,” but Rep. Woolsey never bothered to return her calls or take time to meet with her. Orlean says what is happening in Sonoma County is going on all over the country. As president of the California Eagle Forum, an affiliate of Phyllis Schlafly’s National Eagle Forum, she travels all over the United States speaking to other Eagle Forum chapters about property rights and family values. When she spoke at the annual convention in Washington D. C. last September, she mentioned the battle Sonoma County was fighting. She was appalled, she said, to see heads nodding in understanding. “I discovered this was going on across our nation,” she said. “This is a dangerous movement and we must expose its menace to the light of day. That is why I appreciate organizations like Stewards of the Range and anyone who is trying to do something to stop government from taking people’s rights.” Today’s landowners are under siege from a kaleidoscope of special interests all seeking one thing; control of private property. Stewards of the Range, along with the American Land Foundation and Liberty Matters, are striving to help private property owners find solutions, not just slogans. |
||
|
|
|||
|
|||
