HOME

May/June 2007
Volume I; Issue 2
Special Report:
Conservation Easements

Anatomy of a Victory
World Heritage Site Rejected

San Luis Obispo County, California, is under attack from every imaginable anti-property rights proposal, including a recent effort to designate a key portion of the county a United Nation’s World Heritage Site.

But the citizens came prepared, beat back the designation, and have secured a great victory for their community.

After taking in the Unite to Fight conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, last year, two of the counties’ landowners went home with a mission to organize and fight the many issues they faced. They began to work through a local property rights group and with the Farm Bureau and Cattleman’s Association to insert themselves in the planning commission’s process.

One issue they learned about was an effort on behalf of the Wilderness Society to designate a portion of the county as a World Heritage Site, which would place the area under the regulatory authority of the United Nations. The plan developed for use within the Site would have to be consistent with UN guidelines, and would be monitored closely by UN personnel. Under an Executive Order issued by Bill Clinton, and never revoked, UN personnel working at these World Heritage Sites (WHS) were given diplomatic immunity from actions at law in the U.S. (Eliminating possible “takings” actions? Probably.)

The deadline for submitting a WHS nomination was April 1. Six weeks prior to this, the Wilderness Society began visiting with the Chambers of Commerce, other conservation groups, city councils, county boards and tourism organizations about how important a WHS designation could be to the tourism business and local economy. They visited with everyone except the landowners whose property would be affected.

The citizens, however, had been working closely with Fred Grant, President of Stewards of the Range, on a number of the issues they faced, and one of them watched the planning agenda closely enough to find the World Heritage Site designation added to the March 20 meeting agenda. However, it was not placed in any prominent position, but was included under the “Presentation” section of the agenda, usually reserved for awards and honors and other issues with no controversial action associated with the item. It read, “Presentation of the World Heritage Site.”

Very quickly, they prepared testimony about the lack of due process and lack of public notice. This resulted in the Supervisors setting the matter for a hearing March 27.

Now, with a little time to organize, the property rights groups Farm Bureau and Cattleman’s Association went
to work, following the strategy outlined by Grant in one of their meetings. The end result was the nomination was defeated, and the WHS is off the table for the next ten years.

For those fighting WHS designations in their area, or other similar anti-private property proposals, here is how it was done.

1. They acquired a copy of the United Nations UNESCO guidelines and studied carefully each of the elements that effect private property, particularly the portions that call for buffers of private property to help protect the site, and the section that says written consent of every private property owner within the site must be given, in order for the nomination to be made.
2. Prepared arguments as to how the nomination would specifically affect the landowners. For instance, the site was planned to be within an existing national monument, and the ranchers grazing in the monument would now be subject to a new management plan written by a federal agency, but ih compliance with UN guidelines and oversight.
3. Prepared individuals to testify on key points to be made at the hearing about the UNESCO guidelines and the impact they will have on property owners.
a. Property owners within the site prepared to testify that they opposed the designation and would not provide written consent (as required for nomination under the UNESCO controlling guidelines);
b. An individual prepared to submit the UNESCO guidelines in the record to show the enormity of the guidelines and restrictions which are applicable to what the proponents of the site called a mere matter of “symbolism” which would have no effect on private property;
c. Another individual prepared to speak on the guidelines which require buffers on private property, thus showing there is impact;
d. Another individual prepared to testify as to how species of wildlife have dwindled at the proposed site since cattle grazing and grain farming have been removed;
4. Prepared testimony that makes clear the lack of due process and the flawed process by which the Supervisors handled the nomination without giving the general public a chance to prepare and testify.  Many issues fail on procedural grounds because the authority does not follow the right process. They prepared the points necessary to ensure the Supervisors knew that the people were aware they did not follow their own process, much less due process, and that such would be reason for appeal on a process ground alone, regardless of the merits.  They were advised not to specify that they could go to court and get the decision overturned, just to point out the concept, knowing the county counsel would understand what this meant.
5. Acquired a copy of the planning commission file on the WHS. The members copied the file as soon as they learned it was on the agenda. They then reviewed the file the day prior to the hearing, and the day of the hearing, noting any changes made to the file.

The video of the hearing shows that the witnesses delivered great testimony during the March 27 hearing. They spoke with passion and facts. They divided the testimony between different interest such as ranchers, current planners, members of advisory groups, and members of local Cattlemen and Farm Bureau organizations. Four people pointed out the guideline problems and the others dissected the flawed process the Supervisors had followed.

The end result was a 3-2 decision rejecting filing a nomination application.  Since, the deadline was April 1, and there can be no further action on this site for 10 years under UNESCO guidelines. They are saved from this one for a decade.

Well done, property owners of San Luis Obispo County.

Standing Ground is published by: Stewards of the Range, American Land Foundation & Liberty Matters
Executive Editors: Dan and Margaret Byfield
Publication Deisgner: Kelley Black
Editorial Office:
P.O. Box 1190
Taylor, TX 76574
(512) 365-8038
email
Members of Stewards of the Range, American Land Foundation and Liberty Matters receive
Standing Ground as part of membership. To order additional copies, call our offices (1-800-700-5922).
Standing Ground can be made available in bulk quantities. Please call for pricing.
Permission to reproduce articles is granted with proper attribution to the author and publishers.

Stewards of the Range is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization