The violations of private property rights which have flowed from the environmental movement and its adherence to the erroneous theory of “intrinsic value” have already caused intense hardships for many people. Individuals have been prevented from developing their land as they best see fit because of claims by environmentalists that such usage would threaten an endangered species, a coastline, a wetlands, or the general “character” of some landscape. The contention is that efforts to enjoy the benefits of these properties would destroy the value which that land or animal or plant supposedly possesses by its mere existence regardless of its relationship to specific human beings.
Unfortunately, as the old saying goes, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” — ECO-FASCISM by Russell Madden
The stunning upset and destruction of the takings clause of the Constitution by the Supremes’ Kelo v. New London decision reverberated across the country. “How could this happen in America?” people everywhere asked. The decision initiated a wave of public backlash. Covetous rich developers colluding with big government to drive people from their homes and off their own land. The hideous narrative repulsed average Americans, as well it should.
Ironically, the same Americans offended by Kelo are all too often ready to collude with government to force their own wills on their neighbors. Guiding principles of freedom and personal property rights quickly go out the window. The new commandment is “If thy neighbor offends thee, run to the government.” Principles be damned. The only difference being who’s ox is gored. The outcome of a dispute depends not on immutable individual rights, but only on which special interest can coerce the government to act on their behalf.
Such is the cynicism on display over a recent cell-tower dispute in Blount County.
MARYVILLE – When Jennifer Moore looks up from her deck she sees a nearly majestic vista, a mountainside that rises to the sky and gives her home the rustic character she and her husband, Peter, have long pursued.
Leading the group [opposing the tower] was Jennifer Moore, president of the Stonegate property owners association, who offered an impassioned-but-reasoned plea for the tower’s rejection.
Following the board action, Moore said her group will be taking a harder look at county regulations and federal telecommunications rules to determine their rights. She maintains the board has the right to deny the application on aesthetic and environmental concerns of residents.
[The tower] would be directly across a hollow from home she and her husband built several years ago [in the Stonegate subdivision].
“It is basic common sense,” she said, “that if property is in a scenic area and there are views that make your home appealing, it can’t not have a negative impact on home values.” [Emphasis mine.]
Well, I guess it is “basic common sense” to environmental fascists. Not so much to me.
The essential argument seems to be that existing homes overlook a ‘majestic mountainside’ that happens to belong to someone else, and that since said view adds to the homes appeal, then it should remain undisturbed in perpetuity.
Huh? Does anyone stop to think about the outrageousness of such an argument? The rightful owner is to be deprived of the use of and income from his property due to some neighbor’s sense of aestheticism. Are the protester’s going to compensate the adjacent owner for his loss? The question is rhetorical. You know the answer. How arrogant. How selfish. How noxious.
May I remind those who live in the Stonegate community that the exact same objection could have been used to prevent you from having a home in which to live in the first instance! But since you already reap the benefit of property development, why be concerned about the needs or rights of others? “The others” must be kept at bay.
Here is another sad example of the disdain for property rights in America, right in our own backyard. Let us hope that ‘common sense’ prevails among the members of the Blount County Zoning Board.