Losing the Right to Farm, Losing Property Rights

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The liberal left mantra always seems to be that it is okay for them to take your rights away from you in order to protect you from yourself.  The list of things we are no longer allowed to do as Americans is becoming a long list.  In Michigan, feeding yourself has now been added to that rapidly growing list.  Around the country, the freedom of owning private property, and using it as you please, is being taken away bit by bit.

The Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development has ruled, without the benefit of a vote by citizens, or their representatives, that the residents of the State of Michigan no longer have the "right to farm."  The regulatory changes “effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals.”  The Commission ruled that the Right to Farm Act protections no longer apply to many homeowners who keep small numbers of livestock.

In effect, what the politicians and bureaucrats have done, is while claiming they are for the little guy, and railing against big corporations, they have eliminated the little guy, and have given the big corporations more business.

Who's in whose pocket?

Local governments may now arbitrarily ban goats, chickens and beehives on any property where there are 13 homes within one eighth mile or a residence within 250 feet of the property.  The Right to Farm Act was created in 1981 to protect farmers from the complaints of people from the city who moved to the country and then attempted to make it more urban with anti-farming ordinances. The new changes affect residents of rural Michigan too. It is not simply an urban or suburban concern.

The Agenda 21 connection, a drive to push humans out of rural areas and into population zones, while stripping those people of many of their rights so that the system can become the lone provider of all necessities, is apparent.  It is all about control, and it is all about enabling the government to centralize the production of food into a small band of major farms.

The ruling comes within days of a report by The World Health Organization that stated the world is currently in grave danger of entering a post-antibiotic era. The WHO’s director-general Dr. Margaret Chan argued that the antibiotic use in our industrialized food supply is the worst offender adding to the global crisis.

As the madness of Genetically Modified Foods, and the inability to protect the food we receive from disease is reaching critical mass, The Michigan Agriculture Commission has decided to take away from Americans in their State the ability to bypass the dangers of GMOs and food handling outside of our own purview, essentially killing the local farmer, which is an integral part of creating local, healthy, sustainable food.

Indiana, a State not dominated by liberal left democrats like Michigan, is following a trend doing the opposite.  Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed Senate Bill 179 a few weeks before Michigan's regulatory ruling which freed up poultry and egg sales from local and state regulation. Yesterday, the USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack announced massive funding to support research about small and medium-sized family farms, such as small farms ability to build-up local and regional economic systems.

In Michigan, the idea that the Right to Farm Act protected small farms was rejected, and the compliance to local zoning ordinances took control.

Using zoning changes to limit the use of one's property is an epidemic.  Government is seizing control of property nationwide, and using various tactics to quell one's rights regarding how land can be used.  The Nevada rancher, Cliven Bundy, and his battle with the Bureau of Land Management is a clear example of government intrusion into the lives of property owners, and the smaller operations that provide food for Americans.

In California's Central Valley, what used to be a lush, green agricultural zone is now an abandoned dust bowl because the bureaucrats starved the area of water in the name of saving a small fish.  The government imposed water shortage killed jobs, killed food production, and killed the freedom to be a farmer in the Central Valley.

Recently, in the City of Murrieta, California, citizens packed the city council chambers when re-zoning was being proposed to enlarge the Riverside County Recycling Zone.  The changes would limit how properties could be used, even limiting business opportunities in the eastern area of the city.

The problems in Murrieta, a member of the Temecula Valley community of cities, is nothing new to the group of communities nestled inland between Los Angeles and San Diego.  In the southwest corner of Riverside County, government land grabs in the name of the United Nations imposed environmentalist concept of "sustainable development" has become a regular problem.  Residents in an area called "Los Alamos Hills," for example, have been restricted regarding their property, told that for environmental conservation reasons, they cannot use their property in any way beyond its current usage.  No new tool sheds.  No new additions to the home.  No development of any kind.  And the property owners are slowly being driving out of the area, unable to sell their land, since it has been rendered useless, and worthless, by the government.

Nearby, Calvary Chapel Murrieta purchased land for the purpose of expanding their campus, but was denied use of the land.  In the name of conservation, the property was rendered largely undevelopable because the local city council, under orders by State conservation agencies, believed it was "critical to the preservation of native species there."  Of the 118 acres purchased by the church, initially the church was told 100% of the land would have to be preserved.  After legal actions, the church has been told that perhaps as many as 29 acres of their land may be developed.  With the conservation tag slapped on the property, the value of the property plummeted.  The church discovered they could not refinance it as the interest payments mounted.  The only buyer available should they try to get rid of the property is the city, or the conservation agency, both at a price below what the property would be valued at if it had not been "blue lined".

At Temecula's Vail Lake, the federal government's land seizure is also in full swing, once again with the bureaucracies using the claim of "conservation."  Bill Johnson claims his property at Vail Lake, the largest privately-owned lake in California, is being threatened by the county, state, and federal governments through the use of intimidation under the guise of environmental concerns.

Over 15,000 property owners in Riverside County have lost their land, bought off by the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), for environmental reasons.  They were forced off their land because due to extreme environmental regulations their property could not be developed, split, or farmed, and it became too expensive to continue to pay the fees and taxes on property that could not be used.

"They devalued properties," Johnson said. "The government told property owners that selling to the state would be voluntary. They said, 'If you don't sell to us, you won’t be able to sell it to anyone.' The land became worthless and devalued since you can’t farm it or build on it."

Congressman Duncan Hunter said of the situation, "If the government says you can’t use your property for anything, they've essentially taken your property from you.  Essentially, you're not a real property owner. Then the government has the best of all worlds--they paralyze your use of the property but they still demand property tax from you."

Using the Endangered Species Act as a weapon against property rights, local governments are exerting power over land owners.  Property owners are left to beg the government to allow them to use their land, and the response is "no, but we'll buy it from you for far less than it would otherwise be worth."

Currently, the Bureau of Land Management controls about two-thirds of Riverside County, according to Johnson. "The county claims they need the land to protect lots of rare species, but there have been studies done that that just isn't true."

The MSHCP further claims the land should be under government control, since Johnson owes $4.75 million in property taxes, penalties and interest on overdue fees. Johnson has largely refused to compensate the agencies trying to seize his property. He believes that the tax assessments would be fair if he were able to develop or farm his own land--but because the MSHCP will not allow this, his property value is substantially less.

Johnson said, "How can you pay taxes on property you can do nothing with? The government will sneer at you and say, 'It's our property. You need to pay taxes, but the property is ours in the end.' During the 17 years that I've owned Vail Lake, I have not built one single thing on the property. The minute I bought my land, they started taking all my rights away. They stripped the zoning, general plan, and specific plan for the property and open space designation, depriving it of its value."

State or local authorities like the MSHCP act as the "third party," and leave home owners very little choice but to sell by barring their land from being developed. MSHCP then hands the land over to the BLM, which currently controls both plots of land bordering Vail Lake.

Johnson is no stranger to government land grabs. In 1995, Riverside County, along with help from federal agents, seized his 2,000 acre ranch on the Santa Rosa Plateau in the hills above Murrieta. Johnson said he lost over $18 million on the property, which the county claims to have seized to protect the endangered kangaroo rat.

Johnson said people in his county, and indeed across the U.S., are becoming concerned about the growing government power over land rights. "There is a growing understanding that this is wrong," Johnson said. "Everyone understands, even some of the environmental advocates, that this has spun out-of-control."

Hunter added that Johnson's case is "a real point of principle. When property rights are discretionary, and a government entity has the power to take it from you, then the danger of political corruption and manipulation of property rights becomes very real."

The Constitution regards property rights, and the right to own private property, to be so important that the Bill of Rights' 5th Amendment includes an injunction against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.  The purpose was to ensure privately owned property was protected as much as possible.  Environmentalism, and statists bent on government control of property, are using conservationism as an end-around, disregarding constitutional protections, and they are seizing private property in the name of the common good and saving the planet, while diminishing the right to own private property.

In short, Americans are systematically being denied one of their most precious historical God-given rights, the right to own private property, and government is doing it in the name of the "common good."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Michigan Loses 'Right to Farm' This Week: A Farewell to Backyard Chickens and Beekeepers - Inquisitr

Bundy Ranch: The Agenda 21 "Shot" Heard 'Round the World - Dollar Vigilante

The government-imposed California dust bowl - Net Right Daily

Obama: I'll veto bill that will provide water to California's Central Valley - SodaHead

The WHO Urgently Warns: Post-Antibiotic Ear is Almost Upon Us - Inquisitr

Murrieta Delays Decision on Joining Countywide Recycling Zone - Murrieta Patch

Forum: Land grabs place habitat over rights of humans - The Californian

Murrieta: Calvary Chapel must get project denied in order to sell land - Union-Tribune San Diego

Murrieta: Landowners frustrated with conservation board, city leaders who refuse to meet - Union-Tribune San Diego

Federal Land Grab Comes to California at Vail Lake - Breitbart

Habitat Conservation - Regional Conservation Authority