Agenda 21 Opportunist, Peter Kasabach, executive director of the planning advocacy group New Jersey Future, says that subsidy, along with federal flood insurance that encourages rebuilding, is problematic.

Agenda 21 principles in action, (…)Peter Kasabach, executive director of the planning advocacy group New Jersey Future, says that subsidy, along with federal flood insurance that encourages rebuilding, is problematic….He suggested bans on building in some sensitive beach areas, or requirements that homes be built farther from the ocean.

The Surfrider Foundation’s Nelsen said he hopes that New Jersey communities at least consider rebuilding in different places, which he said has never been done on a large scale in a U.S. oceanfront.(…)http://www.my9tv.com/story/19974633/battered-nj-confronts-how-to-rebuild-its-shore    here.

It sounds so sensible, doesn’t it? But these groups statements need to be examined closely to see who benefits and who loses and what is changed and what happens to private property and the right to use property both private and public.

The UN Agenda 21 states in their accords that coastal communities must be depopulated and re-wilded back to nature. So where would this goal lead New Jerseyites in the aftermath of Sandy? If Peter Kasabach and planning advocacy group New Jersey Future,  and Chad Nelsen, the environmental director of the Surfrider Foundation, a national organization dedicated to preserving beaches and oceans and the Surfrider Foundation got their way?

Many property owners would be removed from their shores, prohibited from rebuilding, or refused federal flood insurance on new structures. Then only those who can afford to build without insurance would be able to occupy the coastal zones in the assurance that their structures would be replaced when storm ravaged.

Just sayin’ here, if there were less regulation and restrictions,  if old style beach structures were not outlawed the property owner could build at his own risk and not lose more than he was willing then arguably there would be a lot of different types of structures side by side, but there many examples of pre-planned communities that are both functional and beautiful. It is not out of the realm of pride of property and human creativity to co-exist without governmental edicts and regulations. Peer pressure is a great regulator and much more personal and effective at the neighbor level. We don’t need outside arbiters in most cases and when we do there judges and courts to settle disputes and infringements.

Theoretically just one goal of UN Agenda 21 is to re-wild the coasts of America.  In reality the immediate effects of new regulations for private coastal property, “Preserving beaches and oceans” as Surfrider Foundation claims to desire, would put New Jersey’s shore off limits to all but the moneyed class. There would be many property owners who would have to leave with whatever they could get in payouts and payoffs for their ocean front properties.

This happened to Mississippi communities when Katrina destroyed their homes and businesses, and now that coast is owned and occupied by casinos and big businesses, the poor and the middle class property owners were left with no option to rebuild on the waterfront.

Fortunately Sandy did not obliterate the New Jersey shore and I think property owners there will be in better position to fight against Agenda 21 property usurpations. I hope the little property owner does not get regulated off his coastal holdings through new regulations and restrictions. It would be wise to rebuild properly, but that should be their choice, and if they want to build a sand castle over and over again they have that right. Myself? I would go back to the understanding that beach houses aren’t meant to last forever, they are meant to be enjoyed until washed away, then the owner builds another in its place. I wouldn’t place things in a beach house that I couldn’t afford to loose. But I would forever cling to the right to occupy the sandy beach and walk the shore and see and hear the birds and smell the sea air and taste the salt water.

Preserve the beaches and oceans indeed not for themselves devoid of mankind but for the enjoyment of poor, middle, and all classes of people. UN Agenda 21 would expunge mankind from nature and povertize the 99% from earth’s resources and creation.

Only the 1% could envision that as being preservation of life. That would be a sad place to live.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Agenda 21 Opportunist, Peter Kasabach, executive director of the planning advocacy group New Jersey Future, says that subsidy, along with federal flood insurance that encourages rebuilding, is problematic.

  1. There is so much convoluted logic in this post it’s hard to know where to start unraveling it. So let me see if I can tease out some of the hypotheticals: First, taking steps to strengthen the Shore against future storms by directing development appropriately to where it is most protected = “rewilding.” (Huh? Do you get all your exercise jumping to conclusions?) Second, removing subsidies = only the moneyed class will be able to rebuild = bad. But I thought government intervention in the market = bad? Oh, but wait — the little people can rebuild too; they just have to be prepared for their houses to be destroyed after every storm. Sure, every little property owner can afford that. And third, what is completely unaddressed is where public investment should go — you know, money taxpayers put up for roads, utilities, public safety, etc. Why would anyone want his or her tax dollars to go to investments that get destroyed and have to be rebuilt after every storm?

    No one was suggesting the Shore not be rebuilt. However, it makes all the sense in the world to examine how best to rebuild so that property owners can enjoy their homes with reduced fear of storm-related destruction; so that tourists can visit and enjoy the recreational opportunities there; and so that public money is well invested.

    1. Thanks for your comments,
      This is the classic private property vs government argument. Your statement,”First, taking steps to strengthen the Shore against future storms by directing development appropriately” indicates belief that private property owners cannot self-regulate for their own and their community’s best interests. That just isn’t true.

      Most people will consult best information available to be safe and structurally sound before building back upon their private property, but if they don’t, they still have the right to choose to build their “castle” upon the sand at their own risks.

      Infrastructure is paid for through property taxes paid by property owners, if and when property owners need services they pay for them when the bill arrives or they suffer liens and or property loss.

      The coastal property owner has already acknowledged personal responsibility by choosing to buy home owner’s insurance and or flood insurance or not in flood zones where it is available. Many owners admit that they declined to carry the insurance. They know full well the risks and liabilities of those choices and will reap accordingly. That is the essence of free choice.

      UN Agenda 21 proponents would be happy to take every private property into their regulatory guidelines and make the judgments of whether and what is allowed to be done with every square inch of land, sea, and air. Sorry, but the UN isn’t God, not yet. Individuals are born one at a time, always were, always will be, like it or not, life will always find a way to be free to live and make good, bad and ugly choices and pay for those human privileges.

Musings

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s