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.