Governor's Smart Growth Task Force

Many fine Kentuckians participated in this "task force", established by Governor Paul Patton in May 2001. A published report drafted on 16 October 2001, outlines the participants' interpretations of where they predicted Kentucky may be heading. Undefined terms in the report prevent reliable evaluation of competency of remarks by average citizens. Couple of examples:

One of the sidebars, quoting the National Governors' Association identified ten principles as representing Smart Growth, mentions, " Encourages citizen and stakeholder participation in development decision." Who is a stakeholder?

Another urban policy analyst, Anthony Downs states that one of the traits of " sprawl", is "Reliance mainly on the trickle-down or filtering process to provide housing to low-income households." What is this?

Another sidebar delineates that Kentucky's "prime" farmland decreased, in a 15 year period from 1982 to 1997, by 4.7%. What is "prime" farmland? Where did it go ? We're aware that farming has become much more efficient and not as much land is required to produce even more plentiful crops. We must know where this farmland has gone before deciding if this should concern us.

I have seen first hand what "smart growth" , has done in the State of Oregon and Fayette County, Kentucky. It is not emotionally nor financially stabilizing.

We are hopeful our Commonwealth's citizens will mandate much more dialogue and a more complete compilation of facts before taking any important decisions in this debate.

william h adkisson, president

Hey Gov, They Are "Staying the Course"

Have you looked at the bills that have been filed in the Legislature lately? In case you haven't, you had better place a nitro pill under your tongue and sit in a low chair so as to not hurt yourself when you fall out of it in shock.

Our beloved Governor has called for the legislators to "stay the course", and they appear to be doing just that, spending, spending and wanting to spend some more. The Gov has said he has asked every agency to cut its budget. It appears as though the legislators see this cut as more money for them to spend elsewhere. Some call for revenue neutral tax changes -- a fancy phrase for passing the already high tax on to another group. This always ends up as a tax increase for someone

It appears as though there will be about 1500 bills this session. I am willing to bet that not one legislator will read them all. I have to give them credit though, it is not because they do not want to, it is because they have neither the time nor resources.

Looking at a very small sampling of bills, let's take just a couple of subjects. To be sure I am not telling you a big tale, you may take your computer and go to http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/record/02rs/indexhd.htm to see the various subjects the bills are placed under by the Legislative Research Center (LRC). By the way, this is without a doubt the most efficient and best branch of the state government we have.

Now that we are on this page, we scroll down the hundreds of subjects until we come to "Environment", and what do we see? As of this date we see 18 listings of which only ONE BILL WILL SAVE THE TAXPAYER ANY MONEY. SB 102 will attempt to save us around $20-22 every TWO years.

SB 102 will eliminate the Vehicle Emissions Testing programs in a couple of areas around the state. Even though the National Academy of Sciences has pretty much said the testing programs are a joke, you can bet your bottom dollar that the environmentalists will work hard to stop this good bill. They mean well but have no concept as to how these programs hurt the poor, the disabled, seniors on a fixed income, underpaid minorities, and the unemployed.

As though the attack on SB 102 isn't bad enough, we will see the same people supporting what will cost us dearly as taxpayers, such as Stumbo's Constitutional Amendment to tax us on bottles, hamburger wrappers and drink containers. The various bills to institute statewide curbside garbage collection, and far too many studies and Task Forces to study nearly everything so that we can have more 'money sucking' bills.

Look at the bills for curbside garbage collection. Everyone will have to work and work overtime to stop these big spender bills. It appears as though many more waste collection companies will either be put out of business or be bought out due to these laws, thereby eventually increasing everyone's cost. How do I figure this? Simple! When counties are given the choice or are mandated to pick one company in their county, they will usually pick the one most politically connected or, in other words, the bigger companies. You know, the ones with the most money to spread around. It appears as though the state legislators are going to pass the costs of these programs on to the local elected officials.

Slick, isn't it? They pass the law in Frankfort, they don't raise the taxes, and they don't pay for it! They do force the counties to pay for it, or they may even withhold some percentage of the county road funds should the county not institute the program in their county.

When your county institutes the collection program, the bill to pay for this will be included on your property tax bill to insure payment in advance. Your local officials will have to do this, and they will in turn reap the wrath of the voting taxpayer come the next election. The Frankfort people can then come out smelling like a rose, since the average voter will not bother to notice that this boondoggle came from Frankfort in the first place.

Norman Davis
Take Back Kentucky

Letter to the Editor

The following letter was sent to The Kentucky Post from Bernie Kunkel.

The recent article by Corinne Eaton (Cutting down the forests costs all Kentuckians) was an atrocious piece of propaganda for the Sierra Club with which she is proudly aligned.
The assertion that Kentucky is being deforested is unfounded and ridiculous. Even the Forest Service, reports the latest survey in Kentucky, proves that our state has gained over a million acres of forestland since 1950.

And the claims that loggers are endangering bio-diversity and ecosystems are proven false by recent State statistics. Kentucky requires loggers to have three days of training by state officials. And they must follow best management practices to protect water quality. In the last 1 1/2 years, over 5,700 logging jobs have been inspected throughout the State and only two have warranted fines. This demonstrates only miniscule problems in an industry whose productivity enhances the whole state. All in all, logging is an industry that State experts say causes less that 3% of non point water pollution in Kentucky.

Our forests are doing well. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative has been adopted by a number of forest industries in our state. This is a national program initiated to sustain our forests for future generations. Rather than plundering the forests, U.S. lumber and paper industries have steadily expanded forest output during the past four decades. In 1952, for instance, there were 664 million acres of U.S. forestland, containing about 610 billion cubic feet of growing stock. By 1987, there were 728 million acres of forest land with 756 billion cubic feet of growing stock, a 23.9 percent increase. As the late economist Warren Brookes observed in his April 19, 1989 column, the intriguing aspect of those figures "is that all of that growth in wood volume had come not in the mainly federally owned and 'preserved' West, where volume has actually decreased by 9.7 percent, but in the North (up 79.2 percent) and the South (up 66.4 percent), where private forest ownership now ranges from 80 percent to 90 percent."

In the middle of the last century, Sweden had few forests. But since 1903, every tree cut has had to be matched by three new seedlings planted within three years. This is the same rule by which private forest management in the United States (including Kentucky) is guided.

Currently, about 750 million acres (1/3 of the U.S.) is forested. And even though our country has been the world's number one timber producer since World War II, U.S. forests have experienced an increase in volume in the past fifty years. Figures from 1993 demonstrate that 4 million trees were planted each day. And every year almost 2 billion seedlings are planted. This is more than 6 new trees a year for every American. The forest industry in the U.S. plants about half these trees and in addition they have donated over a million acres of land to municipalities for conservation and recreational uses.

Ms. Eaton, like many environmentalists, also promotes the preservation of old growth forests. But as Marc Cathey, head of the National Arboretum in 1993 stated: "Our forests do a lot better when they are harvested and replanted. Too many environmentalists are not gardeners. Environmentalists want to put chains around everything. Gardeners want to plant things. That's much better for the ecosystem."

Not only are trees a renewable resource, but loggers must take great care not to exhaust their supply. One lumber company brochure I read stated: "Because a continuous supply of trees is vital to our company, we manage and cultivate our 194,000 acres of forestland carefully. We maintain access roads so we can protect our trees against forest fires, erosion, insects, or damage from human activity. We plant and nurture new seedlings to replace the trees we cut. We watch our lands as carefully as any good farmer would, because our lands represent our livelihood."

So remember folks, don't believe the propaganda from the Sierra Club. They are not a bunch of warm fuzzy folks who spend their time picking up trash along river - banks. The fact is, there is no organization further to the left than these people. They tried to frighten everyone about the coming ice age in years past, and now promote the global warming nonsense.

Kentucky's forests are sustainable and the logging companies have proven, with their wonderful conservation practices in place, that our forests are a steady state resource that is never really consumed.

High Court Ruling Affects Property Owner Rights

In a June 2001 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a purchaser of property already subject to environmental or zoning limits is not barred from pursuing a takings claim when those restrictions prevent the property owner from developing the land.

Anthony Palazzolo, who purchased about 18 acres of coastal property (nearly all of which is wetlands), claimed that Rhode Island's denial of two applications to fill part or all of the wetlands constituted a "taking".

Palazzolo sought 53.1 million on the grounds that state environmental rules had blocked his development plans, even though he knew the restrictions were in place prior to purchasing the land.

In a 6-3 majority opinion authorized by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court state that "future generations, too, have a right to challenge unreasonable limitations on the use an value of land...Just as a prospective enactment, such as a new zoning ordinance, can limit the value of land without effecting a taking because it can be understood as reasonable by all concerned, other enactments are unreasonable and do not become less so through the passage of time or title."

The court did not define what restrictions are reasonable and unreasonable in this instance, nor did the decision define how far such restrictions can go before they constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment.

The court also stopped short of stating the Palazzolo was due payment. The majority opinion stated, "It is undisputed that the parcel retains significant worth for construction of a residence," and remanded the case to the Rhode Island courts to determine the amount of compensation due.

The court concluded that Palazzolo's case should be examined using an older three-pronged analysis that factors the economic effects on the owner, the owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations and the character of the governmental action.

Submitted by:
Bernie Kunkel
Legislation Chairperson
KY League of Property Owners