METRO AND URBAN RENEWAL
Now let us see how this revolutionary concept of government affects the individual and his private property.
In her book, "Terrible 1313 Revisited", Jo Hindman states:
"When a government controls a man's property, civil rights, his home and the power of human decision, then he is captured and not free. Metropolitan government is accumulating such power; if completely victorious, in it will repose all control."
URBAN RENEWAL — VEHICLE FOR SEIZING PRIVATE PROPERTY
Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution spells out: "No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".
Thus government has the power to take private property for "public use" if "just compensation" is given. Known as the principle of "eminent domain", it was intended only for such public facilities as roads, public schools, parks, sewers, etc.
However, a Supreme Court ruling in 1954 permitted the seizure of private property for private use.
This assault on property-owning citizens is called urban renewal.
For years the American people have been propagandized to the effect that urban renewal means slum clearance, and thus a deterrent to crime. But the fact is that slums do not breed crime and delinquency. Delinquency and crime breed slums.
An article in the November 21, 1970 issue of HUMAN EVENTS cited a report by the General Accounting Office which demonstrated conclusively that urban renewal has been a multi-billion-dollar hoax, enriching a few speculators at the expense of low- and middle-income residents. The report showed that tens of thousands of people have lost their homes and that the urban renewal program contributes to the spread of slums.
HUMAN EVENTS then stated:
"During the 20 years ending December 31, 1968, the federal government spent $7 billion for the ostensible purpose of rehabilitating big-city slums. Yet during that period, the government accounted for a new loss of 314,000 housing units.
"For every unit put up, the federal bulldozer leveled 3.5 others. The housing destroyed was almost always that of poor middle-income residents. The beneficiaries were usually upper-income taxpayers who moved into the spanking new developments."
Therefore, if, as has now been proved, urban renewal has not solved the problem, what is the ulterior and ultimate aim of the promoters of urban renewal -- and how did it all start?
THE DAN SMOOT REPORT of July 10, 1961, defines urban renewal thusly:
"Urban renewal is a federally-financed program of city planning which requires city governments to seize homes and other private property from some citizens and resell them, at below cost, to real estate promoters and other private citizens for developments that the city planners consider desirable."
How did city governments acquire power to eliminate private property rights? On November 22, 1954, in the aforementioned ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower federal court ruling in a Washington, D.C., urban-renewal case. The lower court had said:
"One man's land cannot be seized by the government and sold to another man merely in order that the purchaser may build upon it a better house or a house which better meets the government's idea of what is appropriate or well-designed."
The supreme Court held, in essence, that Congress, in the District of Columbia, has unlimited authority to determine what the public good is, and unlimited power to use any mean to achieve that good. The Court said that State legislatures have the same power over all communities in their States.
Since this 1954 Supreme Court decision, most State legislatures have enacted special urban-renewal laws authorizing city government to confiscate private real estate for urban-renewal projects.
Urban renewal, with federal tax money, was authorized in the National Housing Act of 1949, and enlarged in scope by amendment to the Housing Acts of 1954, 1956, and 1956; but it did not become a vigorously promoted nationwide program until late in 1957, after the Council on Foreign Relations, through its domestic arm, the Committee for Economic Development, started pushing it.
And, as could be expected, urban renewal has long been promoted by the master planners at "1313" headquarters in Chicago.
In December 1958, William Zeckendorf delivered a speech before the New Orleans Chamber of Commerce. Zeckendorf is president of Webb & Knapp, Inc., one of the nation's largest real estate developers and in a position to profit handsomely from the urban-renewal program.
Here's what Zeckendorf had to say when addressing the leading business and political figures in New Orleans:"
"(1) You must have a master plan…, (2) You must be able to dedicate or to pledge the responsibility for the re-development concept in the hands of an objective-minded… commission that will declare what areas are blighted and what are sub-standard; what areas must be re-zoned and re-developed for the benefit of the community."
And then Zeckendorf showed his contempt for property owners by saying:
"This is the only area in which I say you must depart from the pure form of democracy in which the individual rights must be observed. This is the case where the community right is more important than the individual because it is a matter of license rather than a matter of privilege for any one individual to be allowed to flourish excessive worship of the idea of private property, to be able to stand out against the development project which is in the interest of the community." [Emphasis ours]
CDR NOTE: The above comment coincides with the UN planners' plan for Global Governance. To confirm that all aspects of Regional Governance, including "urban renewal", emanate from the United Nations - following is an excerpt from a 1967 UN Report, (UNP Sales No.: 67.IV.5) titled PLANNING OF METROPOLITAN AREAS AND NEW TOWNS… page iv of the Foreword…[Ephasis Ours]
"Another front presenting renewal opportunities to co-ordinate development activities is the region. Planning on a regional scale may help guide both urbanization and industrialization… a common meeting ground for linking local physical planning and national economic planning, as well as the planning for social services and community development. However, we must recognize that our administrative machinery is still woefully inadequate to bring about the level of integrated planning and action which is required.
There is, consequently, an urgent need for national land policies which can help guide this transition into desired channels. The physical planner's role in this crucial period is an extremely essential one. Through appropriate land-use planning, it is his job to help this transfer of land to occur in an orderly fashion by reconciling the rights of the individual with the interests of the community….
"A number of general conclusions seem to be emerging: … (2) Our world society must learn to guide the process of urbanization through judicious regional development of industry and agriculture…."
The above-mentioned report was based on two UN meetings:
Meeting of the United Nations Group of Experts on Metropolitan Planning and Development; Stockholm, 14-30 September 1961 and
The United Nations Symposium on the Planning and Development of New Towns; Moscow (USSR), 24-Aughtst-7 September 1964.
Although the report was not published until 1967, please notice the time-line of the acceleration of political changes which began taking place in the U.S of America beginning in the early to mid 1960's along with the federal and state legislation implementing the UN plan for regionalizing the world.]
FEDERAL METRO FORCES CITY-SUBURBS MERGER
With the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the passage of the Model Cities Act, the urban renewal concept went regional. Model Cities programs now involve approximately 150 cities -- or, to be more accurate, areas -- forcing regional government by buying federal funds to its creation.
Jo Hindman, in her Metro News column of July 27, 1968, put it this way:
"In 1966, the regional trap was tightened by Section 204 of the Model Cities law (Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966) calling for regionalism, a 'review by an agency which is designated to perform… regional planning'."
The portion of this law which deals with metropolitan planning is called Title II. According to Sec. 103 (4) of Title II, HUD can require cities to be a part of a metropolitan planning program.
CDR Note Re. HUD: "… But it is now recognized that housing and urban development are important for the stability of labour and for productivity of industry in urban society." (Excerpted from the UN Report mentioned in the above Note) The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was created by Congress in 1965, just after the 1964 meeting of the "group of experts" in Moscow.
In this connection, Congressman Paul A. Fino, on February 21, 1967, declared:
"But can HUD force the suburbs of big cities to be part of a metropolitan scheme? The answer is "yes".
"Under Title II of the omnibus cities bill of 1966 — the metro title — all applications for federal aid under ten programs such as sewers, construction of hospitals, highways, libraries, airports, etc., must soon be submitted to a metropolitan-wide planning body — metro government — for recommendation before they are forwarded to Washington. The metro government to which the applications must be submitted must be a joint planning body for the central city and suburbs."
As a result, big-city, urban-renewal projects are being integrated with the suburbs, forcing "scattered-site" public housing upon quiet, formerly pleasant, suburban communities.
A column in THE INDIANAPOLIS NEWS of March 27, 1968, by W.J. Griffith III, revealed:
"Acting under provisions of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has withheld $600,000 in matching funds for the Broadway Park, 17th and Broadway, because a regional planning agency does not exist to review such applications. Preparations are underway to create a multi-county council of governments which would fulfill this function."
On August 7, 1967, THE INDIANAPOLIS NEWS had reported remarks of HUD Secretary Robert Weaver, saying the Demonstration Cities Act would require an areawide or regional agency which must be a "form of government which has both the jurisdiction, the power and the will to carry out what is provided for in the comprehensive metropolitan plan". Weaver also said that, "in most instances", this would have to be a "metropolitan council of governments".
In a lengthy statement on June 11, 1971, President Nixon said the federal government will encourage but not require the nation's suburban communities to open up housing opportunities to the poor of all races.
"We will not seek to impose economic integration upon an existing local jurisdiction", Nixon said. "At the same time", he continued, "we will not countenance any use of economic measures as a subterfuge for racial discrimination".
Three days later, the Justice Department filed a suit against the newly incorporated suburb of Black Jack to force it to accept a federally subsidized low-income housing project.
Black Jack is a predominantly white city of about 3,000 in North St. Louis County, north of St. Louis.
A city ordinance enacted in October 1970, two months after Black Jack was incorporated, prohibits multi-family housing. According to an AP dispatch, this ordinance was adopted in the wake of public opposition to a development intended to provide racially integrated housing for low-income residents.
Announcement that the suit had been filed in federal court in St. Louis was made in Washington on June 14, 1971, by Attorney General John N. Mitchell, who said the government will move against any municipality where it can show racial discrimination.
Commenting on this action by the Nixon Administration, THE RICHMOND (Virginia) NEWS LEADER had this to say:
"At the same time, the Department of Justice announced that several suits would be filed in other States -- in a move that could be interpreted only as an attempt to force economic integration on unwilling suburbs."
And then the RICHMOND NEWS LEADER continued:
"Never mind that the vast majority of zoning ordinances are passed to preserve the character of a neighborhood. Federally subsidized housing, as the record clearly shows, creates instant slums with high crime rates, rampant vandalism, and a disproportionate burden on tax-supported services. They represent a real threat to a neighborhood's sense of community, but the federal government couldn't care less."
A column by Paul Critchlow in THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER of December 21, 1972, discussed a housing plan that would require Philadelphia suburban counties to increase substantially their low-income housing or lose federal funds.
According to Critchlow:
"The plan, presented by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, would force several counties to nearly double by the year 2000 both their low-income housing, for families earning $5,000 a year or less, and their moderate-income housing, for families earning between $5,000 and $10,000.
"If any county failed to meet its allocation, the commission could block that county's application for federal funds for projects ranging from parks to sewers.
"The plan is also necessary under federal guidelines for the region to keep its eligibility for up to $250 million in annual federal funds for such projects."
MERGING CITY AND SUBURBS TO COMPEL INTEGRATION OF SCHOOLS
Jo Hindman, in her book, "Blame Metro", revealed the tie-in between Metro and the schools. According to Mrs. Hindman:
"Persons alarmed by Metropolitan government's take-over have asked if Metro also has designs on the nation's schools.
"Metro 1313 has declared that there would be no separate school districts in this country whatsoever under Metropolitan Government. Metro experts have stated that it is 'unwholesome' for the educational system to remain autonomous, and that separate school districts stand as obstacles to the spread of Metro's reorganization (consolidation) of American government into collectivized Metropolitan Government."
Title III of the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1967 provides the following techniques for federally directed integration:
"Careful site selection to locate new schools so as to maximize integration of residentially segregated student populations.
"Creation of metropolitan school districts to include urban and suburban areas."
Congressman Paul A. Fino, in discussing the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, declared on February 21, 1967:
"The federal government already has the power to force communities to set up multi-jurisdictional school programs in order to achieve integration or racial balance in the schools. Title II of the 1966 Demonstration Cities bill requires Metro governments which can impose (such) criteria on communities as the price of aid under ten federal programs."
* * * * * * * * *
As this book is written, still another federal law is being considered by Congress which goes even further in promoting the Metro-regional government concept. This is covered in the next chapter.
WHY METRO PROMOTES LAND-USE LAWS
In a publication entitled "Tax-Reverted Properties in Urban Areas", by A.M. Hillhouse, published by the Public Administration Service in 1942, is found the following:
"Lands suitable for private uses would be returned to private hands, but the city would retain the necessary land-use control over such sites. This would be more effective in the long run than zoning ordinances… Land, in other words, can be passed through a period of public ownership during which the public agency can re-plat the land, clear the title, and adjust land-use patterns.
"But the city can go one step further. It can limit the future use of the land sold back into private ownership. Deed restrictions and other covenants will accomplish much more than zoning, building laws, or any other exercise of the police power. Only temporary public ownership is necessary to effect long-term land-use plans."
Needless to say, the Public Administration Service is a part -- an important part -- of the burgeoning Metro empire, and is located at "1313" headquarters in Chicago.
Thirty years later (the Metrocrats have been working at this for a long time!) a State-sponsored Planning Conference was held in Richmond, Virginia, on October 17-19, 1972. As reported by THE NEWS of Lynchburg, Virginia, one of the participants made this suggestion:
"Private property in this state eventually should be transferred to government or state agency ownership and then be leased back to individuals under rigidly controlled regulations."
In his article in the January, 1973 issue of AMERICAN OPINION magazine, Gary Allen quoted Robert C. Weaver, former Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development as having stated:
"Regional government means absolute federal control over all property and its development regardless of location, anywhere in the United States, to be administered on the federal officials' determination. It (regional government) would supersede state and local laws… Through this authority we seek to recapture control of the use of land…."
Concerning which Allen warned: "Land control is people control."
CDR NOTE: We will be allowed to 'own' the land in order to pay taxes. See Tugwell article — GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL ALL LAND
As has been seen so far in this book, the long-range plans of the pushers of Metro or regional government are being implemented in a number of ways, i.e., Presidential Executive Orders, housing and urban renewal laws passed by Congress and by judicial rulings.
Comes now the latest (as of 1973) attack on local self-government and the right to own and manage one's private property -- land-use legislation.
ANOTHER FEDERAL "POWER GRAB"
On January 9, 1973, Senator Henry M. Jackson introduced S. 268 entitled, "Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1973". The stated purpose is:
"To establish a national land-use policy, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make grants to assist the states to develop and implement state land-use programs, to coordinate federal programs and policies which have a land-use impact, to coordinate planning and management of federal lands and planning and management of adjacent non-federal lands, and to establish an Office of Land Use Policy Administration in the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes."
Here we see it blatantly admitted that one of the purposes of this federal land-use bill is for "planning and management of adjacent non-federal lands". In other words, privately owned property.
In introducing the bill, Senator Jackson said it would provide "federal technical and financial assistance to the states…. For land-use planning and management so as to remedy increasingly evident inadequacies…"
The bill itself refers to "the existence of poor or ineffective planning at the state and local levels", and that this "poses serious problems of broad national or regional concern".
Every time the federal government attempts a power-grab with the resultant diminution of the power of State and local government, the attempt is made to charge "inadequacies" or inefficiency as a justification for such increasing centralization of power in the hands of federal bureaucrats.
"1313" BACKS LAND-USE LEGISLATION
In his speech introducing S. 268, Senator Jackson boasted that the Interior Committee had had "numerous executive sessions and consultation with the National Governors' Conference, the League of Cities-Conference of Mayors", and that it had received their endorsement as well as that of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR).
The federal ACIR is financed by taxpayers' dollars but is controlled by the CFR-CED-"1313" conglomerate.
According to Jo Hindman in her book "Blame Metro":
"The 1313 syndicate makes the nominations that control the 26-member ACIR through the Governors' Conference, National Association of Counties, Council of State Governments, and National League of Cities. All are 1313 syndicate groups."
The Land Use Policy and Planning Assistance Act of 1973 proposes to "provide state government with funds — $170 million over five years — to develop state land-use data inventories, to improve the size and competence of professional staff, and to establish an appropriate state planning agency".
Just what does the term "land-use data inventories" mean? Would this be a massive dossier on every property owner in each State as to how he uses his property?
And, of course, the "professional staff" would be composed of Metrocrats indoctrinated by "1313".
LAND-USE LEGISLATION CONTINUES THE ASSAULT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
The Senate bill provides that the Secretary of the Interior "consult with heads of other agencies and to form a national advisory board on land-use policy to provide interagency communication concerning the land-use impacts of and polices embodied in federal and federally assisted programs".
Among the members of the National Advisory Board on Land Use Policy will be representatives of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The reason for the inclusion of HEW and HUD on the board is that the bill states:
"The Congress finds that federal, regional, state and local decisions and programs which establish or influence the location of land uses often determine whether people of all income levels and races have or are denied access to decent shelter, to adequate employment, and to quality schools…"
In other words, one purpose of the federal land-use proposal would be to mandate federally assisted low-income housing in the suburbs regardless of the wishes of suburban property owners.
This is amplified in another section of the bill which states that the bill "does require state governments to develop a process of planning and a state land-use program which is 'balanced'… (that) provides for necessary social services (welfare), and housing and residential development".
And who is to decide whether a State land-use program is, in the bills' words, "balanced"? Why, the federal Metrocrats, of course.
"LAND-USE" — VEHICLE FOR REGIONAL GOVERNMENT
The federal land-use bill contains a section entitled "Interstate Coordination". This is another way of saying "regionalization". In this section is found the following:
"Subject to the approval of Congress by the adoption of an appropriate Act, Congress hereby authorizes states possessing coherent geographic, environmental, demographic, or economic characteristics which would serve as reasonable bases upon which to coordinate land-use planning, policies, and programs in interstate areas to negotiate interstate compacts for the purpose of such coordination: Provided, that such compacts shall provide for an opportunity for participation in the coordination process by federal and local governments and agencies…"
Inasmuch as "interstate compacts" is also a term for regional government, here, clearly, is a mechanism for regionalization of the United States in accordance with President Nixon's Executive Order decreeing ten federal regions.
When introducing his land-use bill, Senator Jackson said:
"Guidelines for the Act are to be promulgated through an inter-agency process with the principal responsibility of formulating those guidelines residing in the Executive Office of the President."
Acting in the capacity of "observers" on the proposed National Advisory board on Land Use Policy will be members of the Office of Management and budget. It will be recalled that in Chapter X, columnist Paul Scott revealed that the OMB now "monitors and coordinates the approval and administration of grants-in-aid to the States and municipalities, including direct oversight of federal regional office coordination".
The bill specifically delegates authority to the "1313"-controlled Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations when it states:
"The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations shall conduct a review of federally established or authorized interstate agencies, including, but not limited to… regional development agencies, and interstate compact commissions, for the purpose of coordinating land-use planning, policies, and programs in interstate areas."
Thus are the "1313" Metrocrats given awesome power by this bill.
Here we see a coming-together of President Nixon's decree of February 10, 1972, establishing ten Federal Regional Councils, the accumulating power of the Office of Management and Budget to act as overseer of these Federal Regional Councils -- and the ubiquitous CFR-CED-"1313" power syndicate acting as mastermind of this long-plotted conspiracy to destroy local government and the rights of private property.
Not only does the bill provide, as previously mentioned, funds for the establishment of "State land-use data inventories," but it also stipulates that the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Proposed Office of Land Use Policy Administration, "shall develop and maintain a Federal Land Use Information and Data Center, with such regional branches as the Secretary may deem appropriate."
In other words, one of the functions of the ten Federal Regional Councils will be to also monitor every property owner and decide whether that property owner's use of his property is in keeping with the "balance" decreed by the federal Metrocrats.
Reacting to mass communications promotion of the theme "protect the environment", a majority of State Legislatures have either passed, or are considering land-use legislation, having been tipped-off that federal funds were in the offing to finance such planning commissions.
But, how many of these State Legislators, believing that "land-use" means only protecting the wilderness lands and pollution control, have read the text of Senator Jackson's bill on land-use?
How many know what a federal land-use bill really means? And how, if this bill passes, such State Legislators will become mere rubber-stamps for legislation drafted by the "1313" Metro syndicate to be administered by the ten Federal Regional Councils?
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR METRO-REGIONAL GOVERNMENT VIA L.E.A.A.
CDR NOTE: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. According to Betty J. Mills LEAA was never disbanded. Because of the vast numbers of people opposing the LEAA the name was changed. Today it is called FEMA, and according to Betty, all the policies laid down under LEAA are now being played out under FEMA.
The late Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover, once declared:
"Effective law enforcement is basically a local responsibility. In the area of self-government reserved for the States, counties and cities, the enforcement of the laws is not only their duty but also their right.
"Law-abiding citizens and local officials should vigorously oppose … the devious moves to negate local authority and replace it with federal police power."
And yet, most Americans are unaware that for some years there has been a campaign to institute an eventual federal police force via various programs of federal aid to States and communities.
WHY CRIME CONTINUES TO INCREASE DESIPITE VAST ANTI-CRIME OUTLAYS
Reacting to the ever-increasing crime rate in the United States, the Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which became law on June 19, 1968.
Under this Act, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) was established within the Department of Justice under the authority of the Attorney General.
On March 20, 1973, Congressman James V. Stanton, in discussing the crime problem in this country, pointed out that $2.5 billion of taxpayers' dollars had so far been spent in financing the activities of LEAA.
And what have the American people received for this vast federal outlay?
On August 28, 1972, Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst made public the FBI index of serious crime in the United States for 1971. According to his statement, total serious offenses reported during 1971 stood at more than 5,900,000. Conceding that "crime is still increasing", Kleindienst revealed that law enforcement agencies had reported making a total of 8,600,000 arrests for all criminal acts (excluding traffic offenses) in 1971, which was an increase of 3 per cent over 1970. On June 28, 1973, the FBI reported that violent crime within the U.s. increased 6 per cent during the first three months of 1973.
An editorial in the December 17, 1972, issue of THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR furnished this information:
"Criminology experts say that of all reported major criminal offenses only 12 per cent lead to arrests, only 6 per cent to convictions and only 1 per cent to prison. They say the chances of being punished for a serious crime in the United States are 3 in 100.
"That explains a lot. In the U.s. justice is not only blind. She is crippled."
On March 13, 1973, Congressman John R. Rarick charged that the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, which was supposed to make the streets safe from crime by "pouring billions in tax dollars into local and State police agencies, continues to develop its bureaucratic threat to locally-controlled law enforcement."
Congressman Rarick then inserted in THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a speech he had made on June 10, 1970, opposing passage of the LEAA bill. At that time Rarick declared:
"We are being asked to ignore the cause of the problem -- the many crime-favoring Supreme Court laws. We are being urged to hoodwink our people into thinking that by massive expenditures of federal money, by so-called upgrading our local and State police officers, and modernizing our correctional facilities, we can deter the criminal threat."
Pointing out that "fancy-sounding names on legislation will not stop criminals nor deter crime", Rarick continued:
"The gut problem is that as we continue to talk about reducing crime, our law enforcement agencies are denied the freedom to enforce the laws. This bill offers no solution. It but provides more than $2 billion to be doled out over 3 years for grants to local and State police who agree to comply with various edicts and guidelines laid down by the Attorney General of the United States and enforced by the administrator of the Law Enforcement Assistance Act."
Warning of the ultimate danger of the LEAA, Rarick asserted:
"With federal funds necessarily comes federal control.
"It is ridiculous to believe that we can hand out federal money and not end up with federal control and domination over our local police."
A FEDERAL POLICE FORCE?
An editorial in THE HOUSTON TRIBUNE of June 10, 1971, terming a national police force "the first essential to a totalitarian state", quoted the associate administrator of the Law enforcement Assistance Administration as having just stated:
"Today, in this country, we have 40,235 law enforcement agencies, ranging from one-man departments to New York City with more than 40,000 police officers. This many units form a completely ungovernable body."
Reacting to this statement THE HOUSTON TRIBUNE posed this question:
"What does he mean by "ungovernable"? Each community is capable of governing its police force. The people of each community know the nature and extent of their law enforcement problems. They know hoe to deal with them.
"No, what this official evidently means is that 40,235 law enforcement agencies are ungovernable by the central government. And that is exactly as it should be.
"Police powers should remain local powers, as they have been historically in this country. This is an essential safeguard against totalitarian power."
HOW METROCRATS PLAN TO TAKE OVER LOCAL POLICE
The "1313 Metrocrats have long promoted consolidation of local police departments and sheriff's offices into metropolitan police forces under a political appointee responsible to a Metro manager.
In his article in the January 1973 issue of AMERICAN OPINION, Gary Allen quoted the following excerpt from a manual published by the International City Managers Association of 1313 East 60th St., Chicago:
"The police function should be administered through a regular city department headed by a police chief directly responsible to the chief administrator of the city (manager).
"….Appointment of the police chief should be made by the chief administrator of the city… rather than by a separate board, commission or the city council."
In other words, the "chief administrator of the city" -- the appointed Metrocrat -- would control the local police chief.
REGIONAL REVIEW, published quarterly by the National Service to Regional Councils -- a Washington, D.C., brand of "1313" -- in its April 1969 issue informed its subscribers as follows:
"Law enforcement planning has emerged as a major regional program as a result of the Omnibus Crime Control and safe Streets Act (of 1968). The Act stipulates that 40 per cent of the funds awarded to the states for planning should be channeled to local governments. To insure the greatest return for each planning dollar expended… the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration has strongly urged states to utilize regional agencies for planning."
Illustrative of how the Metrocrats are now moving into the area of law enforcement, REGIONAL REVIEW of April 1969 went on to state:
"Thirty-eight states, in compliance with this (LEAA guideline, have designated regions as local planning units. Existing regional planning agencies, councils of governments, and state planning districts are working in this field. Several states have also established regions especially for law enforcement planning."
STRENGTHENING REGIONAL COUNCILS VIA L.E.A.A.
In a speech in the U.S. House of Representatives on May 14, 1973, Congressman Robert B. Mathias, citing the fact that the channeling of billions of dollars into the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to the "states and cities, will not, by itself, check the growing crime rate", offered an amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.
In introducing his amendment, Congressman Mathias said:
"There remains a task aimed at reducing crime which has just barely begun… and that is the task of uniting the government with the people of a metropolitan area in an effort to control crime throughout a metropolitan.
"It is absolutely senseless…. To permit jurisdictional lines and political jealousy to thwart progress and, in the case of criminal justice, to thwart safety.
"The metropolitan areas which make up many cities and subdivisions within a state must all join together…"
That, according to Mathias, is the task which regional agencies, such as regional planning councils and councils of local governments, have begun.
It will be recalled that Chapter VIII dealt with the subject of "1313's" apparatus at the local level -- regional councils. In that chapter the Metrocrats house organ, REGIONAL REVIEW of January 1971 revealed:
"As presently structured, regional councils are not a threat to local government powers or resources."
Later in the chapter Robert S. New house is quoted as having said:
"What is needed in the long run, is the establishment of an agency at the federal executive level that… would provide subsistence funding to regional units…"
Congressman Mathias' amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 would not only restructure regional councils, thus posing a direct threat to local government, but would provide federal funds direct to such regional councils.
Mathias particularly referred to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments which includes four major counties and a city in Virginia, two very large counties in Maryland, and the District of Columbia in its entirety. He stated that for Washington's COG to obtain federal money for planning, it had to go to each State involved because "interstate planning agencies and councils of government have never been eligible for direct planning grants."
This, Mathias deplores. Therefore, in offering his amendment to the anti-crime Act of 1968, he said that his amendment would "permit interstate regional metropolitan area councils of local governments or regional councils which are interstate (to be) directly eligible for a specially earmarked amount of planning-grand funds from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration."
The price tag for his proposal to strengthen the power of regional councils is $1.5 million in fiscal year 1974.
In the past, federal grants have been given to elected governments at the local or State level. Mathias' bill would change that to include "organizations composed or predominantly composed of local elected officials… within any interstate metropolitan area."
In other words, if an interstate regional council is composed of 51 per cent elected officials and 49 per cent federally appointed bureaucrats, it would be eligible for a federal grant. Because these unelected Metrocrats would be working full-time, while the elected officials would be able to devote only a relatively small portion of time because of other duties, it would not take long for the "1313"-indoctrinated Metrocrats to take complete charge.
Whereas the Mathias bill would provide these grants to interstate regional councils for "developing an effective comprehensive planning and coordination process to cope with the regional law enforcement and criminal justice needs and problems within such interstate area," how long, once the precedent has been established by this bill, would it be before federal funds would be flowing at an ever-increasing rate to these interstate councils of government for a variety of other purposes?
The Mathias bill also would provide federal funds for interstate regional planning for the purpose of "proposing organizational systems and administrative machinery for implementing plans and policies."
The words "organizational systems", "administrative machinery" and "implementing plans" clearly indicate that once federally funded these interstate regional councils have no intention of remaining mere planners.
CDR NOTE: Another excerpt from the UN Report mentioned above: " We will, however, have to add new work tools to planning, in addition to zoning, building codes and subdivision regulations to achieve…. suitable arrangements for public administration on a regional rather than local scale.
Congressman Mathias also said that:
"It does not appear likely that state governments will act to strengthen interstate councils".
He gave as on reason the fact that:
"States tend to be reluctant to ….invest state funds in organizations whose jurisdiction and governmental allegiance lies outside the state's boundaries."
As well the States should be.
Because of such reluctance on the part of the States, Mathias claims that:
"Federal policy seems to be the only realistic potential means for bringing about an increase in the effectiveness of these organizations", that is, strengthening the power of "1313"-directed regional councils of government.
TEN FEDERAL REGIONAL COUNCILS READYING PLANS TO RULE THE 50 STATES
In December 1972, a conference of regional councils representing interstate areas was convened in New Orleans under the auspices of the National Association of Regional Councils.
According to Congressman Mathias, in his speech of May 14, 1973:
"From this conference arose specific recommendations and mandates for action."
The use by Mathias of the phrase "mandates for action" should be noted. Webster's New Collegiate dictionary defines "mandate" as: "The instruction given by a constituency to the elected legislative body or one of its members".
But the Metrocrats gathered in conference in New Orleans have no constituencies. They speak only for the CFR-CED-"1313" conglomerate.
The second definition in the dictionary for "mandate" is: "an authoritative command". The second definition aptly describes the attitude of those attending the conference sponsored by the National Association of Regional Councils.
These "1313"-indoctrinated bureaucrats obviously consider that they now have, or soon will have, the authority to issue commands.
Here are a few of the recommendations of this conference:
"Legislation should be sought authorizing and requiring the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to certify a single areawide regional council in interstate urban areas as the administrator of all federal programs concerned with areawide planning or coordination for that area… (Emphasis added)
"In new federal legislation involving areawide planning and coordination within interstate areas… the Executive Office of the President should be responsible for assuring that the areawide regional council is designated to carry out the programs… (Emphasis added)
"OMB, Federal Regional Councils, and the states should seek to achieve consistency among federal agency guidelines in specific functional areas."
Here, clearly, is the spelling out of the activities and authority for the 10 Federal Regional Councils established by President Nixon when he signed Executive Order No. 11647 on February 10, 1972.
As pointed out in Chapter I, Nixon's action was indisputably unconstitutional.
Note the use of the words "as the administrator" and "to carry out" in the recommendations of the National Association of Regional Councils in New Orleans in 1972.
This can only mean that the 10 Federal Regional Councils, decreed by Nixon, will soon be given administrative -- or governing -- power over the once-sovereign 50 States.
As for the OMB, mentioned in the "mandates for action" at the December 1972 regional council conference, it already is acting as federal overseer of the 10 Federal Regional councils with an aim to gradually increasing their power.
And, finally, there is that phrase "consistency among federal agency guidelines", in the aforementioned recommendations. Is this not a euphemism for synchronization of all areas of federal control over the States and the inhabitants thereof?
HOW TO IDENTIFY A METRO OPERATION
The Leftwing-controlled press in the big cities has proved an invaluable ally of the pushers of Metro-regional government, giving full coverage to all public statements by Metrocrats and officials of regional councils of governments, as well as adding editorial support.
"REDUCING COST AND INCREASING EFFICIENCY"
Always, the advocates of Metro present it as leading to "reducing cost of government", increasing efficiency of local government", and finally, "home rule".
All of the foregoing statements are false.
THE DENVER POST, in an editorial on February 27, 1973, headlined "At Last, Regional Government Near at Hand for Denver Area", discussed the proposed creation of a regional service authority which would come up for a vote by the residents of four counties in the Denver metropolitan area.
According to the editorial:
"Hopefully, if the people of Adams, Arapahoe, Denver and Jefferson counties vote to create this new government, a regional service authority will deliver to them higher quality services, or more economical services, or both, than they have now."
It should be noted that THE DENVER POST correctly, and perhaps unwittingly, termed the proposed regional service authority "this new government". And, indeed, it is just that. A new government to be superimposed on the present city and county governments to avoid the appearance of immediate radical change. Thus, actually, taxpayers will be paying for two governments — their present form of government plus the superimposed top-layer of Metrocrats to administer the proposed "regional service authority".
On the subject of consolidation in the interest of efficiency and economy, THE UTAH INDEPENDENT on October 6, 1972, stated:
"The plea is that we will have better government if it is consolidated into a larger unit.
To that plea, THE UTAH INDEPENDENT answers that big government never has protected the rights of the people either politically or economically. A consolidation of government is the creation of bigger government.
"Big government always tends to infringe the rights of its individual citizens and always costs more to run. The added cost of administering it must be borne by the taxpayer in the form of increased taxes. The added power of that government must be paid for by the citizens in a corresponding loss of personal power over their own individual lives."
"SHORT BALLOT" MEANS ABOLISHING MANY ELECTIVE OFFICES
In the interest of "efficiency", the Metrocrats favor what they term "the short ballot".
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government". A "republican" form of government means that the power resides in the people and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to the people. This applies at all levels of government in this country.
But this Constitutional safeguard, providing the citizens a voice in their government, has long been a stumbling block in the path of the Metrocrats' bulldozer of the rights of individuals. Hence, the "1313"-spawned "short ballot" to provide "efficiency" in local government.
Mrs. Theo. F. (Virginia) Meves, State coordinator of the Wisconsin Legislative and Research Committee, Inc., in an article in the MILWAUKEE COUNTY NEWS of December 7, 1972, quoted from a book by Congressman Henry S. Reuss entitled "Revenue Sharing" published by Frederick A. Praeger, Inc. (Congressman Reuss is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, and therefore could be expected to promote the Metro-regional government aims of the CFR-CED-"1313" conglomerate.)
In his book, Reuss stated:
"Two of those who ought not to be elected any longer are the sheriff and the coroner…
"The number of elected officials of state and local government units could be greatly reduced…
"By the end of the 1970s, elected policy-makers could increasingly be confined to local legislators of enlarged governmental units, and to single appointed or elected chief executives for each unit. The swarm of town trustees, coroners, elected tax commissioners, and flotsam inspectors could be fast disappearing…"
In other words, the policy-making functions of your local and county government would be administered by appointed "1313"-type bureaucrats for whom you were given no chance to vote, and who would not be subject to recall by the voters.
The most frequently-used label under which the Metrocrats travel when they seek to impose metropolitan government on an area is that it is "home rule". This deliberately deceptive device is employed by the Metrocrats because they are aware that "home rule" is what all Americans want.
The propaganda line promoted by the Metrocrats to local communities is:
"Why can't we, a progressive community of Americans, have home rule -- rule ourselves as we see fit. Why must we be beholden to the state capital for every change we want to make in our home government? Let us have a home-rule charter!"
Sounds good, doesn't it? And, how many communities throughout this nation have been hoodwinked by the Metro plotters as they press on to destroy local self-government?
What this "home rule" really means is that a local segment of a State is cut off from the State Government and the guarantees of the State Constitution. Said local or metropolitan area is then free to deal directly with the federal government and the Nixon-decreed 10 Federal Regional Councils which supersede the powers of the 50 formerly sovereign States.
* * * * * * *
Those who take lightly the warnings contained in this book will do so at their peril -- and peril to the survival of the United States of America as a republic wherein, as previously pointed out, the sovereign power resides in the people and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to them.
It is the destruction of this nation as a republic that the CFR-CED-"1313" power-mad conglomerate has been planning for so many years. And, as this book proves, this America-destroying plot is now proceeding at an ever-accelerating pace.
But will these arrogant Metrocrats -- planning to soon become America's unelected rulers -- be able to take over the reins of government of the United States?
NOT if the American people have the documented facts regarding this conspiracy, the most serious internal threat to self-government our nation has ever faced!
WHAT YOU CAN DO
The purpose of this final chapter is to offer suggestions as to what you can do if you oppose Metro-regional government.
Make no mistake about it; the setting up of the 10 Federal Regional Councils to eventually demolish the sovereignty of the 50 States is now a fact.
Federal Regional Council, Region I
Federal Regional council, Region II
Federal Regional Council, Region III
Federal Regional Council, Region IV
Federal Regional council, Region V
Federal Regional Council, Region VI
Federal Regional council, Region VII
Federal Regional council, region VIII
Federal Regional Council, Region IX
Federal Regional Council, Region X
In order to find out what the Federal Regional Council bureaucrats plan [have planned and implemented] for you in your federal region, you may wish to write them for brochures, etc.
Jo Hindman, in her Metro News column, which appeared in THE UTAH INDEPENDENT of December 7, 1972, reported that several communities, when given a chance to vote on November 7, 1972, on Metro-type local government, voted "NO".
According to Mrs. Hindman, the proposed charter for Jefferson County, Missouri, contained provisions which would have given the governing bodies power to do anything they wish except actions specifically forbidden to them by law.
And then Mrs. Hindman stated:
"Government by administrative non-law and all-powerful county executive were additional Metro features in the charter. It was beaten down, 18,597 to 16,209 votes."
Another proposed charter before the voters, that for Linn County, Oregon, also contained Metro features such as abolishment of certain elective offices. Commenting on this charter, Mrs. Hindman said:
"Woven together, the various Metro filaments in the document provided for a two-headed elective board of county commissioners whose legislative powers would be restricted, but whose administrative (non-law) powers, outdistancing the legislative, would be practically unlimited."
When given the opportunity to express themselves, the voters of Linn County rejected the Metro charter by sixty per cent.
In her Metro News column of February 8, 1973, Jo Hindman reported further evidence of opposition to Metro-regional government.
GROUPS ORGANIZING TO OPPOSE
Spearheading a national movement opposing Metro-regional government is the Committee to Restore the Constitution, Inc., under the leadership of Archibald E. Roberts, Lt. Col., A.U.S., ret. This organization, which publishes a monthly bulletin, as well as other literature, is located at [current address 7-00] P.O. Box 986; Fort Collins, Colorado, 80522; phone 970-484-2575. [CDR NOTE: Col. Robert still publishes a monthly bulletin and has quantities of specific bulletins available for a bulk rate. His web site URL is: http://www.webaccess.net/~comminc/ Highly recommended]
One of the State organizations associated with the Committee to Restore the Constitution is the Wisconsin Legislative and Research Committee, Inc. Mrs. Virginia Meves, State Coordinator, P.O. Box 45, Brookfield, Wis., 53005; Phone 414-782-4832 [CDR NOTE: The address and phone is current. Virginia also publishes the WISCONSIN REPORT, a weekly paper for only $20 per year subscription. She has back-issues available which are "loaded" with pertinent info on regionalism, local and state government issues, as well as United Nations issues. Highly recommended]
CDR Note: We have no knowledge of the following and will insert them as appeared in the book.
A weekly newspaper, the MILWAUKEE COUNTY NEWS, 4124 S. Austin St., (200E) Milwaukee, Wis., 53207, usually carries a definitive article by Mrs. Meves and other members of her organization, in each issue on the subject of Metro-regional government as it affects Wisconsin and the United States.
Among other State groups are Save Our Suburbs, Mrs. Clarence W. McIntosh, President, Box 29, Winetka, Ill., 60093, and the Pennsylvania Committee to Save Our Local Governments, P.O. Box 16042, Philadelphia, Penna., 19114. Both groups publish bulletins opposing Metro-regional government.
It will be recalled that Chapter XIII analyzed some of the recommendations of the December 1972 conference of the National Association of Regional Councils. The final recommendation arrogantly proclaims:
"The National Association of Regional Councils and individual regional councils should seek to educate the Congress and the state legislatures on the problems of interstate areas on a continuing basis."
Well, this book does not presume to "educate" the Congress of the United States and the State legislatures. Rather, its purpose was to organize in convenient reading form the salient features of the drive to regionalize the United States -- and to point out the dangers to self-government such a drive presents. The information in this book, for the most part, has not appeared in the nation's press. Therefore, many Congressmen and State legislators are unaware of this threat to our system of government.
If you oppose Metro-regional government, then here are a few suggestions as to what you can do.
BUY AND DISTRIBUTE EXTRA COPIES OF THIS BOOK
You may wish to send copies to:
Your Congressman and two Senators;
All of the members of your State Legislature;
The Governor of your State;
The mayor of your city, as well as other local elected office-holders in your city and county.
If you do not know the names and home addresses of your State Senator or State Representative, or wish a list of all legislators, write the Governor's office at your State capital, requesting this information.
Perhaps you will wish to send an accompanying letter to your State Representative and State Senator, your mayor and other local officials, pointing out how the Metrocrats plan to either cut down on their authority or, in the case of certain elected local officials, abolish their positions altogether -- in the interest of "efficient regional government". Their jobs would, under the Metro system, then be filled by bureaucrat appointees.
In order to help inform the voters in your community, write letters to the editor of your local newspaper whenever some aspect of Metro-regional government makes news, using the documented facts in this book to back up your views.
Your purchase and distribution of this book to your friends and neighbors, members of civic and property-owners' organizations, can help mobilize citizen opposition in order to thwart or halt the plans of the Metrocrats in your community and your State.
The only reason this plot by the Metrocrats to destroy self-government in this nation has proceeded as far as it now has, is because the vast majority of the American people have not had the facts.
In communities where the citizens have been alerted, and had an opportunity to vote on various Metro-regional government, these Metro proposals have been defeated.
Will you help?
* * * * * * * *
CDR FINAL NOTE, from Jackie:
I first read Phoebe Courtney's book two or three years ago. Believing it to be an important — critical, actually — reference source in an easily understood format I began making attempts to contact Phoebe in Colorado. After leaving several messages on her answering machine with no response, I wrote a letter. In the letter, I introduced myself, gave references from people who knew and worked against Regional Governance along with Phoebe in the 1960s and '70s, and requested information regarding the availability of the book so I could recommend it to our networkers and listeners of the Sweet Liberty broadcast.
In response to the letter, I received several copies of the book (all of them, save one, given away now) along with a letter from her secretary. The letter explained that Phoebe is no longer publishing her newsletter; she is foregoing the copyright so long as her address and contact information is excluded; and o reference was made to the book other than the copies sent. Since copyrights expire in 25 years I've taken the liberty to transcribe it in its entirety for posting to our website for all of you who are willing to take the time to read and then hopefully take action.
What action? My only thought is that we still have local governments in place and are still electing officials to fill those slots. While Regionalism has progressed to the point where it "appears" there is no return… I hold onto the KNOWING that "… with God (our Heavenly Father/Creator) ALL things are possible". I also know that the perpetrators of Regional Governance want us to believe, as Dr. Day said to the group of doctors in Pittsburgh back in 1968, "Everything is in place and nothing can stop us now". (See the New Order of Barbarians in the Shadow Government section of our web site.)
I also know, as 'they' do that if we do nothing they shall have their way. Many of you believe that the only 'something' that can be done at this point is armed revolution. I ask you to consider that that action would be playing into the hands of the global elite who have orchestrated every single war ever fought since the founding of America and before. We are expendable "cannon fodder" in their eyes and it is my belief they anxiously await another 'revolution'.
Keep in mind that nothing was ever "taken" from us. The entire plan for Regionalizing America was carried out by the acquiescence of State and Local Governments, and by We, the People, for our lack of involvement in the governmental process. We did NOT hold our local and state elected officials' feet to the fire.
The plan to create a World Government under their control can only be fulfilled by the fulfilling of their plan to Regionalize the World. They have used force in weaker nations to install their national leaders. In America, they have used Vote Fraud at the ballot box to install their puppet presidents; they have bought and paid for the U.S. Congress; they have tucked the governors into their back pockets; in the state legislatures only those who go-along-to-get-along become legislative "leaders"; and, in both local and state governments they have installed many of their trained seals from "1313" — Public Administration Clearing House.
Admittedly, the picture looks bleak. However, thus far the process has been accomplished by political action. The power remaining to the people resides in our local and state governments. Since none of us has a "crystal ball" in which to see the future, let us NOT project the past into the future and by so doing, crucify ourselves in the present. Let us earnestly pray for guidance and instruction; call on our Father/Creator for intervention in this unGodly, ghastly, insane asylum; and get our own agendas out of the way that His Will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven. I believe His work will be done through us… not by us, but through us, if we ever learn to 'let go and let God'.
I am considering the possibility of having the text of the book -- as transcribed -- copied and bound neatly. This will only be done if there is enough interest. At that time I will take orders before copies are made. The cost has not been checked out yet, since this last part was just finalized and I'm anxious to get it up on the site. You will be notified further when we have the information necessary to offer them.
Since I was not able to scan the book, and instead had to type the entire book, there is no time to proof read. Spell check only catches mis-spellings and not the correctly-spelled words such as if, it, is, etc., which are out of place. If you find a blatant error, please notify us so we can make proper correction. Thank you, and may our Father bless and keep us all in His Loving Mind.
Back to the TABLE OF CONTENTS
Council on Domestic Relations Home Page