LONG TIME RESIDENTS OF SHELBY COUNTY TAKE A STAND

(November 25, 2005) On an unseasonably cold evening in mid-November (2005) at the Vandiver Church of God a meeting, concerning zoning, began about 7:00pm. A crowd of approximately 130 was seated when Tod McDonald (Planning Service Supervisor, Shelby County) began his presentation. He started by saying someone had asked him to address zoning in this area. It was related to me he was then asked who and he indicated he could not reveal this information (how convenient). We have found in the past, this deception has been used to gain access to certain areas to push zoning issues. He went on to say he and his assistants were there to explain what zoning is and is not. He said one gives up their rights to their property when an agreement is made for certain uses of the private property. He presented a few pencils in his hand and indicated the pencils represented an individual’s property rights. He handed one out and said, “This right is given up when you sign an agreement for someone to hunt on your property. He handed out another pencil and said you lose another right when you grant an easement for the power company to run a line through your property.” He compared zoning to these. In typical Shelby County governmental deception he failed to explain, you do not give up any rights to your property for hunting or utility easement, you ALLOW and control these uses and you can modify, suspend or terminate the agreement when you so desire (a little more difficult with the utility, though). With zoning you DO lose these rights and the county planners dictate to you how your property is to be used. Mr. McDonald overlooked this little tidbit of information. He turned the presentation over to a young lady to explain more in-depth. She began her slide presentation with the standard slides of how zoning will benefit everyone and protect the use of their property. She said, “If one would read through Alabama Act 82-693, a very boring read which one wouldn’t even want to attempt on a slow Saturday afternoon, explains how private property would be protected”. After the short slide presentation she entertained questions. This is the part the upper echelon of Shelby County bureaucracy must really dislike and in this situation was akin to feeding this poor woman to the wolves. A citizen asked what if they wanted zoning but not the master plan. She said yes, that was possible. It must be noted that all the slides she displayed had “Shelby County Master Plan” in the upper right hand portion of the slide. Obviously, this was being presented in a deceptive manner. Another resident asked why zoning is needed. The answer essentially was to protect ones property. Now ask yourself, who does your property need to be protected from? Several other people asked similar questions and the County representatives attempted to use the construction of a plant in Alabaster and how the local residents could not stop it from happening. At this point Terry Regan stood and very eloquently explained how property owners were being targeted to be stripped of their rights concerning the use of their property. He went on to say his house had burned down and since he had less than an acre to rebuild, he was having difficulty with the county because of zoning. Under the zoning, property owners in unincorporated areas with less than an acre would have a difficult time building while many of the “Special Districts” routinely build new homes on lots as small as a half acre. Another resident asked the question differently about zoning without the master plan. Mr. McDonald stated, “You do not have to have the Master Plan with zoning”. This was more than I could take. Mr. Regan began to respond when I interrupted him (I’m sorry). I stood and said this is not true. A vote for zoning is a vote for the Master Plan and the authority of the unelected planning commissioners. Mr. McDonald said, “No it doesn’t”. I emphatically stated, “I’ve read Act 82-693 and according to this act in Section 8, The ballot shall be so worded as to give the voter the opportunity to vote either 'Yes' or 'No' as to whether the voter wishes the authority of the commission, its master plan, and the zoning regulations to apply to the beat.” (This is the direct quote from the Act). Mr. McDonald said, “Calm down”! I responded by saying, “Why should I calm down when you are trying to take away property owners rights.” Also, according to Amendment 707, Shelby County Home Rule and Act 82-693, the County Commission has the authority to stop the construction of the plant in Alabaster. If this authority did not exist then explain how these “Special District” housing developments managed to change the zoning from Agriculture to residential before there was any vote on zoning! Perhaps, this is another great deception to strip you of your property rights. Can you imagine voting for zoning only to find out you now have a master plan and fall under the authority of the commission, which under Zoning Regulations of Shelby County, May 4, 2004, page 144, Article XXVI. Amendments and Changes, Section 1, Requirements for Change. “Whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice warrants such action, the Planning Commission may amend, supplement, modify or repeal the regulations or zoning district boundaries herein established.” Another gentleman stood, faced Mr. McDonald and said, “I don’t appreciate you using my tax dollars to send this stuff (propaganda) out.” Before Mr. McDonald could respond the lady who posed the first question stood and said, “I’ve worked with my neighbors for years and I would much rather talk to you or you (pointing to friends) about what to do with our property instead of some county person.” Almost all the citizens present chimed in at this point. Mr. McDonald asked, “Is this the general consensus here?” Overwhelmingly, everyone said, “YES”. He then threw up his hands and said, “Then, this meeting is over, we have nothing else to offer”. He and those who accompanied him gathered their things and left, essentially “ran-out-of-town” by informed residents. Although small, this is a great victory for property owners. You can bet these attacks on our property rights will not go away. It is best for all of you to stay informed and be wary of any government entity who claims to be acting in your best interest. Remember, when the next vote for county commissioner in you district comes up, do you really want to reelect someone who tramples your property rights? Rather than listen to what they say, look at what they’ve done while in office! This country’s greatness was founded on individual freedoms and responsibilities with limited government. As Ronald Reagan stated, “Man is not free unless government is limited… As government expands, liberty contracts.

SUSPICIOUS FIRE

(June 9, 2005) Meet Terry Reagin. He has run for congress several times as well as Shelby County commissioner. He has been very vocal opponent of the flawed Shelby County Sustainable Comprehensive Zoning Plan. He lives on a lot on Hwy 41 where the questionably illegal redrawn beat 8 line turns south off Hwy 41. The line borders the east side of his lot and travels down the road to Wehapa. Over the past several years many people have eyed his lot with the hope of acquiring it. Several reasons some may have for acquiring this lot run from widening the road leading to the houses on the lake to just running him off his land. He has been in court with the county concerning his property for the most insidious of reasons. His problems seemed to coincide with when he first decided to throw his hat in the political ring. It appears some county level people seem to be harassing him every time he turns around. June 1, 2005, he and his wife Maria had business downtown and left their children home. Two of them are older teenagers and routinely care for their younger sibling. The kids were watching television while their parents were away. They heard a car pull up on the road next to their house leading to Wehapa. They said they heard doors open as if someone were getting out. The road is so close to the house they thought nothing of it at the time. A few minutes later they heard the car doors open again and the car then drove off. A short time later the lights in the room flickered but remained on. At this point they heard a click but did not know what it was (it was later determined to be a circuit breaker trip). Terry’s daughter got up to check and see what it was. When she approached the laundry room she noticed smoke coming from under the door. She felt the outside of the door and found it cool to touch. She opened the door slightly and smoke billowed out of the room. She saw no fire at this time and yelled for everyone to get out of the house. 911 was called while all the kids made it to safety. Many neighbors came to help and witnesses said 3 fire departments arrived to fight the fire. At this point the fire was still isolated to this one room and should have been easily contained. I spoke with several eye witnesses and find it unbelievable what events occurred after this. One neighbor went in the house with a garden hose to spray the fire to give the fire department personnel time to get their equipment in. He yelled for them to come through the front window to push the fire away from the rest of the house. One fireman told him they would in a “little while”. Terry and Maria returned home shortly after this and saw the fire was still contained to this one area. According to the witnesses, the firemen were directed by their superiors to move around back to fight the fire. Instead of placing the firefighters in a position to push the fire away from the unaffected part of the house they were placed in positions that pushed the fire into the unaffected areas of the house. Throughout the course of fighting this fire, witnesses reported firemen taking smoke breaks without regard to a family losing their home. After talking with these witnesses the picture that comes to mind is that of the “Keystone Cops”. These unqualified actions have resulted in the Reagins incurring a total loss of their house and personal effects. The Fire Marshall walked through the burned structure with Mr. Reagin after the fire was extinguished. They stood in what was once the laundry room. On inspection the floor wasn’t even charred except for a hole which was burned about foot in diameter just in front of the door his daughter had opened. Most of the studs on the two outside walls were badly charred while the other two were mildly charred. The ceiling and roof were gone. There is no evidence a roof or ceiling even existed over this room as there was no rafters, wiring or anything else, just open sky. The Fire Marshall told Terry he believed the fire was caused by faulty wiring in the ceiling. Apparently this guy is psychic because there is no evidence to support this claim. The theory of a meteor falling from the sky has as much validity as that. I toured the burned structure with Terry and noticed the room where the fire started contained some abnormalities that are suspicious to say the least. One specific area indicates an intense localized fire similar to what you would see in spontaneous combustion or chemical fire while 2 feet away there was almost no charring. This alone should warrant an official investigation. Several questions need to be answered about this situation. Who was in the car that stopped a few minutes before this fire occurred? Why were the firemen directed to position themselves in a manner that would almost guarantee certain destruction of the whole house? Have any of these fire chiefs been trained to correctly fight a house fire? Why were there no samples taken for analysis from the remains, specifically, what was left of the room where the fire started? Why would a supposed trained professional make an unsubstantiated statement of how the fire may have started? Have you seen any media coverage of this fire? These are all legitimate questions that deserve an answer especially since these children were endangered. I don’t have the answers but one question ways heavily in the back of my mind. Could this tragic event be politically motivated? This family needs your help but more importantly, your prayers. Please feel free to contact us to show your support for this family.

TARGET CHELSEA

(April 25, 2005) Mayor Niven of Chelsea hosted a public meeting in the Chelsea High School auditorium April 21, 2005 for citizen input for replacing the Comprehensive Development Plan. This meeting was one of several to receive input from citizens in order to develop sensible zoning and plan. Presentations from Andy Wallace, Chairman, Chelsea Planning Commission, Joey Hester, a representative from the Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham (RPC), 4SITE representatives Drew, a landscape architect and Robert, the slide show operator (I’m sorry, I did not get their last names). James Ponseti a Shelby County planner was also present and sitting off to the side in the audience. Before the meeting began everyone had a chance to review pictures and sketches of the proposed town center which were developed from the information received in previous meetings. I was told the County planner went and reviewed the sign-in sheet. He returned to the other planners and was overheard making the statement, “There are hostiles here tonight”. You have to ask yourself, why does a government employee refer to citizens who are there to provide input for the zoning of their property be considered “hostile”? He is one of the group who rammed the flawed plan through naïve voters in beat 8 of Shelby County. I had the pleasure of talking with Mr. Wallace prior to the onset of the presentations. There was a little confusion at first as some other citizens group had been unfair and accusatory toward him and he mistakenly thought it was our group. After a frank discussion with Mr. Wallace, it is very evident he wants what’s best for the citizens of Chelsea. He has an unbelievable task of coming up with a plan to present the Mayor and City Council with very little citizen input. Approximately 60 people were present of out of over 5000 possible. I can imagine his job must be extremely frustrating with this kind of turn out. A slide show rehashed input from previous meetings. In review of Assets, Liabilities, and Opportunities several key items were noted. Focused citizen interests included “private property rights”, “high density housing”. There were around 10 more but these seemed to be of greater interest. We were shown pictures which we were told were used in previous audience polls. Several areas polled were of shopping, roadways and housing. Essentially, there were two pictures in each category to choose from. Shopping areas and roadways showed one beautifully landscaped and the other close to concrete and asphalt. Residential showed a neighborhood with houses on what looked to be half acre lots with beautiful landscape extolling trees and shrubbery while the other choice was a neighborhood with houses on similar sized lots with very limited landscaping and virtually no trees. There were other areas but lets focus on these specifically. In all areas you had two pictures to choose from. One consists of asphalt and concrete while the other handsomely landscaped. Any sane person would choose the latter. For the shopping and roadway areas you are basically limited to these two choices. For the houses, there are several more choices which were not provided. I believe it’s much more appealing to see a neighborhood with houses on 1 to 2 acre lots, more if made affordable. This would preserve the environment and provide a greater sense of privacy. The reason citizens did not get to choose this is because the professional planners want you to choose what they think you need, not what you think you need. In simple words, you get to choose their choices (predetermined outcome). A citizen asked, “Why is there a need for high density housing in Chelsea”. I witnessed the county planner shaking his head. The professional planners had trouble answering this question. A member of the audience provided the best explanation in low income or people just starting out would benefit from this type of housing. Apparently, the planners did not want to answer this question truthfully. Another citizen asked if building could be limited to 2 story structures as he would be all for something like that. The planners performed a little tap dance and said they were sure there would be some type of height restriction. Refer to the Shelby County Plan “Core community areas” concerning these areas for more insight. Another question was asked if someone owning several acres would be able to use their land for farming or other uses as the owner deemed fit. The 4SITE representative said, “Of course. Communism is dead!” We thought it odd he would say something such as this since many of the so-called proposals reflect collective philosophy which is the basis for communism/socialism. The questioner continued by asking why is the private property owner subject to the same requirements/restrictions as a developer. I again witnessed the county planner shaking his head. The answer, “A property owner is considered a developer”. Think about that for a minute. If you own a 5 acre farm you will be considered a developer. Do you want that sort of headache and restrictions? The proposed plan calls for a green zone where minimal density housing is already established. This area is supposed to be environmentally friendly areas with walking and biking trails. What is not revealed is according to plans from other locations these trails will trespass on private property and the owner will be powerless to do anything about it if the planners get their way. I asked, “Will the property owner who owns several acres or has livestock be able to continue to use their land as they see fit including building new structures, barns, etc… if they are located in this green zone?” Again the county planner was shaking his head. The answer was incomplete, “Prior use would continue”. Prior use means you can continue using your land as before but does not include building a new barn, paddock or fence. Mr. Wallace interceded and said they would be “grandfathered” in and land use protected. I asked if he would be willing to include “grandfather” in the wording of the plan. We witnessed the county planner shaking his head and throwing his hands in the air as if to ask God for help. Mr. Wallace seemed not to have a problem with this term but the rest of the planners appeared not to be receptive to this at all. There were many more questions and good input from the citizens. Probably one of the most important was could the existing plan be placed on the Chelsea website (cityofchelsea.com) so citizens could see what they have now and possibly be enticed to take a more active role in its revision. Mr. Wallace and the 4SITE representative thought this was a very good idea. Once again the county planner was shaking his head as was the RPC representative. This meeting revealed these outside planners may very well have an agenda that may not be in the best interest of the citizens of Chelsea. Although the citizens who were present expressed their utmost concern about protection of private property ownership/control, high density housing, and other issues, the planners did not. When challenged on some of their proposals concerning private property rights they became noticeably nervous and somewhat evasive. When the meeting ended, several people congregated outside. The county planner passed by and was overheard saying something to the effect he was so angry he couldn’t talk right now. Why was he so angry at citizens providing input for the zoning plan for Chelsea. I can only speculate it was because the few citizens who were present were very well informed and want what’s best for the citizens, not what’s best for the government, especially the county government. His attitude reflects the dangers of an out of control bureaucratic government who wishes to usurp the rights of the citizens. Usually people like this are the ones who want to rewrite the Alabama Constitution so they can delete Section 2. People are the Source of Power and Section 35, Objective of Government. Throughout the meeting Mr. Wallace and Mayor Niven were actively involved. These two men are looking out for the citizens of Chelsea even though it appears the citizens are complacent and noninvolved. How can you expect these men to develop and implement a plan that benefits you the most without input from you? When a new plan is implemented and you suffer because it negatively impacts your property, you have no right to complain or even challenge it. The few who were in attendance are very interested in protecting their property rights as well as Chelsea overall. Why aren’t you?

The U.N. is at it again According to recent reports in the media the United Nations is once again attempting to interfere with our sovereign nation. According to the UN’s Human Rights office our TSA must have a union for the employees. Although, there is no evidence of abuse or substandard working environment they must be in a union, that is, according to the UN. This is equivalent to unionizing the military. When looking out for our safety unionization is a non-issue. This falls right in line with the UN’s attempt to force a “world tax” to fund the UN and their misappropriation of funds and blatant corruption. These actions are not the UN’s mandate. One of my first hand experiences with the UN’s “to big for their britches” mentality was in 1994 in Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo), Cuba during the second phase of the Haitian refugee situation. The first three months in this campaign was aboard ship with 300 US Marines. Our US Air Force medical team was there to provide medical care primarily for our Marines and secondary to refugees We fished thousands of refugees out of the water and placed them in camps at Gitmo. After ship operations, we were all placed at Gitmo. Our medical team was absorbed by the Air Transportable Hospital (ATH). The medical providers were attached to provide medical care to the Haitian camps. There were 7 camps and each had a provider assigned. These providers received 2 days off a week and I was one of several who filled in for them. We (fill-ins) rotated through all the camps on a daily basis to ensure constant sick-call to the Haitian refugees. Many of these refugees milked the system and took advantage of our generosity. A specific camp had several of these freeloaders. The regular provider informed me of one individual in particular. I remember treating him several times while I was filling in for this provider. One day in this camp we had an unusually long line and we were treating the people as quickly as possible without shortchanging their care. I noticed one of the frequent flyer freeloaders was talking to a UN observer. A short time later this observer brought the freeloader in the sick-call tent. He introduced himself as a member of the UN team and demanded I see this individual ahead of all others. I explained to the observer this man is seen on a regular basis and there were others waiting to be seen who were very ill (2 were unable to stand on their own). This observer wouldn’t hear any of this. In a load voice he demanded I see this man immediately. I told him we prioritize patients according to the severity of their illness/injury and he didn’t fit an urgent category. The observer exploded into a tirade yelling that was from the UN and I had to do what he said. In a calm voice I asked him where he got his medical degree or even first aid training. He said he didn’t have any medical training. I told him he was interfering with our care there and to please “observe” as he was supposed to do. At this point he went nuclear at which I demanded he leave the sick-call tent. He continued his rant until I took him by the arm and led him to the gate and turned over to the security personnel. The whole time he was yelling about how he had the full authority of the UN behind him and I was going to be taken to the world court for prosecution. Fortunately, after a brief investigation and statements from the Haitians and security personnel I was found to have acted with great restraint and respectfulness. The observer on the other hand was removed and I never saw a replacement. How does this tie in to the “world tax” and TSA unionization demand. It shows a track record of the UN attempting to interfere with our sovereignty. Do your own research and you will find the UN wants to weaken if not destroy the United States. I stood up to the UN observer the way our government must stand up to the UN itself. If we don’t have our government officials take a stand now it will be only a matter of time the “one world order” will take away all your freedoms!