A town hall meeting has been scheduled for tomorrow evening, Aug. 9, at the Bloomingdale Municipal Building, to allow the public a chance to give their (non-binding) input on the proposal to demolish the Meer Tract, also known as “Federal Hill,” in order to comply with the Mount Laurel Housing ruling to provide the “affordable housing” that will meet Bloomingdale’s social justice requirement.
Current residents are up in arms over this proposal. The demolition will be accomplished by Tilcon Quarrying, which has quarries throughout New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. Tilcon will be allowed to destroy the hillside, while making millions from the profits, and the town will be given the land, cost free, which it will then turn into an urban blight zone.
We must always keep our emotions in check in regards to this move, as some 60 years ago, the residents of that time complained vociferously about turning their little rural factory town into a bedroom suburb. But the realtors did not blast any of the hillsides away nor did they fell any more trees than necessary.
A new ally has come to the aid of Sustainable Development – the so-called oak tree fungus, which goes by the name of “oak wilt” or Ceratocystis facacearum. Not surprisingly the federal website on this fungus does not open up.
However, Wikipedia tells us: “Oak wilt is a fungal disease affecting oak trees caused by the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum. Symptoms vary by tree species, but generally consist of leaf discoloration, wilt, defoliation, and death. The fungus spreads from diseased to healthy trees from insects or by connections between tree roots. Management of the disease historically meant preventing infection by avoiding tree wounds, removing diseased trees and breaking root connections with vibratory plows, trenchers/rocksaws or hoes. Present methods focus on the area of monocultures and restoring correct ecosystems using soils. Fungicide treatments, used in urban areas, are available and are mostly preventative as well. Oak wilt is an important disease of oak for timber production and of oak trees in urban areas.”
What a convenient argument in favor of blasting Federal Hill to kingdom come. Will Bloomingdale, or the Federal Government, do anything to help the acres of trees on Federal Hill? What? And spend money on oak trees when it’s easier to cut them down, make money from the land, and build high-density housing for generations of Progressive-Communist voters in perpetuity? Not on your treehouse, friends.
Jill Stein, the 2016 Green Party presidential candidate, assured her supporters that they will prevail in establishing United Nations standards. Stein may be green, but only in the monetary sense. You won’t see her or her supporters in Bloomingdale tomorrow, picketing and protesting the destruction of Federal Hill and all the wildlife that inhabit it.
That’s what’s so risible about the Progressives – their key issues, like the environment. People bad, nature good. Except when you want to build low-cost housing for low-rent people who will cause suburban home prices to plummet and taxes to skyrocket. Bloomingdale won’t be fit to live in by the time they’re through, and that’s just what they had in mind.
The Progressives are wealthy, limousine liberals who will be living on the heights of Kinnelon and perhaps West Milford, enjoying the progress of the destruction of the Pequannock Valley (which includes Bloomingdale).
Let the valleys flood. That will just give more federal bureaucrats more federal tax dollars to spend. Some future Progressive governor or president will helicopter in for a photo op, tell the flood victims how sorry they are, and sign a bill extending funds to federal bureaucrats to help them. Don’t criminals call that “protection money”?
The Feds, and their municipal minions all over our area, will have the nerve to tell us that we don’t have the right to stand in the way of “progress;” a so-called progress that put us in our homes. Never mind the fact that the Feds despised the earlier residents. The hills on which Bloomingdale homes of the 50s, 60s and 70s were built were the scenes of some fairly heinous meetings of some unsavory groups. This is the Progressives’ chance, led by the notorious suburban-hating Obama, to even the score.
Even though the bedroom community residents had nothing to do with that activity. Really, Federal Hill’s demise began back during World War II when the land belong to a Nazi sympathizer. He allowed a youth group from Berlin, Germany, to hold summer camps there, in which they indoctrinated Nazi youth. After the federal government seized the land (and the property was in dispute for some time before the government won), it was sold to the predecessor of Tilcon. They’ve certainly been blasting away at Riverdale Hill before the war, and Federal Hill since before some of us were even born.
Glenn Beck said on his radio/television show last week that he really couldn’t understand the Eastern suburban outrage at housing development. Beck grew up in Washington State. He said he’s kind of an “indoor guy” (and hunter) who couldn’t care less about the bunnies and the squirrels. He also owns a sizeable ranch in Texas. So what if the government forces Easterners off their property and into housing prisons? So what if they destroy the environment here and insist they’re preserving the environment (or at least its resources) out West? So what if they’re hypocrites?
Well, we do care about the squirrels (who can survive anywhere; they’re hardly in danger) and the birds, and the bears and the hares, not to mention skunks, possum, deer, coyotes, beaver (they were pretty much hunted into extinct in the 17th Century), and other four-footed critters who wander about our woods.
New Jersey is a blue state, although we here happen to be red. That doesn’t mean we can’t or don’t or shouldn’t care about the environment. Apparently, we care more about than the agencies who were supposed to be protecting it. We prefer to take our chances with the four-footed animals than the two-footed kind.
Looking at Federal Hill from the east, I was correct: the quarry has chewed away to the peak of the hill. The sight is depressing, at least for those of us who have lived here all our lives and loved the hills, the oak trees, the trails, the little brooks and streams (the town claims that hikers are trespassing on private property). Even the Iron Door. This is the last stand for Federal Hill and the residents of Bloomingdale. Like a dam bursting, Bloomingdale will be flooded with crime and criminals, even more drugs, litter, filth, and decay.
At this critical time, the best thing defenders of Federal Hill and the town of Bloomingdale can do is arm themselves with information. The Sustainable Freedom Lab is an excellent source.
They send out frequent e-mails to their subscribers, keeping them apprised of the fight on all fronts:
Dear [Whomever], Barack Obama is spending the next months dismantling the last shreds of our free market America. HUD is his weapon and he wields its new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule like a concrete block. He batters communities into changing or ignoring their own zoning laws and allowing the government to dictate community planning. Local officials submit to the government out of fear they will lose grant money or face bankrupting lawsuits. As civil rights plaintiff firm Relman, Dane and Colfax said, just the threat of removing the money is enough to bring most communities in line. If it takes lawsuits to force them to abide by HUD, says attorney Michael Allen, “My firm stands ready to do its part. Anyone with me?”
- Legal motivation is only the beginning. On June 8, 2016, the AFFH program evolved into a master plan that enables federal control of virtually every aspect of local planning and community living.
For months, the agency warned officials that the new AFFH was merely a platform for HUD’s aggressive interpretations of the Fair Housing Act. Interpretations that impact education, transportation, jobs and housing. Affordable housing is now nothing more than a launch pad for total community control. In June, HUD sent an official letter stating their intention to partner with the Departments of Education and Transportation to introduce “socioeconomic diversity” into elementary and secondary classrooms. Here is why. HUD is not content with people living in in areas they can afford. The administration argues if low-income families cannot afford to live in affluent areas, then local zoning laws are depriving them of opportunities. That means the community must correct the imbalance or risk facing charges of economic segregation and discrimination.
- That is what happened to Baltimore County when three HUD residents joined with the local NAACP to complain to HUD that they did not live in prosperous enough areas. HUD forced the County to build 1000 new affordable homes and move 2000 section 8 recipients, all into affluent areas.
Obama then moved beyond affordable housing into classrooms. He wants to desegregate schools that have been integrated for decades, using enforced diversity quotas. The administration will convert existing federal offices into regional Equity Assistance Centers for “the preparation, adoption, and implementation of plans for the desegregation of public schools.” Got that. Obama says your community is guilty of discrimination if people live in neighborhoods they can afford, and HUD will address the problem by desegregating your school and calling it “socioeconomic diversity.” This change will happen regardless of local officials’ opposition, regardless of local school board decisions and regardless of voters’ choices. DOT is involved in the partnership because, according to Transportation Sec. Anthony Fox, “too many people lack the transportation options they need to pursue…high quality education, good paying jobs, and affordable housing.” That means the HUD partnership will soon dictate planning outcomes that include high-density housing and mixed use developments near transit-oriented living. Does that sound like regional planning? It should. The new AFFH application requires grant recipients to merge their zoning plans with those of the larger region, thereby enabling the region to annex the nearby smaller communities. HUD’s platform has spilled over to Common Core in an effort to control what HUD calls, “adult outcomes.” In Westchester County, still fighting back from 7 years of HUD’s relentless attacks, the government is shutting down parents that oppose Common Core.
- Obama is threatening to withdraw Title I funds, the education money the feds send to the states, if the County has more than 5% of its students skipping the Common Core high stakes testing.
Obama knows that nearly 20% of parents already pulled their children from the damaging tests.
- In spite of three laws prohibiting the federal government from interfering in local educations, they are not only interfering, they are hostilely taking it over and silencing any opposing parents or school boards.
We must stop HUD and all federal agencies from crushing local rule and turning community members into subjects. Obama’s America is not the America we want for our children. Shelly, I need your help today to stop these atrocities!
John Anthony Sustainable Freedom Lab Sustainablefreedomlab.org
In another group e-mailing, Anthony writes,
Two-hundred years after signing a declaration protecting Americans’ right to pursue life, liberty and property, the stewards of the very government our Founders formed, began stealing all three. The story of why and how our government, through federal agencies like HUD and the EPA implement global law is the story of America’s return to slavery. To understand the importance of the story we must first recognize the importance of property rights. For example, if you own a farm, but another person tells you what to plant, where you can mow, and whom you must have for neighbors, your ownership becomes worthless. That other person controls not only your land, but also what you can and cannot do. When any person or government controls your property, they control your behavior. Your obedience to that control is the beginning of slavery. In 1976, while Americans were distracted watching a manly Bruce Jenner ace the Olympic decathlon; while two Steves formed a company called Apple, and millions mimicked “meow, meow, meow, meow” to the Meow Mix commercial, two United States delegates signed an international agreement in Vancouver, Canada that accelerated the demise of our Founders’ protections.
The document concluded that land “contributes to social injustice,” and “cannot be controlled by individuals.” With those signatures, our government’s official position on private property ownership reversed. The U.S. government now agreed that “public control of land use is…indispensable.” A decade later, the globalist Brundtland Report added the environment, poverty, the economy and even global warming as further causes to place private property, and therefore those who own the property, under government control. The report labeled the massive initiative, “Sustainable Development.” The United Nations introduced the concept to the world in their world in their 1992, 40-chapter, Agenda 21 action plan. President Clinton inserted that plan’s goals into our federal agencies’ objectives. To assure no departure from the international aim of diluting property rights, the authors of the action plan teamed with HUD, the EPA and other agencies to write federal regulations relating to sustainable development. Today, those anti-property rules exist in every federal agency and every branch of our U.S. government. Most Americans trusted their government and never saw the deception coming.
The Endangered Species Act, originally intended to protect the Bald Eagle, today ignores the windmill slaughter of our national symbol, while restricting homeowners’ activities on their own land the EPA may designate a critical habitat. According to Karen Budd-Falen, a property rights’ Attorney in Cheyenne, Wyoming, under President Obama, a series of regulatory changes place property owners at even greater risk. Should the government establish your property as a critical habitat, they can limit your activities purely on the theory that sometime in the future an endangered species might find your land contains the necessary sources to “feed, breed and shelter.” In other words, the government can deem your private property a critical habitat for an endangered species, even if none lives there.
Americans are practical and independent. They would never surrender their property rights on some federal whim.
They are also, some of the most generous people on earth. When government calls for programs to help the poor and protect the environment Americans respond. After all, our communities have helped the poor and homeowners protected their natural surroundings since our nation’s founding.
Because of their inherent generosity, few suspected that once worthy agencies had been coopted by the government’s own thirst for control and drive to limit private property.
To support the need for globally guided sustainable development, The Brundtland Report revived the decades’ old work of a Swedish scientist. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius theorized that fossil fuel combustion causes global warming.
Never mind that after 30 years of dire predictions, none of the global warming proponents’ catastrophes has occurred.
The largest single attack on our property rights is HUD’s new rule, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Under the guise of helping protected classes out of poverty and expanding social justice, that agency enacts globalist programs stripped directly from the pages of Agenda 21. Programs that will eventually socially engineer over 1200 U.S. communities.
HUD has bastardized the Fair Housing Act authorizing themselves to provide upward mobility, socioeconomic diversity and balanced living patterns for all people in communities that receive their most popular federal funds.
Sustainable development is an international buzzword chosen to numb Americans into compliance with global goals. Its definitions are broad and imprecise. Its goals are grandiose and immeasurable. But its outcomes are always the same. Fewer choices, less property rights and greater federal control.
If you don’t think the fight is worth your while, Bloomingdalers, just take a ride north on the Hamburg Turnpike from Pompton Lakes and through Riverdale, and back home to Bloomingdale. Or drive up to Wal-Mart and look at the view from the parking lot.
They say the country has been divided for decades into the Haves and the Have Nots. It wasn’t when the quarry first started operations in the late 1940s. But it is now. If you’re a “Have” you won’t give a darn. The view from where you’ll be sitting will be just fine.
If you’re part of the “Have Not” half of the population, no one will give a darn what you think about it and there’ll be nothing more you can do once Federal Hill is gone; it’s not like a strip mine, where you can refill the dirt.
You can’t replace the granite once the mountain has been blown up and you can’t get your freedom back once you have no more rights or property. You won’t have a leg to stand on nor the ground upon which to stand it.
Tomorrow will tell the tale of Bloomingdale’s future.