Main story: Green schemes make activists see red (July 15, 2012)
Mary Williams has been against Wisconsin’s Smart Growth law for many years. The Republican state representative from Medford has been trying to repeal the law since 2003. Now her battle has been joined — by opponents of an obscure United Nations plan.
Assembly Bill 303, introduced last fall by Williams and other Republicans, would have allowed communities to opt out of Smart Growth, the state’s law setting the rules for developing local land-use plans, and make it easier for these plans to be repealed.
“I’m not against planning, but this is about choice,” Williams said at an Oct. 11 hearing on the bill. “We’re just giving them the option.”
Other lawmakers backing the bill made similar points. State Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, who is running for a northern Wisconsin state Senate seat this fall, declared himself an “ardent supporter” of the bill. He called the Smart Growth law, enacted in 1999, an “unfunded mandate” on local governments and a threat to private property rights.
This sentiment was echoed by 10 citizens who testified in support of the bill, many of whom alleged that Smart Growth is part of Agenda 21, a non-binding United Nations agreement approved in 1992.
“It is a major step into socialism,” said one speaker, warning that in the new world order brought by Agenda 21, “even gardening will be strictly regulated.” Other speakers peppered their remarks with references to ObamaCare, “communitarianism,” Karl Marx and government plans to “turn off your appliances” when it decides.
Democrats and others argued that Smart Growth planning makes sense and saves tax dollars, by promoting efficient development. The bill was opposed by state environmental groups as well as the Wisconsin Realtors Association and the Wisconsin Towns Association.
Richard Stadelman of the Towns Association, who testified against the bill, said in an interview that his group has always supported the state’s comprehensive land-use planning law. He believes AB 303, as drafted, would have created a disincentive for communities to have land-use plans, “and a plan is a good land-use practice.”
Despite such concerns, the bill passed the Assembly on a 56-38 mostly party line vote. But the Senate never brought it up for a vote.
Tom DeWeese, a national leader of the anti-Agenda 21 movement, said in an interview that, as he understands it, “there was concern with the bill that it wasn’t strong enough.” He said he’s been told that the bill’s backers have promised to introduce it next year with stronger language.
Williams and Tiffany did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Stadelman said he has no doubt “this bill will come back.”
— Bill Lueders