The State Constitution was signed in 1848. One of the most unique things about our great State is that we are one of the few states in the continental U.S. which has local township governments. This is the truest form of democracy to our citizens in towns and villages, and it allows the PEOPLE to have direct input into their local governmental decisions.

ALLODIAL LAND OWNERSHIP
If you look at Article 1, Section 14 of our State Constitution you will find another "unique" word - Allodial. "All lands within the state are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures are prohibited." This single word defines to all land owners what and how their land rights are derived. The Revolutionary War was fought, in part, to make absolutely sure the people of this nation would have "allodial " ownership and NOT "feudal tenures." In England, all land was owned by the King and Barons controlled who could live on it and what they could do with the land. Allodial is defined in Black's Law as a "free hold" of property and NO government nor supervisor of the government has any intent to the land. In other words; the government has NO RIGHT to create laws governing your land rights nor does any agency of the government have any rights to your land.

The bottom line here is, the government can not mandate or require you, or force you to do anything with your property. It is against the Constitution. However, you may have witnessed land use rights being taken away in the past by means of regulations and restrictions. So, you need to ask yourself: How did this happen? Let's explore the truthful answer to this question.

As stated: The government can not mandate or require you or force you into land use management. They can however, offer suggestions, present incentives, and strongly encourage you to GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS. They may do this by allowing some kind of tax relief - "if you just sign here." They may also come up with "land programs" which offer financial compensation for putting land aside, not farming, putting in trees, plants or grasslands, etc. But - you voluntarily give up your rights to become involved in their process.

VILLAGE POWERS
Village Powers is another way local township citizens give away their rights to land use management as well. Village Powers is also a prerequisite to Comprehensive Planning. You CAN NOT be involved in Comprehensive Planning if you DON'T HAVE Village Powers. No Village Powers NO Smart Growth. Pure and simple fact.
When towns are established they are given General Powers to rule their townships. These powers give them rights to set up all kinds of local controls but dooes not permit them to do "restrictive zoning" or "land use management." That right belongs to the people under the term "allodial." Years ago, many towns wanted to be able to set up some zoning for residential, farming and commercial development. To receive those rights they needed to ask the people to GIVE UP their rights and give the town board "Village Powers" in order to creating zoning and land use management ordinances. In Rudolph for example, this happened in 1958. A lot has changed since then but yet today most people have no idea how the town board got those rights. Those decisions can be made by a select few who only are required to have hearings on the issues but the people NEVER get to vote on those ordinances. Thus, another right has been given up. Remember - A township MUST HAVE village powers to be involved in Smart Growth.

Many people are now considering pulling those village powers and returning them with stipulations, such as: Village Powers can be returned to the town board to address zoning issues BUT the people require a majority vote for its passage. Others are considering pulling village powers to stop Comprehensive Planning until more information can be achieved.

SMART GROWTH FACTS
In 1998 those supporters of this legislation, which was drafted by Prof. Ohm of the U.W. Madison included the Realtors Association, Wisconsin Builders Association, A Thousand Friends of Wisconsin and others.

The legislation was brought to a few senate and assembly people for discussion. After reviewing the proposal, the supporters of Smart Growth were told that it would never make it out of committee and would definitely never past a legislative vote.

Two key players, Senator Chuck Chavala and Burke pushed the issue and in the eleventh hour Gov. Thompson persuaded a freshman assembly women to vote Yes to get this slipped into the biennial budget. She was told that he (Gov. Thompson) would veto it but he needed to make it look good for the record. The Republican assembly women was going to vote NO on this but changed her vote. (I do have documentation confirming this exchange)

As a result of her vote, the Smart Growth issue was slipped into the 1999/2000 biennial budget bill and Gov. Thompson did NOT veto it but signed it into existence. This was a shady deal at best and the correct course of action was usurped leaving the legislative body from examining it, discussing it, debating it and then voting on it. This was my first red flag that something was seriously wrong. By the way - those two key players Chavala and Burke are currently under 30+ felony indictments combined.

This "smoke and mirrors" technique eventually provided us with what we now refer to as Smart Growth or Comprehensive Planning - the exact law is statute 66.1001.

BOTTOM UP PLAN VS. TOP DOWN PLAN
Every Planner from every county in the state is working off the same language. They are telling cities, towns, and villages that this is YOUR PLAN. This is a BOTTOM UP PLAN because YOU have total control. Let's explore the facts.

For me, a Bottom Up Plan would be the town of Rudolph contacting the County and explaining some necessary changes in their zoning that they would like the county to be involved with. This is NOT what has happened.

In 1993 the President's Council on Sustainable Development was created by Executive Order No. 12852 to implement Agenda 21 in America, co-chaired by WRI president, Jonathan Lash.

This allowed millions of tax payer dollars to be released for implementation of a National Plan to CONTROL Sustainable Development under many different names and definitions, but primarily to address Urban Sprawl.

The American Planners Association who is represented by County Planners nationwide used Federal Money grants to write and develop the Legislative Guide Book for Smart Growth. I would encourage any group to spend the $30.00 and order this book, which is filled with information regarding the implementation of every element of the "plan."

The entire "Smart Growth" process started in Oregon about 10 years ago, with disastrous results, especially those people living in the rural setting. As stated earlier, the Wisconsin legislation proposal was drafted by Professor Ohm at the U.W. Madison and we already have the rest of the history up to this point.

Now ask yourself. Is this TOP DOWN or BOTTOM UP? Who is really behind this agenda? Why is this agenda being pushed onto every county in every state? It really boils down to one word - CONTROL, but who is controlling whom?

THIS IS A MANDATE
Early on in Wisconsin, many planners were telling local town officials that this is a mandate from the state and you HAVE TO do this. Fact - This is NOT a mandate and there are absolutely NO penalties for not participating in this plan. Remember - the state by Constitutional law CAN NOT require or mandate land use management. This very issue of penalty was addressed by Rep. Scott Suder at a meeting held in Stratford. He told a group of nearly 400 that "no one will be penalized for NOT participating in Smart Growth." He emphasized this point several times. Only you or local town boards can voluntarily give up their rights to the state - which comprehensive planning provides. (more on this later)

More recently, some planners have changed their approach by stating, "this is only a PLAN and PLANS are not mandates. In part they are correct, however YOUR PLAN will eventually become LAW under element number 9 of implementation. Eventually, YOUR PLAN will become an Ordinance, including ALL the elements of Comprehensive Planning.

The law, 66.1001 clearly states that beginning on January 1, 2010 "any program or action of a local government unit (your town) that affects land use management SHALL be consistent with local governments unit (your towns) comprehensive plan." PLEASE READ THIS SEVERAL TIMES. The logic here is this. If you do not have a Comprehensive Plan you CAN NOT be consistent with it. No Plan - No Problems. Again - I will emphasize - the government CAN NOT mandate or require you to do land use management - only you can give up that right. Thus - this can not be a mandate.

THE GRANT MONEY
I have asked several county planners one simple question. IF there was no grant money for this PLAN would you be doing this? The simple answer is NO. Again, the state is using tax payers money to promote or push this legislation. Counties receive grant money proportionate to the number of towns who sign on WITH the county. The grant money requires "matching funds" and counties are required to raise the additional money, which is more tax payer money. Many towns soon realize they need to "kick in" a substantial amount of money themselves in order to participate. This offsets the "matching funds" portion of the grant. In other words, if your county applies for a grant of $500,000, your county is responsible for equal matching funds. So, in the end, the county planners get $1,000,000 to develop Comprehensive Planning. Remember - the grant money "obligates" your town, city or village to develop a Comprehensive Plan which will then be adopted by the COUNTY and used as part of their MASTER PLAN.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT
Under 66.1001 "Local governmental unit" means a city, village, town, county or regional planning commission that may adopt, prepare or amend a comprehensive plan."

Why is this statement important? Because we now have a definition of who the STATE sees as a local governmental unit. Let's take a look at how this works.

First of all, when you sign on with the County and the county accepts the grant money on your behalf, what you have just done is formed a contract. You are now Partners with the County and you have entered into a contractual agreement. Is this a big deal? Let's see.

Before you entered into this agreement your town was completely autonomous. Which means you did things, created ordinances, conducted business as you have for many, many years. You did this as a town without needing any outside assistance to perform your duties from the county, nor were you obligated to do so.

NOW - you are obligated, by contract to the county to perform and deliver a Comprehensive Plan. Instead of business as usual, you now MUST get COUNTY APPROVAL for your plan before they will adopt it. After the county adopts your plan and puts it into their master plan (their comprehensive plan) their plan becomes law, under 66.1001.

So, lets say down the road you see something coming and you want to change your land use management section of your Comprehensive Plan. You go ahead and make the changes and THEN THE COUNTY must approve and adopt those changes. If they say NO, then you are STUCK. Under this contract with the county you have become a partner. It takes agreement between both parties to make any changes. So, you are no longer your own town government but interwoven into a tapestry (their words) network with the county. Now I must ask you. Who has the final CONTROL?

Additionally, the law requires that ALL towns are consistent with each others comprehensive plan. So, who CONTROLS that consistency? You guessed it - the COUNTY. Let me illustrate this point.

Let's assume the county master comprehensive plan says they are going to only allow 1000 acres of rural space for future development. Let's say in your plan, you allow 600 acres for future development. To keep consistency, the county could come to you and say this amount is unacceptable because other towns have only allocated 100 acres and the COUNTY WILL ONLY ALLOW 1000 acres. Who has control?

REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
At the time of this writing we are still investigating the direct link between the towns, the county and the regional planning commission. If you recall the definition in the law - a local governmental unit is any city, town, village, county or Regional Planning Commission that may adopt, prepare or amend a comprehensive plan.

One of the questions most recently posed is this. If you sign onto the county plan and your plan becomes the county plan - will the Regional Planning Commission then adopt the County Plan as part of THEIR plan? We are looking into the requirements for their grant money, which may be dependent on how many counties are in their region.

If the county will eventually be part of the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) it begs the question, who will ultimately have control over your planning? We already know the state has included the RPC in their definition of a local governmental unit and we suspect that eventually it will also recognize them as the authority over the county. However, this is only speculation but certainly raises the level of concern. By the way, the Governor has the power to grant the necessary authority to any Regional Planning Commission whenever he deems it necessary. This authority does not need full legislative involvement.

Also remember that the word "amend" is written into the law. So, whoever is in control can change the plan as part of their plan as well. Which raises several more red flags.

THE ELEMENTS
Under your new partnership with the county you will be required to address ALL nine elements of your Comprehensive Plan. Granted, your town may not have an airport or a bus transportation corridor and you can simply not address that issue for now, but every element needs to be addressed.

I would encourage everyone to read ALL of those elements and then read them again.

I am going to give you how I see all of these elements collectively and what harm they pose for the future of our town.

First of all, planners I have talked with agree, the terms in the elements are very ambiguous and many of them (if not all) are truly not defined. What is an environmental corridor? What is an environmentally sensitive area? Who defines these and when?

The problem I see is that the plan appears to be a template. You must include all the elements, their sub-parts and make an attempt to address specifics. However, because these terms are ambiguous in nature, I and others fear this leaves the door open for the state to pass later legislation that defines those terms.

In other words, if you commit yourself to a plan, at some time in the future, because you have specific elements and items in-place in your plan, legislation can now be created to further define and address those areas. [An analogy might be: The plan requires you to address how many cars you want over twenty years. You stipulate you will have 10 cars. However, the term "cars" is clearly undefined. What size of car? What type of car? How big does the motor need to be? What color will it be? Will it be 4-wheel drive or 2-wheel? How efficient does it have to be? Where will they be stored? Who is responsible for titling and insurance? You get what I mean about being undefined. So, then perhaps, up the road the DOT (Dept. of Transportation) jumps in later and begins to address each one of those issues. They make the definitions and you are obligated to conform and comply because you addressed the "car" element in your plan.] Get the idea?

Remember - your plan is a projection of 20 years down the road. I school teacher is frightened of this type of planning because he needs to change his teaching schedule weekly based on changes during the previous week. How can we lock ourselves into a plan which defines conditions and changes 20 years out? Here in Rudolph, we kind of take things in stride and make our changes as they come along.

PROPERTY RIGHTS
This is the most frightening element of land use management to many, many people. People who have owned their land and paid taxes on it for over a 100 years in some instances. Family farms and property which have been handed down over generations.

Comprehensive Planning is designed to stop urban sprawl. The cities do not want people moving from their cities into the country, but prefer development areas for growth in order to contain people and their tax base. Sighting environmental impact as a precursor to this problem. I can certainly understand their wishes but not at the expense of those currently living in the country.

For instance. Lets say you own 160 acres of agricultural property. Under your plan you increase the lot sizes for buildings to a minimum of 40 acres per home to control the population density portion of your plan. This means that a person who would like to have their children build a home on a 5 acre parcel would be non-conforming. Under this plan they would have to purchase an entire 40 acres to build a house. Additionally, all other parcels which require a 40 acre minimum which exist currently will become non-conforming. How do you sell a non-conforming home or the property it sits on?

Remember way back at the beginning of this I spoke about Allodial property rights. Again, I would have you keep in mind of who ultimately will have CONTROL of this plan and the changes or amendments that can be made to this plan.

One Green Party Candidate over here recently told a group of lawyers that she was 100% in favor of Smart Growth because, she said, it was important to get people out of the country and hooked up onto city sewer systems.

The biggest issue of property rights is that the individuals under this plan, who own their property are exempt from the process. Their voice is squelched and can only be heard in the filtering process of a hearing from time to time. Hearings can be a good thing but they fall far short of your "vote" on how your land use will be handled in the future.

Non-Conforming homes, land and properties will most definitely have a heavy impact on those land owners. Unlike planning of the past, this new type of planning will directly impact their property rights and most definitely open the door for legal litigation in the future.

LAW SUITS
If the you are signed onto a county plan and there are litigation problems surrounding boundaries, corridors, land use management, or any other item of the nine elements, who is responsible for picking up the bill? If a land owner finds his constitutional rights have been usurped must they spend thousands of dollars to right a wrong? Who is ultimately responsible? The town, county or state? If this Comprehensive Planning is permitted to take hold, you can be assured their will be law suits.

CONCLUSION
The above information only begins to touch on some of the more basic issues surrounding Comprehensive Planning or Smart Growth. It would appear that this agenda has been well orchestrated over a very long period of time.

Our group has reams of paper filled with documentation and evidence which demonstrates very strongly the ultimate goal is to be able to control zoning and land use management at the STATE LEVEL and not the local township level.

In order to push this agenda forward it was necessary to hold out the "carrot" in the form of grant money to the planners to get them actively involved in the process. Without the money we would not be having this conversation.

We see the final outcome as follows: Towns will lose their control and their autonomy. Individual freedoms and property rights will be a sacrificial offering to urban sprawl fears. The State will ultimately end up with all the controls and the cities will be the enforcement agency for the state on rural development, land ownership, rules, regulations and restrictions.

Now that people, towns and villages are becoming aware of the issues at hand there, is a growing momentum to thwart this agenda and to return the rights to those towns, villages and people as they have been in the past and should remain into the future.

State Senators and Representatives are also stepping up to the plate and reviewing this law. There is growing opposition within the capitol and some are suggestion to cut the funding for this immediately based on the budget deficit problems the state is facing. Other legislation is being drafted to amend the law, others are simply trying to remove it completely from the books.

We are not opposed to planning. Quite the opposite. We feel towns have been doing very well for a very long time and should continue to operate and perform their duties as they have in the past. Planning can be a good thing. In this case it is NOT Comprehensive Planning IT IS Comprehensive Control.