He has
erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to
harass our people, and eat out their substance.
Jefferson, T. (1776,
July 4)
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen
Colonies. In Congress
...Nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Congress of the United States (1791, December 15).
Amendment V. Ratified. Bill of Rights
WORTH
TOWNSHIP -- Three years of work to guard against haphazard development
faces a severe test in a rural Centre County municipality as a vocal
opposition group has launched a drive to bar or limit regulations on how their
land may be used."
Joseph, M.
(2001, February 5). Group Aims to Alter Worths' Zoning Laws. The Centre
Daily Times, p. 1A.
"The draft also says that tracts
of more than 20 acres may be subdivided for non-agricultural uses only if the
total amount of subdivided land does not exceed 10 acres or 10 percent of the
parent tract, whichever is less."
Joseph, M. (2001,
February 5). Group Aims to Alter Worths' Zoning Laws. The Centre Daily
Times, p. 1A.
When the above section of the ordinance was released, residents of the
township realized that this was not your typical zoning ordinance intended to
group similar types of development. Clearly, the planning commission had
an agenda beyond zoning. It was around this time that Citizens for Fair
Zoning acquired a copy of the plan from the Centre County Planning Office and
posted the entire plan on its web site.
"While the planning commission hopes to present proposed
zoning regulations for public comment within two months, the group called
Citizens for Fair Zoning in Worth Township isn't waiting. The group has packed meetings to raise objections, sent out
mailings to the more than 300 landowners in the township and put up a Web site
that on Sunday called planning commission leaders' attitudes 'arrogant
and condescending'."
Joseph, M. (2001, February 5). Group Aims
to Alter Worths' Zoning Laws. The Centre Daily Times, p. 1A.
"Woodring
noted that his and his wife's ancestors were among the early settlers of Worth Township and said other zoning critics also have deep roots in their
land. 'They're farmers, worked hard all their lives,' Woodring said. 'Their
fathers and grandfathers have worked their butts off.' Woodring, of Crain Lumber Co. in Port Matilda, said in
the interview that the planning commission's intentions are too restrictive
and that the planners have not been forthcoming about their ongoing work.
We're not against zoning -- we just want limited
zoning," Woodring said. "We don't really know what they're doing --
that's very discouraging."
Joseph, M. (2001,
February 5). Group Aims to Alter Worths' Zoning Laws. The Centre Daily
Times, p. 1A.
"But other signs point to deeper differences. The
Citizens for Fair Zoning's Web site Sunday included a posting that drew
political distinctions between the supervisors and the planning commission:
'In contrast to the efforts of the Supervisors to listen,' the Web site said,
'the leaders of the Planning Commission appear intent on forcing a plan to a
vote that a large number of residents do not support.' 'The document
that will be submitted for a vote will be a reflection of the arrogant and
condescending attitude that we have seen from the leaders of the Planning
Commission. One of the core values of this community is self-reliance. The
concept of allowing a government agency to control our lives is foreign here.
The plan currently under consideration is an outsiders plan and will fail.'"
Joseph, M. (2001,
February 5). Group Aims to Alter Worths' Zoning Laws. The Centre Daily
Times, p. 1A.
"Worth Township is the only municipality that does not currently have zoning.
Efforts to create a zoning ordinance are underway. This places Worth Township
in a unique situation. If desired, they will be able to incorporate many of
the recommendations contained in this model directly into their new zoning
ordinance on a municipality-wide basis, thus requiring no special designation
of an Interchange Overlay Zone."
Vision 2020 Draft
Ordinance
No doubt, the Vision
2020 planners had high expectations that their vision for Worth Township was
about to be implemented. After all, the Vision 2020 project had the
following supporters solidly in their camp: state officials, county officials,
the CDT Editorial Staff, Kathy Hunter - Worth Township's zoning consultant and
technical support provider to the Vision 2020 Model Ordinance, Chuck Fergus -
the Worth Township Planning Chairman, Bill Colt - Worth Township Planning
Member who also served on the Vision 2020 Overlay District Committee, and two
Worth Township's supervisors - two of the three township supervisors
served on the planning commission.
An additional
concern is the appearance that two supervisors on the planning commission may
negate the purpose for having a planning commission. The planning commission
is intended to be an independent body, appointed by the supervisors, to advise
the supervisors on land use matters. Also, the community could see two
supervisor members of the planning commission as an attempt to control the
commission…"
Hood, H (2001, February). Opinion. Pennsylvania State
Association of Township Supervisors
Did the supervisors
represent the planning commission on which they served or the increasingly
restive citizens who elected them? Another concern was the fact that two
of the three supervisors were appointed rather than elected to their
positions. The position of Citizens for Fair Zoning was to have the
supervisors vote on the plan after the November election which would serve as
a referendum on the plan.
"Worth Township differences seem to divide landowners who
fear they'll be zoned out of the best deals for their property and other
residents who fear unchecked or weakly regulated development will mar the
rural character that makes the township attractive and valuable."
Joseph, M. (2001,
February 5). Group Aims to Alter Worths' Zoning Laws. The Centre Daily
Times, p. 1A.
In February, the Times
and the Fergus led planning commission began a coordinated effort to
prop up their faltering plan by labeling the opposition as gold diggers, loud
mouths, zealots and as comprising the minority. It was no secret in the
township that Fergus, a writer himself, had close ties to the editors on
Centre Daily Times and that several planning commission members were involved
in the controversial Vision 2020
project, a "green" project developed by Clearwater Conservancy on behalf of Centre County Government.
The fundamental underpinnings of Vision 2020, the Fergus
plan, and entire planning movement , is based on the concept that the rights
associated with private property ownership no longer belong to the individual
- but belong to everyone. Consequently, planners need only pass
regulations that limit the private property owners use of their property
in order to achieve planning goals - such as preserving open space, or, in the
case of the Fergus plan, to preserve the "rural character" of the township.
In order to maintain the "bucolic" character of the township, Planning
Commission Chairman Fergus and his supporters had to "take" the right of
private property owners to develop their properties; hence, the large minimum lot sizes. By doing it this way, government planners are relieved of
the burden of compensating private property owners for the rights to their
properties. As is often the case, to borrow a label
from the editors of the CDT, the planning "zealots" failed to consider or
recognize how their plan would adversely affect a significant number of
landowners in the township.
"Since it is not
possible to have enough money to buy all the land needed, various planning
tools through ordinance and regulations need to be put into place."
The Centre County
Planning Office, "Nittany and Bald Eagle Valleys Greenways Plan" Chapter 7-3.
Financing,
http://county.centreconnect.org/planning/greenways_study/index.htm, 29
December, 2002.
The stated philosophy
of the planning movement and the Centre County Planning Office. This
philosophy is diametrically opposed to an individual's property rights granted in the
Bill of Rights. Because individual rights were assumed but not
clearly enumerated in the Constitution, they were added as amendments -
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation." Citizen involvement in the democratic process is
essential to protect the basic liberties contained in the Constitution. The
founding fathers correctly foresaw the nature of future governments. In
a sense, the revolution is an ongoing process.
Citizens for Fair
Zoning is part of a growing national movement that believes government
agencies must compensate private property owners for "regulatory takings"
of private property for public use.
"1. Minimum Lot Area Per Principle Structure or Use.
a. Single-Family Detached Dwellings & Other Principal
Uses - 5 acres per dwelling unit or use..."
(2001, June) Worth Township Zoning Ordinance Second
Draft Section 303 RR Rural Residential District. Lot, Yard and
Open Space Requirements p. 13.
The five-acre minimum also appeared in the Agriculture and Woodland
Conservation Districts in the June 2001 Second Draft.
"It will protect and preserve our natural resources, the township's scenic
beauty and peaceful country environment for generations to come."
Campaign Flyer (2001, July). Becky Miller,
Democratic Candidate for Township Supervisor
"As a resident of Worth Township and a candidate for Worth Township
Supervisor, I fully support the Zoning Ordinance. It is fair. It is
rational. It will protect the health and safety of the community as well
as property values for the majority of township homeowners."
Campaign Flyer (2001, July). Becky Miller,
Democratic Candidate for Township Supervisor
Was the goal of plan to preserve the township in perpetuity, to protect the
health and safety of the community or to protect the property values for the
majority of the township. As the position paper
released by Citizens for Fair Zoning outlined, the proposed plan had several
serious problems relating to the protection of township homeowners.
Indeed, some of the proposed land use regulations did not appear to have any
relationship to protecting the health and welfare of the community.
Does the Constitution allow the rights of individual property
owners be
sacrificed to "protect the "health and safety of the community" and the "property values for the majority of township homeowners." The
Bill of Rights was added to the constitution to protect individuals from
this very type of tyranny by the majority. Contained in the Bill of
Rights is the Fifth Amendment which states: "...nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation." Can it be a
right if it can be nullified by the majority?
"Opponents, who have formed
a group called Citizens for Fair Zoning, fear the value of their land will be
diminished if regulations prevent them from doing what they want with it.
The group, for example, has called for the elimination of the five-acre
minimum lot size in the Agricultural, rural residential and
woodland/conservation zones."
Joseph, M. (2001,
August 2). Worth Twp. residents debate land-use issue. The Centre
Daily Times, p. A7.
Citizens for Fair Zoning opposed the Fergus led plan because they felt it
violated rights granted in the Bill of Rights -
"...nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The Fergus led plan also had an adverse impact on participants in the
"Pennsylvania Farmland and Forest Land Assessment Act of 1974", a popular
voluntary plan that offered tax breaks to private property owners who
preserved forest and farmland. Over 150 Worth Township landowners owning
ten or more acres participated in the plan. The Clean and Green program
allowed for a two or three acre lot split off with minimal penalties. Under the Fergus led plan,
Clean and Green participants who split off a five acre lot, the minimum lot
size under the ordinance, risked substantial roll-back
tax penalties.
Under the Fergus led plan, township landowners owning under
ten acres would not able to convey property to a family member because
doing so would create a lot under the five acre minimum lot size.
In early August, Citizens for Fair Zoning mailed over 150
letters to Clean and Green participants who were asked to return a form letter
to the planning commission demanding that the five-acre minimum be removed.
Most did. Fergus, however, would have no part of removing
restrictions on lot size, regardless of their impact on other landowners in
the township - without these restrictions, the township could not be preserved
in perpetuity and Fergus's bucolic "vision" for the
township would disappear.
"The details of the ordinance would be an intensely discussed but otherwise
mundane exercise if it were not not for a highly vocal group of anti-zoning
zealots who have raised the specter of a tyrannical government violating
individual rights. The Web site for Citizens for Fair Zoning in Worth
Township claims that 'the complex land use restrictions being proposed by the
planning commission will severely restrict the rights of property owners in
the township'."
Our View (2001, August 8). Worth Twp. gets it right on zoning.
The Centre Daily Times, p. A8.
A link to the
Bill of Rights for our misguided editors.
"Truth be told, the harsher critics of this zoning plan have always
been in the minority. Back in 1997, the Worth Township Board of
Supervisors commissioned a survey that concluded that three out of four
residents believed that the township should have regulations guiding where
different types of development can occur."
Our View (2001, August 8). Worth Twp. gets it
right on zoning. The Centre Daily Times, p. A8.
This argument, put forth by the Centre Daily Times and planning commission,
misrepresented the 1997 Worth Township Citizens Survey. Three out of four respondents
to the survey agreed that the the township should have regulations guiding
where different types of development can occur, not three out of four
residents. The respondents represented 25% of the 368 taxpaying
households that the survey was sent to, not three out of four residents as the
Times purported. A copy of the survey included in the Comprehensive plan
states that "it must be noted that this analysis is based on a
self-selected cross-section of Worth Township residents." The
misrepresented survey was brought up time and time again by the Planning
Commission, CDT and Centre County Planning Office as proof that a majority of Worth Township residents
supported the Fergus plan. The election proved otherwise. The
misrepresentation of the survey that appeared in the newspaper began in bold type
"Truth be told,...". In short, the Centre County Planning Office uses non-scientific surveys to
reach predetermined outcomes - that residents of a surveyed municipality
want restrictive land use regulations implemented.
"If we don't implement zoning, we give up our freedom and control to other
people, in places like Washington DC, Los Angles, Atlanta, Miami and New York
- Corporate executives who do not care one bit about the future of Worth
Township. As Bob Donaldson, Director of Centre County Planning has
told us, corporate developers are sending their representatives to Centre
County right now, and inquiring, which of your townships do not have zoning."
Planning Meeting (2001, August 1). Chuck Fergus,
Worth Township Planning Commission Chairman
"Shooting this ordinance down, or further
delaying it, leaves the borough vulnerable to predatory developers who don't
mind rewarding a few landowners with quick bucks for the right to slap up
businesses that would drag down the entire township."
Our View (2001, August 8). Worth Twp. gets it
right on zoning. The Centre Daily Times, p. A8.
Notice the coordination between the Fergus's August 1 statement and the CDT
Our View article on August 8th. No small attempt at fear mongering. How
much development has occurred in over a year since these remarks were made?
With two major routes running through the township for decades, why suddenly were corporate executives sending their
representatives now. With no public sewage or public water, why would
these executives pay higher costs to develop Worth Township properties when a
couple miles away the Moshannon Valley Industrial Park is offering lucrative
incentives for corporations to locate there? Citizens for Fair Zoning
outlined other problems in the ordinance in a position
paper that was mailed to over three hundred property owners and the
planning commission.
Incredibly, the Centre Daily Times August 8 editorial ends with "It
pays to set aside the propaganda and read the actual ordinance,..."
The argument that without zoning the township is wide open to developers
fails to recognize the fact that the Township has little infrastructure (in
the form of public sewage and water) to support large scale development.
This argument ignores these two limiting factors brought forth in the Worth
Township Comprehensive Plan. According to the Comprehensive Plan, "Most
soils in the Township have been identified as being generally unsuitable for
sub-surface sewage disposal, thereby presenting an obstacle for future growth
and substantially limiting such activity." The second crucial factor
limiting growth put forth in the Comprehensive Plan relates to the townships
topography: "A significant percentage of the Township (as much as 75%)
contains slopes in excess of 15%. As a result, the municipality's
topographic relief limits the amount of developable space and will severely
restrict growth in these areas."
Both of these references can be found in the Comprehensive Plan in Section XI
pages 7 and 8. It was obvious to many Citizens for Fair Zoning that the
press and supporters of the Fergus plan were attempting to create a pseudo-crisis to insure quick passage of the unpopular ordinance.
"You have all read the anti-government propaganda that has been sent to
your homes from this organization. You have read their criticism of the
zoning draft, much of which has been exaggerated. They claim to be
defending freedom and constitutional rights, but by their actions it is clear
they are interested only in their own personal gain. Remove the disguise
and you will find 'Citizens for Fair Zoning' represents primarily the
interests of large landowners who benefit from unregulated development."
Campaign Flyer (Fall, 2001). Becky Miller,
Democratic Candidate for Township Supervisor
The choice for Worth Township was clear. If the goal for some was to
"preserve" the township, how was it to be accomplished? Voters realized
that when Candidate Miller spoke of using the zoning ordinance to preserve the
"townships scenic beauty", she had no intention of paying for the land that
the township designated for preservation, it was to preserved through
regulations that restricted use. Private property owners were to pay for
the taxes and upkeep; however, the township would control use of the property
in "public trust". This cannot be so under the Fifth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution which states: "...nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation."
"The following adjustments were made to the Second Draft of the proposed
Zoning Ordinance for Worth Township, Centre County, PA (dated June 2001) by
the Township Planning Commission, after review and discussion at a Commission
meeting held on October 31, 2001. These adjustments are hereby
incorporated into and made part of the Second Draft of the proposed Ordinance.
1. Section 302 - Residential District - Lot, Yard & Open Space
Requirements.
(adjust existing Sub-Section 1.a. in the Minimum
Lot Requirements column as follows)
1.a. Single-Family Detached Dwellings & Other Principal uses - 1 acre per
dwelling unit or use, except as provided below..."
(2001, October, 31) Worth Township Zoning Ordinance Second
Draft Addendum #1
After a year of struggle, just before the election, after several major mail-in
campaigns, two in August, in the October 31, 2001 planning meeting, the planning
commission removed the five-acre minimum. By that time, there wasn't
much trust left for the planning commission.
"Voters in Worth Township elected Jack Woodring to a two-year supervisor
seat, a setback for efforts to enact the township's first zoning ordinance.
Woodring had said zoning interfered with residents property rights. His
opponent, Rebecca Miller, had favored the passing of a zoning ordinance.
Miller received 79 votes to Woodring's 160 votes."
Hopkins, M. (2001, November 7). Snow Shoe Supervisor
Bosak Victorious in write-in ballot The Centre Daily
Times, p. 7A
"Using a campaign based on misinformation, an anti-zoning group appears to
have scuttled long-range planning efforts and local control over growth and
development - even though township residents showed they favor planning and
local control in a 1997 public opinion survey, which the Centre County
Planning Office helped the township conduct."
Fergus, C. (2002, January 12). Worth Township zoning reaches
moment of truth. The Centre Daily
Times, p. A6
Another reference to the survey. As previously mentioned, the
respondents to the non-scientific survey represented 25% of the 368 taxpaying
households that the survey was sent to. A copy of the survey included in
the Comprehensive plan states that "it must be noted that this analysis is
based on a self-selected cross-section of Worth Township residents."
The CDT allotted Fergus a large section of this issue's opinion page to
espouse his views on zoning and to attack opponents of his plan.
'When a Planning Commission member asked Woodring why his group was using
such tactics, this was Woodring's reply: 'It gets results'."
Fergus, C. (2002, January 12). Worth Township zoning reaches
moment of truth. The Centre Daily
Times, p. A6
The commentary in Fergus's January 12th CDT article suggests that the Fergus
camp was in state of panic regarding the upcoming vote on the ordinance.
This personal attack on Supervisor Woodring was indicative of the scorched
earth policy that supporters of the plan had taken in the press. Mr. Woodring publicly denies ever making this
statement and those who know him well trust him. Perhaps Chairman Fergus
thought his attacks would get "results" just before the vote on the
plan.
"Citizens for Fair Zoning spread rumors and untruths about what zoning and
the ordinance intended to accomplish. They told township residents that
zoning prohibits them from passing on or selling land to their children. (It
does not.)."
Fergus, C. (2002, January 12). Worth Township zoning reaches
moment of truth. The Centre Daily
Times, p. A6
At best, revisionism by then Ex-Chairman Fergus. A similar refrain was
heard for nearly all of 2001, all the while the five-acre minimum stayed in
the plan. If the plan did not permit landowners owning up to 9.9 acres
to subdivide, doing so would create one lot below five-acre minimum, how could
they give or pass on property to family members? By dying?
"Port Matilda - More than four years of work to establish a set of
municipal land-use regulations was pushed aside in an hour Wednesday night as
Worth Township supervisors voted to reject a proposed zoning ordinance."
Joseph, M. (2002, February 21). Worth Leaders Reject Zoning The Centre Daily
Times, p. 1A
"Commissioner Lucas pointed out that some of the strongest opponents of zoning
are owners of extensive property. 'When you're looking at somebody
talking in a certain way, maybe you should look at what they have to gain'."
Joseph, M. (2002, February 21). Worth Leaders Reject Zoning The Centre Daily
Times, p. 1A
The gold digger theme. At this point in the process, it added little to
the debate. Is Commissioner Lucas "gaining" substantial campaign
donations for her support of environmental causes?
The planning process is continuing in Worth Township with one major
difference, private property rights advocates have equal representation on the
planning commission.
It is clear from the results of the election that the restrictive Fergus led plan
never had the support of most township residents. Considering those who
backed the plan - the local press, Centre County Officials,
Local Officials, and the highly funded Vision 2020 Project - it is absurd to
think that a grass roots citizen group with limited resources could conduct a
massive "misinformation" campaign to unravel a
plan backed by the aforementioned powerful institutions. Citizens for
Fair Zoning believe there is a simple explanation for the plans rejection.
Property owners in the township believe the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution means what it says: "...nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation."