Alexandra Swann's Blog, page 26
July 2, 2012
The Planner
My new novel The Planner was released on Friday and is available for free as a download on Kindle or PC using a free Kindle App this week through July 5th. Since The Planner deals with many of the issues that I have blogged about for the past two years, I decided to take this post to explain what this book deals with and why writing it meant so much to me.
The Planner is a
work of fiction. All characters in this book are strictly products of my
imagination. However, the issues that The
Planner addresses are very real. From the statistics about our aging
population, to the data about annual food waste in the U.S. which was obtained
from the EPA’s website, this book deals with real challenges that our world is
facing.
U.N. Agenda 21 is
also real. In 1992, the United Nations’ Earth Summit launched an initiative
called Agenda 21, which had as one
of its primary goals redistribution of the world’s wealth and reallocation of
the world’s resources. Agenda 21 calls for an aggressive
environmental agenda to be imposed through local ordinances mandating common
green spaces and tightly-packed “human settlements.” These goals were initially marketed to
Americans under the guise of “global warming” and then “climate change.” Today
they are being repackaged using the term “sustainability.” One of the ultimate
goals of Agenda 21 is to eliminate
the American way of life—single family homes, private property and individual
automobiles. Instead, proponents of Agenda 21 aggressively promote public
transportation and mixed-use housing—tiny, crowded apartments situated above
shops and stores. This initiative creates cities where the government can
control where and how we live, where we work, where we worship, and how we
raise our families.
Over the past twenty years, Agenda 21 has been voluntarily adopted by cities and municipalities
throughout the United States through membership in the International Council
for Local Environmental Initiatives—now renamed ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainable Solutions. The organization
has over 1100 member cities, and nearly six hundred of these are located in the
United States. Most major U.S. cities are members of ICLEI. From Portland, Oregon, to El Paso, Texas, cities across the
United States have embraced the concepts of sustainability by passing city
ordinances mandating “Smart Growth”
and “Smart Code”. These ordinances rob individual property
owners of basic ownership rights, including the rights to rebuild or remodel
properties or to construct homes or buildings on their own land. Smart Growth and Smart Code policies also permit municipalities to exercise eminent
domain to confiscate private property for the greater good of the community.
In 2010, retiring Senator Chris Dodd sponsored the Federal
Livable Communities Act which mandated federal standards for
environmentally-sustainable housing. His
bill created a new federal czar who would have had oversight over development
in all cities and towns in the United States. Dodd’s bill was to have been his
final crowning achievement in the Senate, but it failed to obtain the needed
votes for passage.
In June of 2012, Agenda
21 celebrated its twentieth anniversary in Rio de Janeiro with the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development. Rio+20 promoted radical initiatives, including creation of a new
international environmental agency with authority to mandate green
agendas—investing in green technologies and structures, reducing pollution
caused by animal husbandry, introducing sustainable diets and reducing food
waste both at the point of sale and consumer-use levels. The conference goals also called for
worldwide legalized abortion and access to birth control and “conservation of
genetic resources.” The conference proposed that these goals and the massive
social indoctrination program needed to successfully implement them be financed
using a number of methods including a new green tax on every American family.
Also, in 2012, Alabama became the first state to pass
legislation to protect private property rights of all individuals, to safeguard
citizens against the loss of their property without “due process of the law,”
and to prohibit implementation of any of the goals of Agenda 21, either directly or indirectly. The Alabama law also
forbids any municipalities from giving or receiving any funding to any
organization which is connected in any way to Agenda 21. The bill was passed and signed into law because
ordinary citizens became concerned about the far-reaching implications of this U.N.
global power grab and decided to take action to stop it. However, in spite of
citizen activism and recent attention given to Agenda 21 by the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and other
conservative and libertarian organizations, most Americans do not even know
that it exists, and they remain completely unaware of the threat that it poses
to our freedoms, our national sovereignty and our way of life.
As I said at the beginning of this post, The Planner is fiction, for now. But I do believe that the nightmare of Section W and the FMPD could become reality for many of us if we refuse to act to reign in big government.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin
Franklin
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. Her newest novel, The Planner, about an out-of-control, environmentally-driven federal government, was released June 29, 2012. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
The Planner is a
work of fiction. All characters in this book are strictly products of my
imagination. However, the issues that The
Planner addresses are very real. From the statistics about our aging
population, to the data about annual food waste in the U.S. which was obtained
from the EPA’s website, this book deals with real challenges that our world is
facing.
U.N. Agenda 21 is
also real. In 1992, the United Nations’ Earth Summit launched an initiative
called Agenda 21, which had as one
of its primary goals redistribution of the world’s wealth and reallocation of
the world’s resources. Agenda 21 calls for an aggressive
environmental agenda to be imposed through local ordinances mandating common
green spaces and tightly-packed “human settlements.” These goals were initially marketed to
Americans under the guise of “global warming” and then “climate change.” Today
they are being repackaged using the term “sustainability.” One of the ultimate
goals of Agenda 21 is to eliminate
the American way of life—single family homes, private property and individual
automobiles. Instead, proponents of Agenda 21 aggressively promote public
transportation and mixed-use housing—tiny, crowded apartments situated above
shops and stores. This initiative creates cities where the government can
control where and how we live, where we work, where we worship, and how we
raise our families.
Over the past twenty years, Agenda 21 has been voluntarily adopted by cities and municipalities
throughout the United States through membership in the International Council
for Local Environmental Initiatives—now renamed ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainable Solutions. The organization
has over 1100 member cities, and nearly six hundred of these are located in the
United States. Most major U.S. cities are members of ICLEI. From Portland, Oregon, to El Paso, Texas, cities across the
United States have embraced the concepts of sustainability by passing city
ordinances mandating “Smart Growth”
and “Smart Code”. These ordinances rob individual property
owners of basic ownership rights, including the rights to rebuild or remodel
properties or to construct homes or buildings on their own land. Smart Growth and Smart Code policies also permit municipalities to exercise eminent
domain to confiscate private property for the greater good of the community.
In 2010, retiring Senator Chris Dodd sponsored the Federal
Livable Communities Act which mandated federal standards for
environmentally-sustainable housing. His
bill created a new federal czar who would have had oversight over development
in all cities and towns in the United States. Dodd’s bill was to have been his
final crowning achievement in the Senate, but it failed to obtain the needed
votes for passage.
In June of 2012, Agenda
21 celebrated its twentieth anniversary in Rio de Janeiro with the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development. Rio+20 promoted radical initiatives, including creation of a new
international environmental agency with authority to mandate green
agendas—investing in green technologies and structures, reducing pollution
caused by animal husbandry, introducing sustainable diets and reducing food
waste both at the point of sale and consumer-use levels. The conference goals also called for
worldwide legalized abortion and access to birth control and “conservation of
genetic resources.” The conference proposed that these goals and the massive
social indoctrination program needed to successfully implement them be financed
using a number of methods including a new green tax on every American family.
Also, in 2012, Alabama became the first state to pass
legislation to protect private property rights of all individuals, to safeguard
citizens against the loss of their property without “due process of the law,”
and to prohibit implementation of any of the goals of Agenda 21, either directly or indirectly. The Alabama law also
forbids any municipalities from giving or receiving any funding to any
organization which is connected in any way to Agenda 21. The bill was passed and signed into law because
ordinary citizens became concerned about the far-reaching implications of this U.N.
global power grab and decided to take action to stop it. However, in spite of
citizen activism and recent attention given to Agenda 21 by the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and other
conservative and libertarian organizations, most Americans do not even know
that it exists, and they remain completely unaware of the threat that it poses
to our freedoms, our national sovereignty and our way of life.
As I said at the beginning of this post, The Planner is fiction, for now. But I do believe that the nightmare of Section W and the FMPD could become reality for many of us if we refuse to act to reign in big government.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin
Franklin
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. Her newest novel, The Planner, about an out-of-control, environmentally-driven federal government, was released June 29, 2012. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
June 20, 2012
The Future We Don't Want
Every cloud is supposed to have a silver lining. We saw some evidence of that this week as global financial concerns trapped world leaders including President Obama, Angela Merkl and David Cameron at the G20 Summit in Mexico, making it impossible for them to attend the Rio+20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Rio+20 is the 20th anniversary birthday bash of the United Nations' 1992 Earth Summit. That Summit gave birth to Agenda 21 and it's offspring--Smart Growth, Smart Code and Sustainable Development. Today through Friday, over 50,000 attendees are expected to be at Rio+20 to reaffirm the goals of Agenda 21 and to develop concrete action plans which will move the world into the direction of global governance by the U.N.
Each attendee is receiving a copy of "The Future We Want" which is the Rio+20 outcome document for the summit. This 40+ page document reaffirms commitment to all the goals of Agenda 21 and lays out general guidelines for the summit. The goal of the summit is to eradicate poverty, hunger and "climate change." "We reaffirm that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we express profound alarm that emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise globally." Therefore, much of the document is devoted to conservation, green jobs, sustainable development, sustainable building and sustainable farming. The document is a blueprint for managing the world's people, resources, land usage, oceans, forests, farms, businesses--pretty much everything. The youth of the world are entitled are apparently entitled to employment and therefore the document addresses the need for a "strategy on youth and employment building on the work of the International Labour Organization."
All people are entitled to health care so "The Future We Want" recognizes, "the importance of universal health coverage to enhancing health, social cohesion, and sustainable human and economic development." This includes the right to "universal access to reproductive health, including family planning and sexual health and integration of reproductive health. We reaffirm our commitment to gender equality and to protect the rights of women, men and youth to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including access to sexual and reproductive health." (In other words, access to abortion and birth control must be universal.)
Of course, the Future We Want stresses the need for more sustainable living strategies, including "sustainable transport and energy [public transportation] promotion, protection and restoration of safe and green urban spaces, safe and clean drinking water and sanitation, healthy air quality, generation of decent jobs and improved urban planning and slum upgrading. We further support sustainable management of waste through the application of the 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle.)" The Future We Want recognizes, "that the planet Earth and its ecosystems are our home, that Mother Earth is a common expression in a number of countries and regions" and therefore we must all be encouraged to live in cooperation with the Earth. Other goals include promoting "sustainable consumption and production patterns." Devoloped nations are called upon to transfer their technology to developing countries on "on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms," and social and financial inequalities among people are to be eradicated.
Of concern to the Rio+20 attendees is a commitment to "sustainable agriculture practices" including "the need to significantly reduce post-harvest and other food losses and waste throughout the food chain." In another document about Rio 20 this week entitled: Seven Issues Seven Experts, Carlos Sere, chief development strategist at the International Fund for Agricultural Development answered the following question about food consumption:
UN News Centre: What are the most pressing issues that governments need to act on regarding food security?
Carlos Sere: Well, on the one hand, in most developed countries, the basic food and the calories have become very cheap and we find lots of people are consuming those types of empty calories. This is very much related to consumption patterns which are leading to obesity. We used to say this is just a developed country problem, but we are finding out that, more and more, the consumption pattern with this high-density energy food is also something we’re seeing in the middle classes of developing countries. So this is really becoming a very significant problem.
At the same time, we do have the issue of malnutrition still remaining and it is largely not that we do not produce enough food, but that these people do not have incomes to buy the food they need. It is an issue closely related to nutrition and poverty, not just an issue of production. Obviously, if we can keep prices low, it’s easier for more people to have access to it. This is why food price volatility is seriously bad for the poor, who spend a lot of their income on food.
It is also an issue - particularly the obesity side of it - that has to do with consumption patterns and education, which are very difficult to change. This needs to be addressed by governments.
And, of course, the ultimate goal of Rio 20 is to "protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all." Those stated goals make this afternoon's conference speakers particularly notable: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and French President Francois Hollande. Premier Jiabao is ruling a country that made international news last week with the forced abortion of a twenty-three year old, seven months-pregnant Chinese woman who broke the law by deciding to have a second child. She was arrested by authorities, beaten and forcibly aborted, and then her dead baby was laid beside her on the hospital bed. (The grisly photos of her lying next to her mutilated child spread over the internet before making their way to Huffington Post). Ahmadinejad's country has sentenced an Iranian pastor to be executed for converting from Islam to Christianity. (We could also cite his stated intention to exterminate the Jewish race and destroy the nation of Israel as further proof that he is no champion of human rights.) Socialist French president Francois Hollande just won his election and has not had a chance to commit any egregious human rights violations, but we do know that he promised his people cradle to grave care in exchange for their votes.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was lamenting last week that Obama would not attend the summit--calling the president's participation "crucial." The truth, however, is that whether Obama stayed away because of the G20 summit or simply to avoid giving his critics another photo-op, he and his Progressive pals are already implementing the goals of Rio+20. Obamacare gave us universal coverage and ensures abortion and birth control for all--although hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will rule at least part of this bill unconstitutional next week. Smart Growth and Smart Code are bringing sustainable development to every major city in the United States. Young people today really do believe that the government and society at large owes them an education, a great job and an easy living. Heavy taxation starting in 2013 will have the net effect of reducing income disparities by making everyone poorer. And, increasingly, our government is telling us what we are allowed to eat, use and consume. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended his attacks on soft drinks, popcorn and ice cream last week by saying that the government has a responsibility to protect our health. (Where does the Constitution say that? I must have missed that section somehow.)
The question for us is not whether Rio+20 will affect our lives--it already has. The nanny-state, socialist agenda this conference is promoting has spread throughout our society. But this is definitely not the future I want and I plan to vote against it this November by casting a vote against every liberal/Progressive politician who thinks global governance, massive bureaucratic micro-management and redistribution of wealth are the secrets to the survival of the human race. I hope that every freedom-loving American will do the same.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. Her newest novel, The Planner, about an out-of-control, environmentally-driven federal government, will be released June 30, 2012. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
Rio+20 is the 20th anniversary birthday bash of the United Nations' 1992 Earth Summit. That Summit gave birth to Agenda 21 and it's offspring--Smart Growth, Smart Code and Sustainable Development. Today through Friday, over 50,000 attendees are expected to be at Rio+20 to reaffirm the goals of Agenda 21 and to develop concrete action plans which will move the world into the direction of global governance by the U.N.
Each attendee is receiving a copy of "The Future We Want" which is the Rio+20 outcome document for the summit. This 40+ page document reaffirms commitment to all the goals of Agenda 21 and lays out general guidelines for the summit. The goal of the summit is to eradicate poverty, hunger and "climate change." "We reaffirm that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we express profound alarm that emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise globally." Therefore, much of the document is devoted to conservation, green jobs, sustainable development, sustainable building and sustainable farming. The document is a blueprint for managing the world's people, resources, land usage, oceans, forests, farms, businesses--pretty much everything. The youth of the world are entitled are apparently entitled to employment and therefore the document addresses the need for a "strategy on youth and employment building on the work of the International Labour Organization."
All people are entitled to health care so "The Future We Want" recognizes, "the importance of universal health coverage to enhancing health, social cohesion, and sustainable human and economic development." This includes the right to "universal access to reproductive health, including family planning and sexual health and integration of reproductive health. We reaffirm our commitment to gender equality and to protect the rights of women, men and youth to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including access to sexual and reproductive health." (In other words, access to abortion and birth control must be universal.)
Of course, the Future We Want stresses the need for more sustainable living strategies, including "sustainable transport and energy [public transportation] promotion, protection and restoration of safe and green urban spaces, safe and clean drinking water and sanitation, healthy air quality, generation of decent jobs and improved urban planning and slum upgrading. We further support sustainable management of waste through the application of the 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle.)" The Future We Want recognizes, "that the planet Earth and its ecosystems are our home, that Mother Earth is a common expression in a number of countries and regions" and therefore we must all be encouraged to live in cooperation with the Earth. Other goals include promoting "sustainable consumption and production patterns." Devoloped nations are called upon to transfer their technology to developing countries on "on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms," and social and financial inequalities among people are to be eradicated.
Of concern to the Rio+20 attendees is a commitment to "sustainable agriculture practices" including "the need to significantly reduce post-harvest and other food losses and waste throughout the food chain." In another document about Rio 20 this week entitled: Seven Issues Seven Experts, Carlos Sere, chief development strategist at the International Fund for Agricultural Development answered the following question about food consumption:
UN News Centre: What are the most pressing issues that governments need to act on regarding food security?
Carlos Sere: Well, on the one hand, in most developed countries, the basic food and the calories have become very cheap and we find lots of people are consuming those types of empty calories. This is very much related to consumption patterns which are leading to obesity. We used to say this is just a developed country problem, but we are finding out that, more and more, the consumption pattern with this high-density energy food is also something we’re seeing in the middle classes of developing countries. So this is really becoming a very significant problem.
At the same time, we do have the issue of malnutrition still remaining and it is largely not that we do not produce enough food, but that these people do not have incomes to buy the food they need. It is an issue closely related to nutrition and poverty, not just an issue of production. Obviously, if we can keep prices low, it’s easier for more people to have access to it. This is why food price volatility is seriously bad for the poor, who spend a lot of their income on food.
It is also an issue - particularly the obesity side of it - that has to do with consumption patterns and education, which are very difficult to change. This needs to be addressed by governments.
And, of course, the ultimate goal of Rio 20 is to "protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all." Those stated goals make this afternoon's conference speakers particularly notable: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and French President Francois Hollande. Premier Jiabao is ruling a country that made international news last week with the forced abortion of a twenty-three year old, seven months-pregnant Chinese woman who broke the law by deciding to have a second child. She was arrested by authorities, beaten and forcibly aborted, and then her dead baby was laid beside her on the hospital bed. (The grisly photos of her lying next to her mutilated child spread over the internet before making their way to Huffington Post). Ahmadinejad's country has sentenced an Iranian pastor to be executed for converting from Islam to Christianity. (We could also cite his stated intention to exterminate the Jewish race and destroy the nation of Israel as further proof that he is no champion of human rights.) Socialist French president Francois Hollande just won his election and has not had a chance to commit any egregious human rights violations, but we do know that he promised his people cradle to grave care in exchange for their votes.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was lamenting last week that Obama would not attend the summit--calling the president's participation "crucial." The truth, however, is that whether Obama stayed away because of the G20 summit or simply to avoid giving his critics another photo-op, he and his Progressive pals are already implementing the goals of Rio+20. Obamacare gave us universal coverage and ensures abortion and birth control for all--although hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will rule at least part of this bill unconstitutional next week. Smart Growth and Smart Code are bringing sustainable development to every major city in the United States. Young people today really do believe that the government and society at large owes them an education, a great job and an easy living. Heavy taxation starting in 2013 will have the net effect of reducing income disparities by making everyone poorer. And, increasingly, our government is telling us what we are allowed to eat, use and consume. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended his attacks on soft drinks, popcorn and ice cream last week by saying that the government has a responsibility to protect our health. (Where does the Constitution say that? I must have missed that section somehow.)
The question for us is not whether Rio+20 will affect our lives--it already has. The nanny-state, socialist agenda this conference is promoting has spread throughout our society. But this is definitely not the future I want and I plan to vote against it this November by casting a vote against every liberal/Progressive politician who thinks global governance, massive bureaucratic micro-management and redistribution of wealth are the secrets to the survival of the human race. I hope that every freedom-loving American will do the same.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. Her newest novel, The Planner, about an out-of-control, environmentally-driven federal government, will be released June 30, 2012. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
June 14, 2012
The CFPB Wants to Hear from You--Just Before They Destroy Your Business
While some Americans are heading out for a vacation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is hard at work this summer seeking comment on a series of proposals which will further restrict access to credit and depress the housing market. The proposals were issued May 9, 2012, and the public comment period will continue until July, 9. The rules are expected to be finalized by January 21, 2012.
Since Obama appointed Richard Corday to be the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he has been moving steadily forward with his mission of enforcing all of the provisions of the Dodd Frank bill. These include:
1. Creating a new mortgage disclosure to replace the current Good Faith Estimate and Truth in Lending. Never mind that the current good faith estimate, although ridiculous, is the result of six years of research and industry round table meetings which resulted in changing the GFE from a one- page form that listed all charges individually, and included an estimated monthly payment with taxes and insurance and the estimated funds to close, to a three-page-form which bundles similar charges together, includes an estimated payment without taxes and insurance and does not show total funds to close anywhere. The original form also had a signature line, but after six years of round tables and discussion, The Department of Housing and Urban Development decided that borrowers no longer need to sign their estimates. Still, the Dodd Frank bill requires a brand new disclosure, so after our industry spent much time and money changing all of our systems and retraining to learn how to use the 2010 GFE, the CFPB is determined that we will have new forms--at a new expense of time and money.
2. Setting the guidelines for the qualified residential mortgages, as required by Dodd Frank. These are extremely critical because these are the only mortgage products that most originators will be allowed to sell in the brave new world of mortgage lending. Under the current restrictive guidelines, many potential homeowners cannot qualify to purchase or refinance a home, but the new proposed guidelines will eliminate most of even the current qualified applicants from the market. For a summary of the proposed requirements of qualified residential mortgages see Risk Retention and Qualified Residential Mortgages--The Worst Idea Yet.
3. Revising loan originator compensation, again. This last item is not required by Dodd-Frank; it's just something that Cordray wants to do on his own. Part of Dodd Frank required that loan originators be prohibited from steering borrowers into loans where the originator could make more money. Starting in April of 2011, loan originators had to sign a disclosure that they had provided options to their borrowers including the lowest cost loan or verifying that the loan originator had identical compensation contracts which each investor. Now, the CFPB wants to clarify "anti-steering rules" to clear up any misconceptions, and they also want to set caps on originator compensation by banning compensation as a percentage of the loan amount and instead implementing compensation as a flat fee.
According to the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the new changes would initially affect only consumer paid loans. Therefore, if you are loan originator, whether you originate a $200,000 loan or an $800,000 loan, if the consumer pays your fee, he can only be charged the flat fee. Since your loan cannot trigger the high cost thresholds, this fee is going to have to be low enough to meet the needs of your $80,000 to $100,000 clients. (I know that compensation is supposed to be able to vary from loan to loan on a consumer based transaction, but try explaining the disparity to a CFPB auditor.)
The government is opening a real can of worms with this new rule. First: They are setting up loan originators to be found guilty of violating the anti-steering provisions of their own rule. If the loan originator can charge only $1500.00 as a flat consumer paid fee, but could make three times that amount under lender paid compensation, chances are that he will choose the lender paid fee every time. Therefore, he is "steering" the customer into a higher cost loan--no ands, buts or maybes.
Second, the federal government is capping the fees that a private business can earn from its own individual customers. The loan origination industry has been blamed for every problem plaguing the U.S. in the last five years, and so the greater public does not particularly care when we are used as a whipping post. What other businesses and industries really need to see, however, is that our industry is really being used as a Petri dish for experimental projects on federal micro management of local businesses. Fees should be regulated by market factors--period. As a loan originator of fourteen years, I can say without reservation that competition is the best deterrent to unreasonable pricing--consumers will actually drive 10 minutes to save $20.00 a month on their payments. But if the government can tell us what we can charge, they can also tell the super market how to price the lettuce, or the local restaurant how to price the enchilada plate, or the department store how to price the prom dresses. This is not about consumer protection and it never has been--it is only about control.
The CFPB says that it wants to "engage" with consumers and industry this summer and that they will be setting up a Small Business Review Panel to meet with groups of small financial services providers that would be directly affected by these proposals. Representatives from "small providers" will be asked to provide feedback to the Small Business Review Panel which will in turn issue a report to the CFPB to consider in formulating its final rules. Each of those steps will likely take place, but I am certain that in the end they will be nothing more than completely meaningless exercises in front of an agency thats only real goal is and always has been to consolidate the mortgage industry into the hands of a few powerful elite banks and eliminate "small providers" entirely.
This past weekend, talking heads on Fox News were complaining that Americans have lost a large percentage of their net worth--including equity in their homes--over the last five years, and that home values are continuing to drop. Home values are indeed continuing to drop as I can personally verify from appraisals I have seen this week. The reason that they are is that financing has become so difficult to obtain that desperate sellers continue to reduce the prices of their homes hoping to get them down low enough so that they can find a qualified purchaser. In the meantime, the CFPB is spending the summer researching ways to further impede small business people and close down the very businesses that could be aiding in the housing recovery.
Unfortunately, Cordray answers only to the President--the CFPB director is not responsible to Congress at all. And the President is busy this summer asking for public input on the issue that appears to be closest to his heart--which Hollywood celebrity he should dine with next.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. Her newest novel, The Planner, about an out-of-control, environmentally-driven federal government, will be released June 30, 2012. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
Since Obama appointed Richard Corday to be the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he has been moving steadily forward with his mission of enforcing all of the provisions of the Dodd Frank bill. These include:
1. Creating a new mortgage disclosure to replace the current Good Faith Estimate and Truth in Lending. Never mind that the current good faith estimate, although ridiculous, is the result of six years of research and industry round table meetings which resulted in changing the GFE from a one- page form that listed all charges individually, and included an estimated monthly payment with taxes and insurance and the estimated funds to close, to a three-page-form which bundles similar charges together, includes an estimated payment without taxes and insurance and does not show total funds to close anywhere. The original form also had a signature line, but after six years of round tables and discussion, The Department of Housing and Urban Development decided that borrowers no longer need to sign their estimates. Still, the Dodd Frank bill requires a brand new disclosure, so after our industry spent much time and money changing all of our systems and retraining to learn how to use the 2010 GFE, the CFPB is determined that we will have new forms--at a new expense of time and money.
2. Setting the guidelines for the qualified residential mortgages, as required by Dodd Frank. These are extremely critical because these are the only mortgage products that most originators will be allowed to sell in the brave new world of mortgage lending. Under the current restrictive guidelines, many potential homeowners cannot qualify to purchase or refinance a home, but the new proposed guidelines will eliminate most of even the current qualified applicants from the market. For a summary of the proposed requirements of qualified residential mortgages see Risk Retention and Qualified Residential Mortgages--The Worst Idea Yet.
3. Revising loan originator compensation, again. This last item is not required by Dodd-Frank; it's just something that Cordray wants to do on his own. Part of Dodd Frank required that loan originators be prohibited from steering borrowers into loans where the originator could make more money. Starting in April of 2011, loan originators had to sign a disclosure that they had provided options to their borrowers including the lowest cost loan or verifying that the loan originator had identical compensation contracts which each investor. Now, the CFPB wants to clarify "anti-steering rules" to clear up any misconceptions, and they also want to set caps on originator compensation by banning compensation as a percentage of the loan amount and instead implementing compensation as a flat fee.
According to the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the new changes would initially affect only consumer paid loans. Therefore, if you are loan originator, whether you originate a $200,000 loan or an $800,000 loan, if the consumer pays your fee, he can only be charged the flat fee. Since your loan cannot trigger the high cost thresholds, this fee is going to have to be low enough to meet the needs of your $80,000 to $100,000 clients. (I know that compensation is supposed to be able to vary from loan to loan on a consumer based transaction, but try explaining the disparity to a CFPB auditor.)
The government is opening a real can of worms with this new rule. First: They are setting up loan originators to be found guilty of violating the anti-steering provisions of their own rule. If the loan originator can charge only $1500.00 as a flat consumer paid fee, but could make three times that amount under lender paid compensation, chances are that he will choose the lender paid fee every time. Therefore, he is "steering" the customer into a higher cost loan--no ands, buts or maybes.
Second, the federal government is capping the fees that a private business can earn from its own individual customers. The loan origination industry has been blamed for every problem plaguing the U.S. in the last five years, and so the greater public does not particularly care when we are used as a whipping post. What other businesses and industries really need to see, however, is that our industry is really being used as a Petri dish for experimental projects on federal micro management of local businesses. Fees should be regulated by market factors--period. As a loan originator of fourteen years, I can say without reservation that competition is the best deterrent to unreasonable pricing--consumers will actually drive 10 minutes to save $20.00 a month on their payments. But if the government can tell us what we can charge, they can also tell the super market how to price the lettuce, or the local restaurant how to price the enchilada plate, or the department store how to price the prom dresses. This is not about consumer protection and it never has been--it is only about control.
The CFPB says that it wants to "engage" with consumers and industry this summer and that they will be setting up a Small Business Review Panel to meet with groups of small financial services providers that would be directly affected by these proposals. Representatives from "small providers" will be asked to provide feedback to the Small Business Review Panel which will in turn issue a report to the CFPB to consider in formulating its final rules. Each of those steps will likely take place, but I am certain that in the end they will be nothing more than completely meaningless exercises in front of an agency thats only real goal is and always has been to consolidate the mortgage industry into the hands of a few powerful elite banks and eliminate "small providers" entirely.
This past weekend, talking heads on Fox News were complaining that Americans have lost a large percentage of their net worth--including equity in their homes--over the last five years, and that home values are continuing to drop. Home values are indeed continuing to drop as I can personally verify from appraisals I have seen this week. The reason that they are is that financing has become so difficult to obtain that desperate sellers continue to reduce the prices of their homes hoping to get them down low enough so that they can find a qualified purchaser. In the meantime, the CFPB is spending the summer researching ways to further impede small business people and close down the very businesses that could be aiding in the housing recovery.
Unfortunately, Cordray answers only to the President--the CFPB director is not responsible to Congress at all. And the President is busy this summer asking for public input on the issue that appears to be closest to his heart--which Hollywood celebrity he should dine with next.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. Her newest novel, The Planner, about an out-of-control, environmentally-driven federal government, will be released June 30, 2012. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
June 7, 2012
If You Think the EPA Is Overreaching...
If you think the current Environmental Protection Agency is overreaching and infringing on the rights of citizens, small businesses and even in some cases, religious institutions, try to envision a world where the environmental police are not federal agents under the authority of men and women we can vote out of office, but rather international cops empowered by the U.N. Such an agency is one of the goals of the Rio 20 Summit, taking place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in about two weeks.
Rio 20 celebrates the twentieth anniversary of Agenda 21, a globalist environmental action plan developed by the UN in 1992. All U.S. presidents have affirmed the goals of Agenda 21 since its creation. Earlier this year, in preparation for this conference, I began a series explaining Agenda 21 and its ramifications for Americans. For anyone unfamiliar with Agenda 21 I have included a link to the first post in this series UN Agenda 21 and Smart Growth--Transforming American Life.
The last twenty years have seen our culture embrace the ideas of sustainable, green living even though we increasingly do so at the expense of private property rights and individual freedoms and economic growth and prosperity. Now, Rio 20 continues us down the road of sustainability with over 50 recommendations for the world including the redistribution of resources and the creation of a powerful new international environmental agency, the U.N. Environment Organization (UNEO). The UNEO would take the place of the current UNEP. The UN Environmental Program is currently based in Nairobi and voluntarily funded by member nations, including the U.S. which according to the Office of Management and Budget contributed $22.9 million of U.S. tax dollars to the organization in 2010. Those funds represented just under 10% of the UNEP's budget. An Agency, however, is funded through assessments on members which are calculated using gross national product and national income. The U.S. rate of assessment is 22%, so as an environmental agency the UNEO would enjoy a much bigger budget as well as much more international authority.
Although all U.S. Presidents have affirmed the goals of Agenda 21, the Bush Administration opposed UN mandated restrictions on member nations and opposed the formation of an Agency with the power to make such restrictions. The Obama Administration has already signed the U.S. up for membership with one such organization, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) which, although not a UN Agency uses the same formula as the UN to fund agencies, which means that US tax payers have to pay 22% of the budget. Proponents of green agendas are now lobbying diligently for Obama to attend the Rio Conference. Although he has indicated that he will not, he has not apparently given a final answer, leaving the door open for him to change his mind and go at the last minute. US participation is so critical to the UN's goals for Rio 20 that on April 20, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called Obama's participation in the event "crucial". On the same day, the Center for Global Development released, "Energizing Rio20: How the United States Can Promote Sustainable Energy for All at the 2012 Earth Summit." The paper calls on the U.S. to find large investors for sustainable energy projects worldwide. (Can anybody say "Solyndra?")
The Rio 20 Summit will not create new international treaties--just a huge police power with the express goal of redistributing the world's resources and the ability to rob us of our sovereignty. This is a dangerous agenda and one we should not be supporting in any way.
The posts this month will examine the goals of Rio 20 and some of the ramifications for the U.S. and our way of life. The conference takes place June 20-22.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. Her newest novel, The Planner, about an out-of-control, environmentally-driven federal government, will be released June 30, 2012. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
Rio 20 celebrates the twentieth anniversary of Agenda 21, a globalist environmental action plan developed by the UN in 1992. All U.S. presidents have affirmed the goals of Agenda 21 since its creation. Earlier this year, in preparation for this conference, I began a series explaining Agenda 21 and its ramifications for Americans. For anyone unfamiliar with Agenda 21 I have included a link to the first post in this series UN Agenda 21 and Smart Growth--Transforming American Life.
The last twenty years have seen our culture embrace the ideas of sustainable, green living even though we increasingly do so at the expense of private property rights and individual freedoms and economic growth and prosperity. Now, Rio 20 continues us down the road of sustainability with over 50 recommendations for the world including the redistribution of resources and the creation of a powerful new international environmental agency, the U.N. Environment Organization (UNEO). The UNEO would take the place of the current UNEP. The UN Environmental Program is currently based in Nairobi and voluntarily funded by member nations, including the U.S. which according to the Office of Management and Budget contributed $22.9 million of U.S. tax dollars to the organization in 2010. Those funds represented just under 10% of the UNEP's budget. An Agency, however, is funded through assessments on members which are calculated using gross national product and national income. The U.S. rate of assessment is 22%, so as an environmental agency the UNEO would enjoy a much bigger budget as well as much more international authority.
Although all U.S. Presidents have affirmed the goals of Agenda 21, the Bush Administration opposed UN mandated restrictions on member nations and opposed the formation of an Agency with the power to make such restrictions. The Obama Administration has already signed the U.S. up for membership with one such organization, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) which, although not a UN Agency uses the same formula as the UN to fund agencies, which means that US tax payers have to pay 22% of the budget. Proponents of green agendas are now lobbying diligently for Obama to attend the Rio Conference. Although he has indicated that he will not, he has not apparently given a final answer, leaving the door open for him to change his mind and go at the last minute. US participation is so critical to the UN's goals for Rio 20 that on April 20, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called Obama's participation in the event "crucial". On the same day, the Center for Global Development released, "Energizing Rio20: How the United States Can Promote Sustainable Energy for All at the 2012 Earth Summit." The paper calls on the U.S. to find large investors for sustainable energy projects worldwide. (Can anybody say "Solyndra?")
The Rio 20 Summit will not create new international treaties--just a huge police power with the express goal of redistributing the world's resources and the ability to rob us of our sovereignty. This is a dangerous agenda and one we should not be supporting in any way.
The posts this month will examine the goals of Rio 20 and some of the ramifications for the U.S. and our way of life. The conference takes place June 20-22.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. Her newest novel, The Planner, about an out-of-control, environmentally-driven federal government, will be released June 30, 2012. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
May 29, 2012
One if by Land, Two if by Sea
Yesterday our country celebrated Memorial Day--a day set aside to honor the over 1 million servicemen and women who have laid down their lives in the service of this country and the millions of others who have been wounded while protecting our nation and its freedoms.
When we recall all that our military men and women have endured so that we could become and remain a sovereign nation, it is especially sad and disturbing to see that so many in the United States are now determined to throw away our freedoms and even our national sovereignty with both hands.
Followers of this blog know that I normally write about over-reaching government on a federal, state and local level, especially as it pertains to property rights and the rights of small business owners. But today, I am taking a moment to discuss a violation of national sovereignty so egregious that it cannot be ignored--the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and many Senators are currently attempting to force upon us.
LOST is an extremely appropriate acronym for the Law of the Sea Treaty. If the U.S. Senate ratifies this treaty, for the first time in our nation's history we will be giving what amounts to taxing authority to an international body (the United Nations). Under Article 82 of the treaty, royalties from natural resources located more than 200 nautical miles from our shores (the extended continental shelf) will no longer belong to the United States. Instead, these royalties will be turned over to the International Seabed Authority, a new authority created by the treaty and based in Kingston, Jamaica. The ISA will have sole discretionary power over the distribution of these funds (which according to an opinion piece last week co-authored by John Cornyn and Orrin Hatch are estimated by the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Task force to be valued at "billions if not trillions" of dollars.) And since the purpose of the ISA is to distribute cash and technology from the "developed" to the "undeveloped" world, they can choose to send this money to any Third World dictatorship or aspiring government they wish--even to "peoples who have not attained full independence or other self-governing status."
Our own country is about 15 trillion dollars in debt and growing thanks to years of bad decisions, and now the Senate wants to give away one potentially powerful source of revenue to a international body who will spread our funds around the world as they see fit. Additionally, we would be legally obligated to share our mining and resource recovery technology--just in case some of these undeveloped nations can't figure out how to retrieve the resources after we turn them over to the ISA. That technology and those resources will likely end up in the hands of enemy nations who use what we have discarded to fund actions against us.
Those who favor LOST believe that turning control of the oceans over to the UN will ensure peace. That's actually the job of the U.S. navy--to protect our waters and our interests on the seas. Under LOST, it will become the job of the UN. Interestingly, LOST has been in effect for over a decade, although the U.S. Senate has never ratified the treaty. The nations who are currently members, such as China, do not obey its provisions now. Yet, we are supposed to believe that if we sign onto this travesty and begin abiding by it, all of the other nations of the world who have already signed onto its provisions will also begin to obey its terms. What nonsense! Never should we consider allowing an international authority to take our money, our technology and our rights as a nation to protect ourselves.
Ronald Reagan refused to sign this dog of a treaty in 1982. He had the right idea. Now LOST is back--last Wednesday Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) led a hearing by the Senate Foreign Relations committee on LOST. The committee featured testimony from proponents of LOST who are pushing the Senate to now ratify the treaty. Fortunately Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), and Sen James Inhofe (R-Ok) each stood against LOST's ratification by pointing out the huge financial losses to the U.S. that the treaty will cause. The House of Representatives does not ratify treaties, but it does fund the operations of the government, and a few days ago it approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which will ban federal funds from being used to implement LOST if the treaty is ratified.
The American people need to stand up against LOST by getting informed about its provisions and letting their Senators know that these provisions are unacceptable. Sen. Kerry has promised more hearings on LOST this summer. We need to let our Senators know that we expect each of them to uphold our national sovereignty and to reject all attempts by the United Nations to infringe on that sovereignty. If we refuse to stand up now, we will soon wake up to discover that all so many have worked, fought and died for over the past 236 years is truly lost and gone forever.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
When we recall all that our military men and women have endured so that we could become and remain a sovereign nation, it is especially sad and disturbing to see that so many in the United States are now determined to throw away our freedoms and even our national sovereignty with both hands.
Followers of this blog know that I normally write about over-reaching government on a federal, state and local level, especially as it pertains to property rights and the rights of small business owners. But today, I am taking a moment to discuss a violation of national sovereignty so egregious that it cannot be ignored--the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) which Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and many Senators are currently attempting to force upon us.
LOST is an extremely appropriate acronym for the Law of the Sea Treaty. If the U.S. Senate ratifies this treaty, for the first time in our nation's history we will be giving what amounts to taxing authority to an international body (the United Nations). Under Article 82 of the treaty, royalties from natural resources located more than 200 nautical miles from our shores (the extended continental shelf) will no longer belong to the United States. Instead, these royalties will be turned over to the International Seabed Authority, a new authority created by the treaty and based in Kingston, Jamaica. The ISA will have sole discretionary power over the distribution of these funds (which according to an opinion piece last week co-authored by John Cornyn and Orrin Hatch are estimated by the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Task force to be valued at "billions if not trillions" of dollars.) And since the purpose of the ISA is to distribute cash and technology from the "developed" to the "undeveloped" world, they can choose to send this money to any Third World dictatorship or aspiring government they wish--even to "peoples who have not attained full independence or other self-governing status."
Our own country is about 15 trillion dollars in debt and growing thanks to years of bad decisions, and now the Senate wants to give away one potentially powerful source of revenue to a international body who will spread our funds around the world as they see fit. Additionally, we would be legally obligated to share our mining and resource recovery technology--just in case some of these undeveloped nations can't figure out how to retrieve the resources after we turn them over to the ISA. That technology and those resources will likely end up in the hands of enemy nations who use what we have discarded to fund actions against us.
Those who favor LOST believe that turning control of the oceans over to the UN will ensure peace. That's actually the job of the U.S. navy--to protect our waters and our interests on the seas. Under LOST, it will become the job of the UN. Interestingly, LOST has been in effect for over a decade, although the U.S. Senate has never ratified the treaty. The nations who are currently members, such as China, do not obey its provisions now. Yet, we are supposed to believe that if we sign onto this travesty and begin abiding by it, all of the other nations of the world who have already signed onto its provisions will also begin to obey its terms. What nonsense! Never should we consider allowing an international authority to take our money, our technology and our rights as a nation to protect ourselves.
Ronald Reagan refused to sign this dog of a treaty in 1982. He had the right idea. Now LOST is back--last Wednesday Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) led a hearing by the Senate Foreign Relations committee on LOST. The committee featured testimony from proponents of LOST who are pushing the Senate to now ratify the treaty. Fortunately Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), and Sen James Inhofe (R-Ok) each stood against LOST's ratification by pointing out the huge financial losses to the U.S. that the treaty will cause. The House of Representatives does not ratify treaties, but it does fund the operations of the government, and a few days ago it approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which will ban federal funds from being used to implement LOST if the treaty is ratified.
The American people need to stand up against LOST by getting informed about its provisions and letting their Senators know that these provisions are unacceptable. Sen. Kerry has promised more hearings on LOST this summer. We need to let our Senators know that we expect each of them to uphold our national sovereignty and to reject all attempts by the United Nations to infringe on that sovereignty. If we refuse to stand up now, we will soon wake up to discover that all so many have worked, fought and died for over the past 236 years is truly lost and gone forever.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
May 17, 2012
Killing a Housefly with a Sledgehammer
Having worked in the mortgage industry for over fourteen years, I have seen more than a few property owners who skipped part of the permits process when either building or renovating a property. Normally, these infractions result in the part of the structure that was illegally altered being "red tagged" by the city inspectors until the work meets city standards, and the owner pays the cost of a building permit. A few years ago I talked to a homeowner in Nevada who had completed a massive remodel and addition to his already expensive luxury home completely without permits. No lender would refinance his property because the appraiser reported that the renovation on the house had been done without a permit. The homeowner staunchly refused to obtain the permit for the same reason that he had refused to get proper permitting at the beginning of his project--he did not want the county taxing authority to recalculate his property taxes based on the additional square footage on the house. So he was trapped in a higher interest rate loan than he would have normally qualifed to have in exchange for paying property taxes on a home half the size of the one where he actually resided. Normally, these are about the worst penalties a property owner can expect for skirting the permitting process.
Not so with the owner of a Massachusetts ice cream stand located at the Great Brook Farm State Park. Mark Duffy has owned and operated the stand for 26 years, and until last Friday he employed 13 high school and college students to dispense ice cream. But Friday night, armed environmental police showed up at the ice cream stand and forcibly closed it down. According to the article in today's Independent Journal Review, the police posted armed guards at the stand over Mother's Day weekend to make sure that it could not reopen and to turn away potential customers who might want to treat Mom to an ice cream.
What was Duffy's crime that required that armed agents be posted at his business? He made improvements to the property without proper permission. According to the Lowell Sun, Duffy has made “countless improvements to the farm over the years without permission.” His latest infraction involved creating an area in his building where he could show instructional videos produced by the Massachusetts Dairy Industry. Duffy told the Lowell Sun, "The reason I’m here and the purpose of having me here is to improve the facility and operate a commercial dairy farm.” Apparently, he actually has improved the property--he just didn't have permits to do so.
I understand that states and counties have a permitting process in place which is primarily designed to raise revenue and secondarily designed to protect the public safety. (I realize that a building inspector would take exception with this statement, but it is my observation nevertheless.) But to send armed guards to shut down an ice cream stand and make sure that it cannot reopen is not just a case of over-regulation; it is a ridiculous case of over-enforcement. Why should the the state version of the EPA even have jurisdiction in a case like this one? This should be an issue for the local building inspectors or the city health inspectors, if appropriate, but not a state environmental agency with armed police.
Massachusetts is a state notorious for its restrictive building and planning codes and its commitment to density, Smart Growth and New Urbanism. In an environment where citizens are not allowed to make simple choices about where they will build, how they will build, and how they will live, sending armed guards to shut down a business for a violation which is not a threat to public safety may seem perfectly acceptable. Those of us in the rest of the country are more inclined to see this for what it is--an overly aggressive government entity terrorizing and destroying a small business owner simply because it can.
As the rest of the nation embraces the same types of restrictive building codes that define Massachusetts, we may find that we, too, are receiving visits from armed environmental police if we fail to follow the many new regulations being implemented in our communities. And we will see more and more of our tax dollars being used to enforce unreasonable rules and regulations which overburden small businesses such as this ice cream stand.
It's the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to kill a house fly.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
Not so with the owner of a Massachusetts ice cream stand located at the Great Brook Farm State Park. Mark Duffy has owned and operated the stand for 26 years, and until last Friday he employed 13 high school and college students to dispense ice cream. But Friday night, armed environmental police showed up at the ice cream stand and forcibly closed it down. According to the article in today's Independent Journal Review, the police posted armed guards at the stand over Mother's Day weekend to make sure that it could not reopen and to turn away potential customers who might want to treat Mom to an ice cream.
What was Duffy's crime that required that armed agents be posted at his business? He made improvements to the property without proper permission. According to the Lowell Sun, Duffy has made “countless improvements to the farm over the years without permission.” His latest infraction involved creating an area in his building where he could show instructional videos produced by the Massachusetts Dairy Industry. Duffy told the Lowell Sun, "The reason I’m here and the purpose of having me here is to improve the facility and operate a commercial dairy farm.” Apparently, he actually has improved the property--he just didn't have permits to do so.
I understand that states and counties have a permitting process in place which is primarily designed to raise revenue and secondarily designed to protect the public safety. (I realize that a building inspector would take exception with this statement, but it is my observation nevertheless.) But to send armed guards to shut down an ice cream stand and make sure that it cannot reopen is not just a case of over-regulation; it is a ridiculous case of over-enforcement. Why should the the state version of the EPA even have jurisdiction in a case like this one? This should be an issue for the local building inspectors or the city health inspectors, if appropriate, but not a state environmental agency with armed police.
Massachusetts is a state notorious for its restrictive building and planning codes and its commitment to density, Smart Growth and New Urbanism. In an environment where citizens are not allowed to make simple choices about where they will build, how they will build, and how they will live, sending armed guards to shut down a business for a violation which is not a threat to public safety may seem perfectly acceptable. Those of us in the rest of the country are more inclined to see this for what it is--an overly aggressive government entity terrorizing and destroying a small business owner simply because it can.
As the rest of the nation embraces the same types of restrictive building codes that define Massachusetts, we may find that we, too, are receiving visits from armed environmental police if we fail to follow the many new regulations being implemented in our communities. And we will see more and more of our tax dollars being used to enforce unreasonable rules and regulations which overburden small businesses such as this ice cream stand.
It's the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to kill a house fly.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
May 4, 2012
Being Julia
This week the Obama Campaign created a fictional character named "Julia" to showcase the President's initiatives on behalf of women. The purpose of this interactive campaign is to allow Americans to "Take a look at how President Obama's policies help one woman over her lifetime—and how Mitt Romney would change her story." To visit the page with Julia's story visit http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia.
The interactive slides take us from Julia at 3 years old when she enters headstart to the her retirement at age 67 when she begins drawing a comfortable Social Security. Julia is able to get her education and then go to work as a web designer. She is able to postpone having children until she is ready and when she does have a child--no mention of marriage at all--her maternity bills are covered under Obama care. She gets a loan to start her own business through the SBA and lives happily ever after until she is ready to retire.
Yesterday I received an award from the regional SBA as the Minority Small Business Champion of the Year for 2012 because of my work with the El Paso Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. The awards luncheon was part of national small business week, which has been recognized by every president since 1963. We heard a lot of speeches about how the President is committed to the growth of small business. When I received my award, I mentioned in my speech that I have been in business for just over fourteen years. What I did not say, is that thanks to the regulations of the Obama Administration, our mortgage company is now weeks away from closure. For that reason, I decided to take a look at the "The Life of Julia" if she had chosen a different profession--say financial services or real estate.
If Julia had chosen to become a mortgage broker or loan originator--as many women did since these professions required attention to detail and solid customer service skills, which are areas where women tend to excel--she would now be losing her business. Since 2009, she would have been required to meet increasing regulatory requirements, including passing a state and federal test and a criminal background check--requirements that her brothers and sisters employed by banks would not have to comply with. She would have been required to sign restrictive contracts with the lenders she worked with which would not allow her to compete against banks for business since she would not have the ability to negotiate her fees. And now, she would be weeks away from having her income cut off totally as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is about to regulate that all total fees on qualified mortgages cannot exceed 3% of the loan amount--leaving Julia no ability to get paid. Julia would be in the process of closing her business and looking for a job in an environment where actual unemployment and underemployment is rumored to be about 19% of the population.
If Julia had chosen to make her living as a real estate agent--another profession which typically appeals to women--she would be trying to work in an environment of continuing declining home values. Home ownership has now reached its lowest point in 15 years. Restrictive lending guidelines mean that she would show houses to families who do not qualify to purchase because they have too much debt or or they have credit issues or they cannot get get together the downpayment. And when the qualified mortgages are put into place, she would find that the already small pool of eligible buyers will further shrink until she too needs to seek other employment. (As an aside, I notice that there is no point in "The Life of Julia" where she decides to purchase her own home--probably because her chances of qualifying for a home of her own will be next to zero in the new environment.)
If Julia had decided to be an independent securities broker, she would probably be looking at closing her firm rather than trying to navigate the difficult regulatory environment created by Dodd Frank. Independent securities brokers are a declining breed--according to Investor News, 93 broker-dealer firms closed their doors in the first quarter of 2012. The average net loss of broker-dealer firms is 10 per month and as strict new regulations raise the cost of doing business, more and more small firms are expected to disappear. Investor News quotes David Alsup, national director of business development with the Compliance Department, “I don't see an end to the steady downtick. And I don't see an uptick for a while. You just can't be a two-man shop and hire a $70,000-per-year compliance officer and stay in business.”
If Julia had chosen any of these professions, she would be drowning in a sea of regulations which would eat up her savings and any cash that came into the business. These business-killing regulations hurt women--either directly as the owners, or indirectly as the wives of owners--because, of course, in real life many women are married and depend on both incomes. Or, in the case of the fictional Julia, they hurt women peripherally--as businesses lose all of their cash to regulations and taxes and are ultimately forced to close their doors, the real life web-designing Julia cannot find enough paying customers to keep her own doors open.
"The Life of Julia" implies that all women are needy nit-wits who want a nanny state and need only to be assured that the government is going to support us. As a single woman who has been self-employed for fourteen years, I find that pretty insulting. I chose to work for myself because I believed that I could make a better future for myself than any corporation was going to give me. I needed neither a hand out nor a hand up--I just needed for the government to leave me alone and let me work. Instead, my business has been crushed under a mountain of regulations designed to favor large corporations while destroying small players.
If Obama wanted to help women, he would take the shackles off of business. By allowing small businesses to prosper, he would create an environment in which men and women can succeed on their own merits. A capitalist free market is the only answer for women, men and the society at large. Mitt Romney has promised us that, and personally I am hoping that he can change my story and the story of millions of other small business owners across the nation.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
The interactive slides take us from Julia at 3 years old when she enters headstart to the her retirement at age 67 when she begins drawing a comfortable Social Security. Julia is able to get her education and then go to work as a web designer. She is able to postpone having children until she is ready and when she does have a child--no mention of marriage at all--her maternity bills are covered under Obama care. She gets a loan to start her own business through the SBA and lives happily ever after until she is ready to retire.
Yesterday I received an award from the regional SBA as the Minority Small Business Champion of the Year for 2012 because of my work with the El Paso Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. The awards luncheon was part of national small business week, which has been recognized by every president since 1963. We heard a lot of speeches about how the President is committed to the growth of small business. When I received my award, I mentioned in my speech that I have been in business for just over fourteen years. What I did not say, is that thanks to the regulations of the Obama Administration, our mortgage company is now weeks away from closure. For that reason, I decided to take a look at the "The Life of Julia" if she had chosen a different profession--say financial services or real estate.
If Julia had chosen to become a mortgage broker or loan originator--as many women did since these professions required attention to detail and solid customer service skills, which are areas where women tend to excel--she would now be losing her business. Since 2009, she would have been required to meet increasing regulatory requirements, including passing a state and federal test and a criminal background check--requirements that her brothers and sisters employed by banks would not have to comply with. She would have been required to sign restrictive contracts with the lenders she worked with which would not allow her to compete against banks for business since she would not have the ability to negotiate her fees. And now, she would be weeks away from having her income cut off totally as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is about to regulate that all total fees on qualified mortgages cannot exceed 3% of the loan amount--leaving Julia no ability to get paid. Julia would be in the process of closing her business and looking for a job in an environment where actual unemployment and underemployment is rumored to be about 19% of the population.
If Julia had chosen to make her living as a real estate agent--another profession which typically appeals to women--she would be trying to work in an environment of continuing declining home values. Home ownership has now reached its lowest point in 15 years. Restrictive lending guidelines mean that she would show houses to families who do not qualify to purchase because they have too much debt or or they have credit issues or they cannot get get together the downpayment. And when the qualified mortgages are put into place, she would find that the already small pool of eligible buyers will further shrink until she too needs to seek other employment. (As an aside, I notice that there is no point in "The Life of Julia" where she decides to purchase her own home--probably because her chances of qualifying for a home of her own will be next to zero in the new environment.)
If Julia had decided to be an independent securities broker, she would probably be looking at closing her firm rather than trying to navigate the difficult regulatory environment created by Dodd Frank. Independent securities brokers are a declining breed--according to Investor News, 93 broker-dealer firms closed their doors in the first quarter of 2012. The average net loss of broker-dealer firms is 10 per month and as strict new regulations raise the cost of doing business, more and more small firms are expected to disappear. Investor News quotes David Alsup, national director of business development with the Compliance Department, “I don't see an end to the steady downtick. And I don't see an uptick for a while. You just can't be a two-man shop and hire a $70,000-per-year compliance officer and stay in business.”
If Julia had chosen any of these professions, she would be drowning in a sea of regulations which would eat up her savings and any cash that came into the business. These business-killing regulations hurt women--either directly as the owners, or indirectly as the wives of owners--because, of course, in real life many women are married and depend on both incomes. Or, in the case of the fictional Julia, they hurt women peripherally--as businesses lose all of their cash to regulations and taxes and are ultimately forced to close their doors, the real life web-designing Julia cannot find enough paying customers to keep her own doors open.
"The Life of Julia" implies that all women are needy nit-wits who want a nanny state and need only to be assured that the government is going to support us. As a single woman who has been self-employed for fourteen years, I find that pretty insulting. I chose to work for myself because I believed that I could make a better future for myself than any corporation was going to give me. I needed neither a hand out nor a hand up--I just needed for the government to leave me alone and let me work. Instead, my business has been crushed under a mountain of regulations designed to favor large corporations while destroying small players.
If Obama wanted to help women, he would take the shackles off of business. By allowing small businesses to prosper, he would create an environment in which men and women can succeed on their own merits. A capitalist free market is the only answer for women, men and the society at large. Mitt Romney has promised us that, and personally I am hoping that he can change my story and the story of millions of other small business owners across the nation.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
April 20, 2012
What You Need to Know about Know Before You Owe
This week has seen a flurry of activity from all areas of the housing sector. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is coming dangerously close to finalizing its rulemaking on the Know Before You Owe initiative. In response to the CFPB's request for comments, on Monday April 16, the American Bankers Association, the American Escrow Association, the American Financial Services Association, the American Land Title Association, the Community Mortgage Banking Project, the Consumer Mortgage Coalition, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Realtors and RESPRO sent a joint letter to the CFPB outlining their concerns with the proposed legislation. The full text of the letter can be read by going to http://www.aba.com/compliance/mortgage_reform.htm and clicking the appropriate link for the document dated 4/16/2012.
While the letter is quite lengthy and includes comments on a number of different aspects of Know Before You Owe, I want to focus on just a couple of major points about how broad this initiative will be.(To get a sense of the scope of what is involved here, I really do recommend that everybody working in this industry read the comments' letter for themselves; I promise that it will be an eye-opening experience.) The Dodd Frank bill charged the CFPB with creating a new disclosure to merge the Good Faith Estimate and the Truth in Lending Form into one new document that would be easier to understand. In 2008, after 6 years of working and hosting round tables, HUD mandated the new three page good faith estimate that we are now using. In 2011, the Federal Reserve changed the truth in lending form. So both forms have already undergone pretty significant revisions. Apparently this is going to be a huge process.
This time around, the CFPB has included items such as changing the RESPA definition of an application, requiring more disclosures (because we all know that we don't have enough disclosures), reducing the current tolerance that we are now allowed for our settlement service providers on our "written provider's list" from 10% to 0% and requiring that borrowers receive their HUD-1 settlement statement three days before closing.
While each of these proposed reforms is sweeping and has huge consequences for us, perhaps the most important consideration to the future of U.S. Housing Finance is going to be the CFPB's effort to define the Qualified Residential Mortgages and Qualified Mortgages. The Dodd Frank bill requires the creation of qualified residential mortgages which will be exempt from the new 5% risk retention rules. QRMs will be the only mortgages that third party loan originators will be allowed to sell in the new regulatory environment, so their definition is very critical to our futures. The Dodd Frank bill requires that these mortgages contain a 3% cap on points and fees. For a refresher on this issue see Risk Retention, Qualifed Residential Mortgages and the Future of Housing. Now the CFPB is trying to define what constitutes "points and fees." Initially, many of us supposed that this cap would cover lender and broker fees and attorney fees--the items that go into block 1 of the GFE. But apparently the CFPB has other plans and is now looking at including title insurance, third party fees such as appraisals and surveys, and escrows. Under this definition, no small loan will qualify as a QRM. This definition will mean the end of third party origination in the U.S., especially since we are not allowed to adjust our percentage of compensation from transaction to transaction.
This week NAMB (The National Association of Mortgage Brokers) sent out a call to action video asking all brokers to contact their Representatives and ask for support of HR 4323, The Consumer Mortgage Choice Act, which would change the way the 3% cap is calculated on qualified residential mortgages. If this bill were to pass and be signed into law, it could fix many of the immediate considerations that threaten to shut down our industry. NAMB legislative chair John Hudson's video can be seen below:
Frankly I think everybody in our industry is being way too polite. Instead of adopting a "please don't kill us all" strategy, we should be pressing for a total repeal of Dodd Frank, closure of the CFPB and the removal of Richard Cordray from his recess appointment position. Interestingly, this week also saw the several members of the U.S. Senate join a lawsuit against a number of recess appointees from January on the grounds that the Senate was not in recess when these appointments were made. Unfortunately, the lawsuit applies only to appointments involving the National Labor Relations Board. Corday's appointment is not being challenged as part of the suit because the plaintiff is alleging damage at the hands of the NLRB only.
We as an industry have not done a good job of standing up for ourselves or explaining to the American people that housing finance is important to their individual futures and to the overall economy. And because of that, we are really suffering now as Cordray doubles down to finish off all independents who have survived the last five years.
We expect to see a lot more activity on these issues in the next few weeks. I will keep you posted.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
While the letter is quite lengthy and includes comments on a number of different aspects of Know Before You Owe, I want to focus on just a couple of major points about how broad this initiative will be.(To get a sense of the scope of what is involved here, I really do recommend that everybody working in this industry read the comments' letter for themselves; I promise that it will be an eye-opening experience.) The Dodd Frank bill charged the CFPB with creating a new disclosure to merge the Good Faith Estimate and the Truth in Lending Form into one new document that would be easier to understand. In 2008, after 6 years of working and hosting round tables, HUD mandated the new three page good faith estimate that we are now using. In 2011, the Federal Reserve changed the truth in lending form. So both forms have already undergone pretty significant revisions. Apparently this is going to be a huge process.
This time around, the CFPB has included items such as changing the RESPA definition of an application, requiring more disclosures (because we all know that we don't have enough disclosures), reducing the current tolerance that we are now allowed for our settlement service providers on our "written provider's list" from 10% to 0% and requiring that borrowers receive their HUD-1 settlement statement three days before closing.
While each of these proposed reforms is sweeping and has huge consequences for us, perhaps the most important consideration to the future of U.S. Housing Finance is going to be the CFPB's effort to define the Qualified Residential Mortgages and Qualified Mortgages. The Dodd Frank bill requires the creation of qualified residential mortgages which will be exempt from the new 5% risk retention rules. QRMs will be the only mortgages that third party loan originators will be allowed to sell in the new regulatory environment, so their definition is very critical to our futures. The Dodd Frank bill requires that these mortgages contain a 3% cap on points and fees. For a refresher on this issue see Risk Retention, Qualifed Residential Mortgages and the Future of Housing. Now the CFPB is trying to define what constitutes "points and fees." Initially, many of us supposed that this cap would cover lender and broker fees and attorney fees--the items that go into block 1 of the GFE. But apparently the CFPB has other plans and is now looking at including title insurance, third party fees such as appraisals and surveys, and escrows. Under this definition, no small loan will qualify as a QRM. This definition will mean the end of third party origination in the U.S., especially since we are not allowed to adjust our percentage of compensation from transaction to transaction.
This week NAMB (The National Association of Mortgage Brokers) sent out a call to action video asking all brokers to contact their Representatives and ask for support of HR 4323, The Consumer Mortgage Choice Act, which would change the way the 3% cap is calculated on qualified residential mortgages. If this bill were to pass and be signed into law, it could fix many of the immediate considerations that threaten to shut down our industry. NAMB legislative chair John Hudson's video can be seen below:
Frankly I think everybody in our industry is being way too polite. Instead of adopting a "please don't kill us all" strategy, we should be pressing for a total repeal of Dodd Frank, closure of the CFPB and the removal of Richard Cordray from his recess appointment position. Interestingly, this week also saw the several members of the U.S. Senate join a lawsuit against a number of recess appointees from January on the grounds that the Senate was not in recess when these appointments were made. Unfortunately, the lawsuit applies only to appointments involving the National Labor Relations Board. Corday's appointment is not being challenged as part of the suit because the plaintiff is alleging damage at the hands of the NLRB only.
We as an industry have not done a good job of standing up for ourselves or explaining to the American people that housing finance is important to their individual futures and to the overall economy. And because of that, we are really suffering now as Cordray doubles down to finish off all independents who have survived the last five years.
We expect to see a lot more activity on these issues in the next few weeks. I will keep you posted.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
April 11, 2012
Where's Robin Hood When We Need Him?
Last Thursday, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced that the federal government will be spending 41.6 million dollars to purchase 20,000 acres of private land to add to the national forests. The purchases were from "willing sellers" and were financed through offshore drilling fees paid by private companies into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The fund caps annually at $900 million and is used by the U.S. Forest Service to finance land acquisitions and by other agencies as well.
Among the purchases was 1288 acres of land owned by the Fleming family for over 100 years which is surrounded by national forest. One of the news sources I checked for this post featured a breathtaking photo of this property--which had been used as a Fleming family retreat. The property, which abounds with oak, pine and Douglas fir, is adjacent to the Pacific Crest Rail and the San Jacinto Wilderness. The Forest Service has promised to thin the trees to minimize fire danger and "promote carbon sequestration."
Also among the purchases, the Forest Service is paying $1.4 million to finish purchasing 1,481 acres of land which had previously been marketed for vacation home sites along the Imnaha River in Oregon. This land will be added to the Hells Canyon National Recreation area and the Wallows-Whitman National Forest. Still other purchases will be used to protect salmon habitat, preserve ancient petroglyphs and conserve meadows and wetlands, protect migration corridors for wolves, grizzly bears, and other wildlife and to achieve various other eco-friendly outcomes. The acquisition also included $800,000 to purchase land to "fill a doughnut hole of private land within the Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area on the shore of Lake Shasta that could be developed as a subdivision." (CBS News)
The federal government's move is being widely criticized by some conservatives and libertarians as a waste of money--how does the federal government justify spending 41 million dollars to buy up private land when the country is massively in debt. And I think that this is a fair criticism. But I think that there are other issues at play here as well.
Currently, the U.S. government owns about 30% of the land in this country. None of that land is available for development, for housing, or for any other private use. Don't misunderstand--I think the national forest system is a good thing--in moderation. Whenever I can escape the heat and dust of El Paso, I take 2 hours to drive up to Ruidoso, New Mexico where I enjoy the Lincoln National Forest. I agree that our country needs beautiful public places where families can camp and picnic and all of us, regardless of socioeconomic status, can enjoy all that our country has to offer.
Having said that, I also think that we have enough of these public spaces as it is. Like it or not, development stimulates the economy. The purchase of the 1481 acres in Oregon will "open public access to thousands of acres of public lands that are home to Oregon's largest herd of Rocky Mountain big horn sheep [and] also provides habitat for rare plants and birds," according to CBS News. The economy in Oregon might get stronger if instead of spending every resource on preventing development, the federal, state and local governments would open up this breathtaking state to developers who would build houses that could in turn be sold to people with money who would then bring that money into the economy in Oregon. Instead, we are curtaining off more and more property for the exclusive ownership of the federal government and the exclusive benefit of the wildlife residing on it.
Because of the way that our country sprang up, many Americans do not understand what a privilege private property rights really are. Likewise, they do not see the dangers to liberty of the government owning too much of the land. But government control of the forest and protections of animals living on it is the very stuff of the Robin Hood legend, where the bandit emerged to fight for the common man against a system that called for the execution of men who hunted the king's deer. And while the legends of Robin Hood and his battles with the tyrannical King John really are just that--legends--the facts are that private property rights were central to the early battles of the English people to obtain some freedom. The Magna Carta--the document which King John's barons forced him to sign at Runny Mead in 1215--contains 5 clauses dealing with the rights of the people to access the forest. Although the Magna Carta is popularly seen as a forerunner to our own system of laws, the property rights spelled out in the document were just the first shot in a long battle for the English people to win their rights to the forest. In 1217, King Henry III signed the Charter of the Forest, which established rights of access to the Royal Forest for all "free men". The Charter of the Forest was one of the first documents to grant real rights, privileges and protections for common men and to assert private property rights at a time when the king had claimed huge blocks of land as "Royal Forest" under the crown's protection. The Charter of the Forest was reissued in 1225 and became part of the Confirmation of Charters in 1297. It gave the people the right to use their own land within the forest as they saw fit, "provided that no injury is thereby given to any neighbor." The Charter also repealed the death penalty for killing a deer in the Royal Forest and abolished mutilation as a punishment for illegal acts in the forest or against the forest animals.
The Charter of the Forest was so important to English law that it actually became the longest statue in force in England--from 1217-1971 when the final clauses of it that still remained in effect were replaced by the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Act of 1971.
If our government continues to expand its ownership of forest lands and its protections of the animals living in the forest, we may need to get a copy of the Charter of the Forest as a guide to spell out our own rights and protections with regard to access to the land. And if, after we have drawn up our own charter, our government won't acknowledge our rights, we might just need to enlist the help of our own modern day Robin Hood.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
Among the purchases was 1288 acres of land owned by the Fleming family for over 100 years which is surrounded by national forest. One of the news sources I checked for this post featured a breathtaking photo of this property--which had been used as a Fleming family retreat. The property, which abounds with oak, pine and Douglas fir, is adjacent to the Pacific Crest Rail and the San Jacinto Wilderness. The Forest Service has promised to thin the trees to minimize fire danger and "promote carbon sequestration."
Also among the purchases, the Forest Service is paying $1.4 million to finish purchasing 1,481 acres of land which had previously been marketed for vacation home sites along the Imnaha River in Oregon. This land will be added to the Hells Canyon National Recreation area and the Wallows-Whitman National Forest. Still other purchases will be used to protect salmon habitat, preserve ancient petroglyphs and conserve meadows and wetlands, protect migration corridors for wolves, grizzly bears, and other wildlife and to achieve various other eco-friendly outcomes. The acquisition also included $800,000 to purchase land to "fill a doughnut hole of private land within the Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area on the shore of Lake Shasta that could be developed as a subdivision." (CBS News)
The federal government's move is being widely criticized by some conservatives and libertarians as a waste of money--how does the federal government justify spending 41 million dollars to buy up private land when the country is massively in debt. And I think that this is a fair criticism. But I think that there are other issues at play here as well.
Currently, the U.S. government owns about 30% of the land in this country. None of that land is available for development, for housing, or for any other private use. Don't misunderstand--I think the national forest system is a good thing--in moderation. Whenever I can escape the heat and dust of El Paso, I take 2 hours to drive up to Ruidoso, New Mexico where I enjoy the Lincoln National Forest. I agree that our country needs beautiful public places where families can camp and picnic and all of us, regardless of socioeconomic status, can enjoy all that our country has to offer.
Having said that, I also think that we have enough of these public spaces as it is. Like it or not, development stimulates the economy. The purchase of the 1481 acres in Oregon will "open public access to thousands of acres of public lands that are home to Oregon's largest herd of Rocky Mountain big horn sheep [and] also provides habitat for rare plants and birds," according to CBS News. The economy in Oregon might get stronger if instead of spending every resource on preventing development, the federal, state and local governments would open up this breathtaking state to developers who would build houses that could in turn be sold to people with money who would then bring that money into the economy in Oregon. Instead, we are curtaining off more and more property for the exclusive ownership of the federal government and the exclusive benefit of the wildlife residing on it.
Because of the way that our country sprang up, many Americans do not understand what a privilege private property rights really are. Likewise, they do not see the dangers to liberty of the government owning too much of the land. But government control of the forest and protections of animals living on it is the very stuff of the Robin Hood legend, where the bandit emerged to fight for the common man against a system that called for the execution of men who hunted the king's deer. And while the legends of Robin Hood and his battles with the tyrannical King John really are just that--legends--the facts are that private property rights were central to the early battles of the English people to obtain some freedom. The Magna Carta--the document which King John's barons forced him to sign at Runny Mead in 1215--contains 5 clauses dealing with the rights of the people to access the forest. Although the Magna Carta is popularly seen as a forerunner to our own system of laws, the property rights spelled out in the document were just the first shot in a long battle for the English people to win their rights to the forest. In 1217, King Henry III signed the Charter of the Forest, which established rights of access to the Royal Forest for all "free men". The Charter of the Forest was one of the first documents to grant real rights, privileges and protections for common men and to assert private property rights at a time when the king had claimed huge blocks of land as "Royal Forest" under the crown's protection. The Charter of the Forest was reissued in 1225 and became part of the Confirmation of Charters in 1297. It gave the people the right to use their own land within the forest as they saw fit, "provided that no injury is thereby given to any neighbor." The Charter also repealed the death penalty for killing a deer in the Royal Forest and abolished mutilation as a punishment for illegal acts in the forest or against the forest animals.
The Charter of the Forest was so important to English law that it actually became the longest statue in force in England--from 1217-1971 when the final clauses of it that still remained in effect were replaced by the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Act of 1971.
If our government continues to expand its ownership of forest lands and its protections of the animals living in the forest, we may need to get a copy of the Charter of the Forest as a guide to spell out our own rights and protections with regard to access to the land. And if, after we have drawn up our own charter, our government won't acknowledge our rights, we might just need to enlist the help of our own modern day Robin Hood.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
April 4, 2012
Smart Growth and Zoning Laws--Changing the Way We Worship--Part II
This weekend, tens of millions of Americans will attend Easter and Passover services across the U.S. Many of the worshippers will do so without realizing that their ability to meet together in a building of their choice to worship as they please is under immediate threat.
I started this two part series with a post last week about how New Urbanism and zoning laws across the U.S. are challenging the ability of individual Americans to meet at home with other like-minded fellow citizens for worship, Bible study and prayer. Today I am finishing the series with a look at how we may be in the process of losing our right to meet for religious expression in any setting.
Few Americans seem to understand that the very existence of churches of all denominations is being threatened. Last year saw a record number of church foreclosures across the U.S., and that trend is expected to continue this year. Interestingly, many of the churches were not foreclosed on because they could not make the payments. Rather, many of the foreclosures happened because the church notes ballooned and the churches could not get their financing renewed and could not obtain new financing. Part of this phenomenon is a result of the overall drop in real estate values across the nation. During the boom years of 2006 and 2007 many churches expanded--unfortunately now the values of these renovated buildings have dropped off to little more than the balance of the note owed. Banks, who are finding themselves increasingly under pressure from regulators to clean up their balance sheets, do not want to extend the terms of these loans, which often balloon after five years, and so they call the note due and demand that the church pay the entire balance remaining on the loan. If the church is unable to come up with the money, the bank is completely within its legal rights to foreclose.
The loss of these facilities is particularly important to religious freedom, because typically existing buildings are grandfathered in under new zoning laws, but if the building is sold or changes ownership, or is damaged and has to be rebuilt, the new zoning ordinances apply. And many of these are not favorable to houses of worship.
In the U.S. we have been accustomed to enormous freedom of religion. Traditionally, if something happens to our church, we find a new one. Even if we belong to a tiny, minority faith population, if there are enough of us to be able to rent a facility, we can meet together. Sixteen years ago, I had the privilege of attending a Passover Seder led by a Messianic Jewish group in El Paso, Texas. The experience was fascinating, and one I will never forget. Although the regular congregation for this group was quite small--about 30 members, they were able to meet in a small building because together they were able to pay the rent to do so. But in the brave new world of New Urbanism, city planners decide where we can meet and when.
In Holly Springs, Mississippi, for example, Opulent Life Church, an African-American church with a congregation of about 20-25 people, has been denied the right to meet in a building it leased downtown. The church leased the building and then began working to get the permit, but the permit request was tabled by the Planning Commissioner because Holly Springs has an ordinance that requires that 60% of the people in the downtown area must approve the new house of worship before it can be allowed to relocate. Additionally, the mayor and a board of advisors must approve the request prior to the permit being issued. Liberty Institute took the church's case and sued in District Court for an injunction against the ordinance on the grounds that this ordinance does not apply to businesses or homes, but only to religious institutions. The District Court ruled against the church on the grounds that because the church is not meeting the capacity of its current building, the church is not suffering any harm through the denial of the right to move downtown. Liberty Institute has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The Holly Springs case is just the most recent as communities decide how big the churches can be and where they can be located. In Leon Valley, just outside of San Antonio, a small evangelical church has filed a lawsuit against the city because new zoning laws prohibit the church from using its building for Sunday morning worship services. The zoning board has ruled that churches cannot be located in retail zones. In Rolling Hills Estates, California, planning officials denied a permit to a church because the city banned churches from commercial areas. In some cases, churches are denied permits because they could be too close to businesses that sell alcohol and that would decrease the city's potential revenue from alcohol sales.
One major goal of the new zoning laws is to create density and to help cities generate revenue. Churches, which are tax-exempt, are not seen as revenue generators. And churches who participate in social welfare programs, such as feeding the homeless, are often seen as participating in activities that should be the responsibility of the government. In Houston, Texas, a church that had been feeding the homeless for over a year had to terminate its program when the city began to require permits that the church could not acquire. Homeless, indigent people are not part of the image that cities want, and churches who offer programs to help these people are often viewed as contributors to the problem.
New Urbanism, with its heavy emphasis on public transportation and mass transit, is often at odds with church requirements for parking. Even in cities that specifically include houses of worship in their master plan, the requirements for land can be onerous. Within urban areas, requirements that a church own at least a two acre tract of land or a 10 acre tract to accommodate a church with a gym can make it almost impossible for congregations to acquire a building.
But even when congregations are willing to go outside of the city limits, they may not find a place to worship out of the close watch of the planners. In 2002, Mollala Christian Church in Clackamas County, Oregon, bought farmland on the outskirts of town. The church went to work getting permits to build only to be told by the county planning director that churches are not allowed in the "Exclusive Farm Zone" which is within three miles of the Urban Growth Boundary. Urban Growth Boundaries are designed to keep development within the confines of certain areas--on the other side of the boundary no development is allowed. The church appealed the decision but the zoning director's decision was upheld because the soil was "high value farm land" and the state had a "compelling government interest" in ensuring that the land remained agricultural. Eventually, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty took the church's case and successfully argued that since the county was allowing construction of other types of structures in the Exclusive Farm Zone, including "community centers, wedding facilities, golf courses, wineries and farm stands" they were clearly discriminating against the church. County Commissioners agreed in a 2-1 vote.
Although the church was ultimately victorious in this case, we must remember that much of the zoning, Smart Growth and New Urbanism is coming to us from Oregon, and we can expect to see many more laws that mirror theirs. Former Yale Professor Randal O'Toole, now with the CATO institute, has written and spoken extensively on the subject of New Urbanism. In his book The Best Laid Plans-How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook and Your Future, O'Toole, writes that in Oregon a person cannot build his own home on his own land in the areas designated rural--95% of the state--unless he owns "at least 160 acres, actually farm(ed) the land and earned $40,000 to $80,000...farming it in two of the past three years." With restrictions like these in place, planning and zoning boards are not going to be open to tax exempt churches which build huge buildings, use air conditioning and heating, and require large amounts of parking.
All of these restrictions are going to profoundly affect the way we practice our faith in the U.S. If churches are not allowed to move from their existing buildings, they cannot hope to grow. As our society morphs into a society of high density, urban lifestyles where people rely on public transportation rather than individual cars, their ability to choose or change houses of worship will be dramatically altered. Even the operation of some churches will be affected. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) for instance, the bishop decides how big each house of worship (ward) should be. When he decides that the ward is too full, he assigns part of the families to a different ward. But if families do not have transportation and must rely on bus routes, how are they going to be able to comply with the bishop's orders?
I also think of other small faith populations. Not far from my office is a synagogue. If I am working on Saturdays, I can see the Jewish families walking home after services; I have been told that Orthodox Jewish people do not drive on the Sabbath since driving is considered work. As we convert to a high density, Smart Growth plan, I wonder what will happen if the new planning officials decide that there are not enough Jews in our community to deserve a synagogue within walking distance of their homes. Granted, we have a very small Jewish community here, but shouldn't they have the right to have a house of worship that is conveniently located so that they can fulfill the Torah requirements of not working (driving) on the Sabbath?
One of the problems with Smart Growth and New Urbanism is that it allows a handful of zoning officials to determine the standard of living for the entire community. El Paso is predominately Catholic, but our community also contains Protestants of all major denominations, non denominational evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. Who decides which houses of worship will be available and how many of each will be permitted in any given area? Who determines whether two Catholic churches is enough in a given area? Who decides that the group of ten evangelicals who want to meet on Sunday mornings is too small to justify being allowed a meeting place? Who decides that the mega church is too big and is taking up parking and resources that should be converted to green space? Church Architect Randy Bright has written extensively on the dangers that New Urbanism pose to religious liberty. He writes, "ultimately, this boils down to matter of who will control what goes into our cities, and as the planners almost universally accept the notion that human beings belong only in urban areas, and that churces don't have a place in urban areas, church facilities will eventually disappear from the urban environment--unless we are willing to fight to keep them there."
This weekend, if you choose to attend a religious service for either Passover or Easter, look at the building where you are meeting and think about the impact on your life if you could no longer meet together for worship. A client of mine from India who was born into a Hindu family, educated at Presbyterian schools, and is now an atheist, recently expressed to me that one of America's greatest strengths is the right of every person "to believe in whatever he or she wants to--or to believe in nothing at all." I agree with him, but I would take his statement one step further--it is not just our right to believe what we choose but to practice those beliefs as we choose, to share our faith in community with others and to teach our beliefs to our children. If we don't stand up for that freedom, we will lose it.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
I started this two part series with a post last week about how New Urbanism and zoning laws across the U.S. are challenging the ability of individual Americans to meet at home with other like-minded fellow citizens for worship, Bible study and prayer. Today I am finishing the series with a look at how we may be in the process of losing our right to meet for religious expression in any setting.
Few Americans seem to understand that the very existence of churches of all denominations is being threatened. Last year saw a record number of church foreclosures across the U.S., and that trend is expected to continue this year. Interestingly, many of the churches were not foreclosed on because they could not make the payments. Rather, many of the foreclosures happened because the church notes ballooned and the churches could not get their financing renewed and could not obtain new financing. Part of this phenomenon is a result of the overall drop in real estate values across the nation. During the boom years of 2006 and 2007 many churches expanded--unfortunately now the values of these renovated buildings have dropped off to little more than the balance of the note owed. Banks, who are finding themselves increasingly under pressure from regulators to clean up their balance sheets, do not want to extend the terms of these loans, which often balloon after five years, and so they call the note due and demand that the church pay the entire balance remaining on the loan. If the church is unable to come up with the money, the bank is completely within its legal rights to foreclose.
The loss of these facilities is particularly important to religious freedom, because typically existing buildings are grandfathered in under new zoning laws, but if the building is sold or changes ownership, or is damaged and has to be rebuilt, the new zoning ordinances apply. And many of these are not favorable to houses of worship.
In the U.S. we have been accustomed to enormous freedom of religion. Traditionally, if something happens to our church, we find a new one. Even if we belong to a tiny, minority faith population, if there are enough of us to be able to rent a facility, we can meet together. Sixteen years ago, I had the privilege of attending a Passover Seder led by a Messianic Jewish group in El Paso, Texas. The experience was fascinating, and one I will never forget. Although the regular congregation for this group was quite small--about 30 members, they were able to meet in a small building because together they were able to pay the rent to do so. But in the brave new world of New Urbanism, city planners decide where we can meet and when.
In Holly Springs, Mississippi, for example, Opulent Life Church, an African-American church with a congregation of about 20-25 people, has been denied the right to meet in a building it leased downtown. The church leased the building and then began working to get the permit, but the permit request was tabled by the Planning Commissioner because Holly Springs has an ordinance that requires that 60% of the people in the downtown area must approve the new house of worship before it can be allowed to relocate. Additionally, the mayor and a board of advisors must approve the request prior to the permit being issued. Liberty Institute took the church's case and sued in District Court for an injunction against the ordinance on the grounds that this ordinance does not apply to businesses or homes, but only to religious institutions. The District Court ruled against the church on the grounds that because the church is not meeting the capacity of its current building, the church is not suffering any harm through the denial of the right to move downtown. Liberty Institute has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The Holly Springs case is just the most recent as communities decide how big the churches can be and where they can be located. In Leon Valley, just outside of San Antonio, a small evangelical church has filed a lawsuit against the city because new zoning laws prohibit the church from using its building for Sunday morning worship services. The zoning board has ruled that churches cannot be located in retail zones. In Rolling Hills Estates, California, planning officials denied a permit to a church because the city banned churches from commercial areas. In some cases, churches are denied permits because they could be too close to businesses that sell alcohol and that would decrease the city's potential revenue from alcohol sales.
One major goal of the new zoning laws is to create density and to help cities generate revenue. Churches, which are tax-exempt, are not seen as revenue generators. And churches who participate in social welfare programs, such as feeding the homeless, are often seen as participating in activities that should be the responsibility of the government. In Houston, Texas, a church that had been feeding the homeless for over a year had to terminate its program when the city began to require permits that the church could not acquire. Homeless, indigent people are not part of the image that cities want, and churches who offer programs to help these people are often viewed as contributors to the problem.
New Urbanism, with its heavy emphasis on public transportation and mass transit, is often at odds with church requirements for parking. Even in cities that specifically include houses of worship in their master plan, the requirements for land can be onerous. Within urban areas, requirements that a church own at least a two acre tract of land or a 10 acre tract to accommodate a church with a gym can make it almost impossible for congregations to acquire a building.
But even when congregations are willing to go outside of the city limits, they may not find a place to worship out of the close watch of the planners. In 2002, Mollala Christian Church in Clackamas County, Oregon, bought farmland on the outskirts of town. The church went to work getting permits to build only to be told by the county planning director that churches are not allowed in the "Exclusive Farm Zone" which is within three miles of the Urban Growth Boundary. Urban Growth Boundaries are designed to keep development within the confines of certain areas--on the other side of the boundary no development is allowed. The church appealed the decision but the zoning director's decision was upheld because the soil was "high value farm land" and the state had a "compelling government interest" in ensuring that the land remained agricultural. Eventually, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty took the church's case and successfully argued that since the county was allowing construction of other types of structures in the Exclusive Farm Zone, including "community centers, wedding facilities, golf courses, wineries and farm stands" they were clearly discriminating against the church. County Commissioners agreed in a 2-1 vote.
Although the church was ultimately victorious in this case, we must remember that much of the zoning, Smart Growth and New Urbanism is coming to us from Oregon, and we can expect to see many more laws that mirror theirs. Former Yale Professor Randal O'Toole, now with the CATO institute, has written and spoken extensively on the subject of New Urbanism. In his book The Best Laid Plans-How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook and Your Future, O'Toole, writes that in Oregon a person cannot build his own home on his own land in the areas designated rural--95% of the state--unless he owns "at least 160 acres, actually farm(ed) the land and earned $40,000 to $80,000...farming it in two of the past three years." With restrictions like these in place, planning and zoning boards are not going to be open to tax exempt churches which build huge buildings, use air conditioning and heating, and require large amounts of parking.
All of these restrictions are going to profoundly affect the way we practice our faith in the U.S. If churches are not allowed to move from their existing buildings, they cannot hope to grow. As our society morphs into a society of high density, urban lifestyles where people rely on public transportation rather than individual cars, their ability to choose or change houses of worship will be dramatically altered. Even the operation of some churches will be affected. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) for instance, the bishop decides how big each house of worship (ward) should be. When he decides that the ward is too full, he assigns part of the families to a different ward. But if families do not have transportation and must rely on bus routes, how are they going to be able to comply with the bishop's orders?
I also think of other small faith populations. Not far from my office is a synagogue. If I am working on Saturdays, I can see the Jewish families walking home after services; I have been told that Orthodox Jewish people do not drive on the Sabbath since driving is considered work. As we convert to a high density, Smart Growth plan, I wonder what will happen if the new planning officials decide that there are not enough Jews in our community to deserve a synagogue within walking distance of their homes. Granted, we have a very small Jewish community here, but shouldn't they have the right to have a house of worship that is conveniently located so that they can fulfill the Torah requirements of not working (driving) on the Sabbath?
One of the problems with Smart Growth and New Urbanism is that it allows a handful of zoning officials to determine the standard of living for the entire community. El Paso is predominately Catholic, but our community also contains Protestants of all major denominations, non denominational evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. Who decides which houses of worship will be available and how many of each will be permitted in any given area? Who determines whether two Catholic churches is enough in a given area? Who decides that the group of ten evangelicals who want to meet on Sunday mornings is too small to justify being allowed a meeting place? Who decides that the mega church is too big and is taking up parking and resources that should be converted to green space? Church Architect Randy Bright has written extensively on the dangers that New Urbanism pose to religious liberty. He writes, "ultimately, this boils down to matter of who will control what goes into our cities, and as the planners almost universally accept the notion that human beings belong only in urban areas, and that churces don't have a place in urban areas, church facilities will eventually disappear from the urban environment--unless we are willing to fight to keep them there."
This weekend, if you choose to attend a religious service for either Passover or Easter, look at the building where you are meeting and think about the impact on your life if you could no longer meet together for worship. A client of mine from India who was born into a Hindu family, educated at Presbyterian schools, and is now an atheist, recently expressed to me that one of America's greatest strengths is the right of every person "to believe in whatever he or she wants to--or to believe in nothing at all." I agree with him, but I would take his statement one step further--it is not just our right to believe what we choose but to practice those beliefs as we choose, to share our faith in community with others and to teach our beliefs to our children. If we don't stand up for that freedom, we will lose it.
Alexandra Swann is the author of No Regrets: How Homeschooling Earned me a Master's Degree at Age Sixteen. For more information, visit her website at http://www.frontier2000.net/.
