A Great Place For News, But Not Your Blood Pressure.


Saturday, September 17, 2011

UPDATE "Aerotropolis" Is A Trojan Horse For A Green Agenda

The "Aerotropolis", as defined by 24th State.com, is a:

"bill (that) is a joint venture between Democrat Mayor Slay of St. Louis and Republican Speaker of the Missouri House Steven Tilley (R-Perryville) with the benefit of the tax credits going to developer Paul McKee. The area to receive the tax credits is a corridor running along highway 70 from St. Charles to downtown St. Louis--an area with 18 million square feet of available warehouse space. Trade with China is the incentive and the carrot to attract legislative support."

Many supporters of the "Aerotropolis" bill say it will help reduce the blighted and dilapidated warehouses while assisting the local economy at the same time.

While this all sounds nice and good, like a Trojan Horse, there is more to it than what you can see on the surface.

"Aerotropolis" was devised by a North Carolinian University Professor named Dr. John Kasarda. According to Dr. Kasarda's "Aerotropolis" website, he has received numerous awards including some from the United Nations Development Program.

"Aerotropolis" is being pushed as a global concept for "economic development", there is even a Federal "Aerotropolis" funding bill here in the U.S. that is languishing in Committee. But just like President Obama's idea of economic growth, "Aerotropolis" is supposed to be "Green". Dr. Kasarda even admits during an interview about his book, titled "Aerotropolis: The Way We'll Live Next", that "Aerotropolis" is supposed to be "sustainable environmentally" (comment starts at the 01:00 mark) :

If you dig deep inside the Missouri Senate version of "Aerotropolis", say page 54, you can see that it stays true to Dr Kasarda's vision of being "environmentally sustainable":

"The term "blighted area" shall also include any area which produces or generates or has the potential to produce or generate electrical energy from a renewable energy resource,"

So on what ever property the Sun Shines or the Wind Blows the city will be able to "blight" it so they can erect Solar Panels or Wind Turbines?

Yes and No.

I say that because those are not all of the 'things' the bill states can create electricity.

According to page 59, the "governing authority" will be able to "blight" a property in order to create a "Renewable Energy Generation Zone" so they can create electricity from things like crops or plant residue:

"Renewable energy generation zone", an area which has been found, by a resolution or ordinance adopted by the governing authority having jurisdiction of such area, to be a blighted area and which contains land, improvements, or a lock and dam site which is unutilized or underutilized for the production, generation, conversion, and conveyance of electrical energy from a renewable energy resource;

"Renewable energy resource", shall include:
(a) Wind;
(b) Solar thermal sources or photovoltaic cells and panels;
(c) Dedicated crops grown for energy production;
(d) Cellulosic agricultural residues;
(e) Plant residues; SCS SB 8 60
(f) Methane from landfills, agricultural operations, or waste water treatment;
(g) Thermal depoly merization or pyrolysis for converting was te material to energy;
(h) Clean and untreated wood such as pallets;
(i) Hydroelectric power, which shall include electrical energy produced or generated by hydroelectric power generating equipment, as such term is defined in section 137.010;
(j) Fuel cells using hydrogen produced by one or more of the renewable resources provided in paragraphs (a) to (i) of this subdivision; or
(k) Any other sources of energy, not including nuclear energy, that are certified as renewable by rule by the department of natural resources;"

So basically the Missouri "Aerotropolis" bill will allow the city to take any property they want, as long as it will be used to create a "Renewable Energy Generation Zone".

How is that possible?

Two Words......Supreme Court.

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the Supreme Court ruled that cities can use eminent domain for "economic development":

"U.S. Supreme Court rulings on property law don't often serve as clarion calls to wide swaths of the population. But most rulings aren't Kelo v. City of New London.

States long have had the power to condemn private property for such purposes as building highways or bridges. But in the 2005 Kelo ruling, the court held that governments also can take property for the purpose of promoting "economic development," a broader justification than the court had previously allowed."

By combining together 'Economic Development' and the 'Green Agenda' eminent domain becomes a tyrannical tool that can be used to take any property anywhere.

Coincidentally, the term "Renewable Energy Zone" was crafted in a bill titled "The New Apollo Energy Act of 2007". The Bill was created by Rep Jay Inslee, the Co-Founder of the Apollo Alliance, the same Apollo Alliance who wrote the first Stimulus and who's "New Apollo Program" is being used by the Obama Administration to Transform the U.S. into a "Green Collar" economy.

So while we thought "Aerotropolis" was all about tax credits and warehouses....

It's really just another Economic Trojan Horse..... hiding a Green Agenda.

Van and Darin contributed to this article.


Since the writing of this article a few things have been brought to my attention that, at first, made me feel the need to rewrite this article. But upon further reflection I decided to repost the article with an Update included.

First, the concept of "Aerotropolis" as envisioned by it's creator Dr. Kasarda is indeed an economic plan with a "Green" agenda, that is not in dispute.

Second the Missouri Senate Committee "Aerotropolis" bill, before it passed out of the Senate, does indeed include the text that I quoted above, that also is not in dispute.

What was in dispute is if that text in the bill would create a new version of 'eminent domain' or did that version already exist?

According to an expert who contacted me after the publishing of this article, the text I quote above from the Senate "Aerotropolis" bill is not a new creation of that bill, but instead is just quoting from an already existing statute that allows eminent domain to seize land in order to create "Renewable Energy Zones".

How can you tell?

Well in the Bill any text that is underlined or in Bold face is something that will be created by the Bill itself.

If the text is not underlined or in Bold face then it is considered to have been taken from an already existing statute.

The text I quoted from the Senate Committee Bill was not underlined or in Bold face so therefore it is not something that will be created by the Missouri "Aerotropolis" Bill, but is instead a statute that is already in existence.

Yes you read that right, it would appear that the power to use eminent domain in order to create a "Renewable Energy Zone" already exists, which is actually a much more disturbing realization than my first assertions that this power was created by the Missouri Bill.

I was not aware of the rule using underlined and bold face in bills and therefore made an improper assumption, I apologize.

The next question that needs to be answered is has eminent domain been used for such a purpose before and if so why have we never heard of it?

I hope to answer those questions in the near future..

No comments: