This blog has been created to accommodate Otero County residents discussion of designation
of WHITE SANDS NATIONAL MONUMENT as a WORLD HERITAGE SITE. Opinion both pro and con are welcome. Please keep your comments CIVIL. It is your choice to use your ‘real’ name. Please join in the discussion.
Filed under: WHITE SANDS NATIONAL MONUMENT, World Heritage Sites
Will the circle be unbroken?
The focus of my research on UNESCO World Heritage Sites is on the NGOs or non-governmental organizations on the theory that it is “not what you know but who you know”.
Here is a drill I went through today and interestingly enough, it took me in a complete circle back to the World Bank, an original sponsor of UNESCO.
Article 8 of the UNESCO Convention (http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/) lists three NGOs. ICCROM, the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, came into being a the 9th UNESCO General Conference in New Delhi in 1956. “ICCROM is an intergovernmental organization being the only institution with a worldwide mandate to promote conservation…ICCROM aims at improving the quality of conservation as well as raising people’s awareness of it in all walks of life, schoolchildren and politicians alike.”
A reading of the Records of the General Conference in New Delhi, 1956, shows “This Board shall consist of four staff members…and shall have a Chairman nominated by the President of the International Court of Justice.”
The UNESCO site states at 1.16 International Court of Justice:
“The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.” Currently, the United States is represented on this court by Thomas Buergenthal.
Thomas Buergenthal’s biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Buergenthal lists him as a judge of the Inter-American Development Bank’s Administrative Tribunal.
Inter-American Development Bank “cooperates with the International Monetary Fund (IMF)…and often works with the World Bank to cofinance county policy reforms…” http://www.iadb.org/aboutus/VI/international.cfm?language=English
Could this circle be a coincidence?
You decide.
The two other NGO’s are ICOMOS and IUCN. ICOMOS had a meeting in New Mexico this summer. They went to Chaco Canyon and Aztec Ruins. These NGOs are easy to find with a simple search of the acronym. You might even find folks you know listed as members. I did. More on these two later.
IMPORTANT
Subject: VERY IMPORTANT Coalition Letter Follow-up A chance to be involved National Heritage Areas
If you’d like to be included, just email your name and title and affiliation
(if applicable). to David Ridenour dridenour@nationalcenter.org
—– Original Message —–
From: David Ridenour
To: David Ridenour
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:52 PM
Subject: Coalition Letter Follow-up
There’s still time to sign our coalition letter on National Heritage
Areas.
You’re receiving this email because we haven’t received your
response. If you’ve already signed onto the coalition letter and are
receiving this email in error, please accept my apology. I’d be
grateful if you would let me know so I can make sure you are on the
final list.
Several weeks ago, the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources approved 10 National Heritage Area bills. National
Heritage Areas give Washington the means of controlling local land-
use decisions while creating another avenue for politicians to funnel
millions of dollars in pork home to their districts.
Most Americans aren’t aware of the problem. The attached coalition
is part of an effort to educate the public and policymakers about
this important policy issue.
I’d be very grateful if you’d consider signing it and I’d be very
grateful if you’d let me know within the next few days. If you’d
like to be included, just email your name and title and affiliation
(if applicable).
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
David A. Ridenour
Vice President
The National Center for Public Policy Research
501 Capitol Court, NE #200
Washington, DC 20002
Tel. (202)543-4110
Fax (202)543-5975
*****National Heritage Area Coalition Letter******
Dear XXXXX:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London ignited a
national outcry against government abuse of property rights. The
“bridge to nowhere” and other wasteful programs triggered angry
protests against the practice of earmarking.
National Heritage Areas are the Kelo decision and earmarks rolled
into one.
National Heritage Areas are preservation zones where land use and
property rights can be restricted. They give the National Park
Service and preservation interest groups (many with histories of
hostility toward property rights) substantial influence by giving
them the authority to create land use “management plans” and then the
authority to disburse federal money to local governments to promote
their plans.
As a March 2004 General Accountability Office report on National
Heritage Areas states: “[National Heritage Areas] encourage local
governments to implement land use policies that are consistent with
the heritage areas’ plans, which may allow the heritage areas to
indirectly influence zoning and land use planning in ways that could
restrict owners’ use of their property.”
The proposed “Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area
Act” provides a good case study on how such designations can be self-
perpetuating federal pork and influence projects.
The chief lobbying organization for this National Heritage Area, the
Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, received a $1 million
dollar earmark in the 2005 federal transportation bill at the behest
of Members of Congress sponsoring legislation to establish this
heritage area — an earmark that was granted before the organization
was even incorporated. A million-dollar earmark thus was issued to
help create a steady stream of future pork, at the expense of the
rights of local landowners.
We believe zoning and land use policies are best left to local
officials, who are directly accountable to the citizens they
represent. National Heritage Areas corrupt the principle of
representative government and this inherently local function by
giving unelected, unaccountable special interests the authority to
develop land management plans and federal money with which to finance
their efforts.
Once established, National Heritage Areas become permanent
units of the National Park Service, and as such, permanent drains on
an agency that currently suffers a multibillion-dollar maintenance
crisis. According to the GAO, “sunset provisions have not been
effective in limiting federal funding [for National Heritage Areas]:
since 1984, five areas that reached their sunset dates received
funding reauthorization from the Congress.”
Supporters of new National Heritage Areas have the public will
precisely backward: Americans want stronger property rights
protections and less pork-barrel spending – not more earmarks to
programs that harm property rights.
For most members: [Please do not support the creation of additional
national heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area
management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for or
advocate the creation of new heritage areas.]
For Representative Bartlett: [Thank you for your leadership on this
important issue and for not backing down from your commitment to
protecting private property rights.]
Sincerely,