Subzones -
special
purpose
zones
within FTZ
zones
Intermodal
Commerce
zones
Apparently,
application
is made to
the
'Foreign
Trade
Zones
Board'
(see
below) for
zone
designation.
The zones
have a
'private
board'
that
chooses
who can
locate
within the
zone. The
Foreign
Trade Zone
is
designated
for
a class of
businesses
but they
can
request designations
of
subzones
within the
FTZ
for specific
purposes.
In other
words, the
Board of a
zone can
put
anything
they want
in a FTZ
as long as
the U.S.
Dept of
Commerce
grants the
subzone
status.
The
businesses
within the
zones are
highly
privileged
and
receive a
myriad of
benefits
from
elimination
tariffs
and taxes
to
preferences
on
government
contracts.
Businesses
outside
the
privileged
zones are
competing
at a
significant
disadvantage
to
businesses
within the
zones.
After
looking at
this, I
have to
say that I
can't
think of
anything
more
un-American
than these
zones.
It appears
that they
are
turning
our entire
country -
a piece at
a time
into
'foreign
zones'.
It makes
me wonder
if
Washington
DC was
designated
a 'foreign
trade
zone'
which
makes it
foreign
soil run
by
foreigners
the
applicant
of the
zone.
(Correction
1/11/2011)
- but
what
happened
with the
KC Smart
Port is
that the
manager
of the
zone
signed
an
agreement
with
Mexican
officials
to
locate a
Mexican
customs
office
in the
KC FTZ
and a
Mexican
customs
office -
would be
for all
intents
and
purposes
-
Mexican
soil.
Reference
http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/ConstitutionalLawyers.html
).
And that
feeling
was
amplified
when I
saw FTZ
208 on the
list:
208A
Pfizer,
Inc.
FTZ No.
208 New
London
Grantee:
New London
Foreign
Trade Zone
Commission
111 Union
Street,
New
London, CT
06320
Ned
Hammond
(860)
447-5203
Annual Report: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ftzpage/annualreport/ar-2005.pdfIt makes me think that there was a whole lot more to the Kelo vs New London case than we were led to believe. My guess would be that the "Foreign Trade Zone Board" (whoever the hell they are) created a Foreign Trade Zone in that area and gave Phizer the franchise. Because of the FTZ designation, it was really out of the hands of New London CT. So why didn't New London fight the designation (check their bank accounts and assets before and after)? Maybe it had something to do with New London being on the hit list during the last BRAC round of military facility closings? What I wonder was why the attorney representing the property owners in New London was fighting the city when he should have been challenging the 'Foreign Trade Zone' law.
According to this protest website that was created during the Kelo vs New London battle, "Phizer has already gotten 24 acres of prime waterfront land for $10. They were given a ten year 80% reduction in city real-estate taxes and $3,000,000/year reduction in sales taxes related to construction costs."
I found another organization promoting FTZ's. It's called NAFTZ.
It occurs to me that the U.S. Dept of Commerce could have designated the entire route for the Trans-Texas Corridor and the CANAMEX as 'Foreign Trade Zones' and put them under the control of a private board - like NASCO. If that's the case, and people try to fight to save their property based on eminent domain laws, they will lose because the designation of FTZ effectively creates a 'foreign island' on U.S. soil. I'm not an attorney but it seems to me that when a challenge is made, you have to direct the challenge to the source of the problem and not just a peripheral part of it.
Links
History of FTZ's
John J. Da Pont
Remarks for the NAFTZ 25th Annual
Wrapping up - consider this:
We have a 'Board' establishing foreign territory within the boundaries of the United States.
We have a 'Board' reviewing the sale of U.S. assets to foreigners without regard for national security (Remember Dubai?)
We have George H.W. Bush signing Executive Order 12803 ordering the sell-off of U.S. assets
DO WE GET IT YET?
|
1988
|
HISTORY
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an interagency committee chaired by the Department of Treasury, was authorized through the Exon-Florio Amendment to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (1988) to review and potentially block foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies that threaten to impair U.S. national security. Exon-Florio was not adopted to halt or slow foreign investment; rather, the Amendment solely focused on those transactions that implicate U.S. national security interests. "National security" was deliberately left undefined as to allow for the greatest presidential control and discretion when determining whether to block a transaction.
CFIUS includes the following 12 members: the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Secretaries of Treasury (Chair), State, Defense, Homeland Security and Commerce, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
|
|
1992 |
George H.W. Bush signed Executive Order 12803 calling for the sell off of U.S. infrastructure assets. This Executive Order was posted in only two places that the research could find. One was on the website of the trade association for the U.S. Water Industry [6]- no doubt because they plan to use the WTO trade agreements to try and force the sale of U.S. water supplies, systems and natural resources. The other website was Cornell University [7]. It's also posted here because Executive Order 12803 should be widely known especially after the Dubai Port debacle.
|
|
|
|