(CNSNews.com) - As Virginia Republican senator and likely 2008 presidential candidate George Allen throws his support behind a proposed "National Heritage Area," property-rights advocates worry that he's advocating federal control over the land.

When a region of the country is designated as a National Heritage Area, Congress appoints a management entity made up of preservationist groups to work with the National Park Service to develop a management plan for the region. The stated goal is to create "large-scale, community-centered initiatives collaborating across political jurisdictions to protect nationally-important landscapes and living cultures."

In June, Allen announced his support for making a 175-mile stretch from Charlottesville, Va., to Gettysburg, Pa., a federally recognized "heritage area." If Congress passes the proposal, the region would become the 28th National Heritage Area.

Property rights groups worry that National Heritage Area designations could allow the federal government or preservationist groups - which can include staunch environmental activists - to usurp property rights and retard development.

"They're given very broad discretion in terms of what areas they want to target for preservation or acquisition," said Peyton Knight, the director of environmental and regulatory affairs at the National Center for Public Policy Research. "It basically translates into whatever these activists and the federal government deem appropriate, they can do."

Knight told Cybercast News Service that such a designation could "spell restricted land use and lost property rights for residents within the boundaries."

Brenda Barrett, national coordinator of National Heritage Areas for the Park Service, disputed Knight's claim. The federal government has no control over land use policies, she said, and management entities do not have the power to set land use regulations.

"The goal is to bring together partners at the state, local level and the national level to tell the same stories and to pool assets, not necessarily cash assets," Barrett said.

Barrett said the appointed management entity would "create a management plan, which is a little misleading, because it's not really a management plan, but it's a plan of partnership - who is going to work together, what are the stories we're going to tell, what are some of the actions we're going to take."

But Knight said the partnership between the federal government and preservationist groups creates the opportunity for "strong-arm" tactics that could coerce local governments to do the bidding of environmental groups.

"They don't have the power to change land use by themselves, but what they are given is millions of dollars in federal funding and the backing of the National Park Service to foist these changes through local legislatures, zoning boards, what have you," Knight said.

According to Knight, the federal involvement allows the management entity to say, "'we have the backing of the federal government on this. We have a massive amount of federal funding appropriated to us telling us to do this and now you need to do it.'"

He said the groups "strong-arm them and they are permitted to pass federal funds to local authorities in an effort to get them to do this, to get them to carry out their plan."

Barrett emphasized that Heritage Area legislation is "extremely clear that there are no land use or other requirements" imposed on the local governments in those areas and that none of the residents in existing areas have complained of curtailment of their property rights.

The current 27 National Heritage Areas include 40 million Americans' homes, and an additional 22 proposed Heritage Areas are being considered by Congress. Those facts, Barrett argued, show that Americans support the designation and aren't concerned that it puts property rights at risk.