Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    Straight Talk About Planning – The Other Side of Sustainable Development

    Dear k,

    A group of friends and I got together over the 4th of July and at one point all agreed if 50% of Americans knew 20% of what was happening in Washington, we could clean up 100% of Congress and the administration!

    The numbers may be off a bit, but you get the idea. More independents need to understand how we are losing our rights and freedoms.

    When the party ended, I put together a 4 1/2 minute presentation explaining how sustainable planning 'takes' property rights. It is written to appeal to a broad audience. There is no mention of 'Our Common Future' or 'Agenda 21'. It is just straight talk about the importance of planning that respects individual rights as well as those of the community, and what happens when the balance is out of whack!

    In the last slide, I caution folks not to forget that planners are salespeople. Many of their disaster claims are merely unfounded marketing exaggerations.

    You can link to it by clicking on the screen shot below. Hope you find it helpful!


    Straight Talk About Planning – The Other Side of Sustainable Development

    July 11th, 2013 by John Anthony

    Published on Jul 11, 2013
    Most of us see sustainable development as helpful. In fact, sustainable development planning is costing people their property values and the grant money planners provide usually comes with strings that further limit property owners' rights while recasting the social makeup of your community.

    This video is a brief explanation of the caution everyone should apply before jumping into sustainable development plans. It also offers suggestions for doing your own community planning.

    Last edited by kathyet2; 07-16-2013 at 12:43 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Another article

    Patriot Outfoxes Shady Legislators

    July 11th, 2013 by John Anthony

    Wynne Coleman is a warrior. As conservative victories against progressive transformation grow, liberals are learning a hard lesson. Don’t mess with conservative women!

    On May 15, 2013, after months of tedious work, Wynne, aided by other concerned citizens, stopped House Bill 440, the North Carolina Benefit Corporation Act. Their success is enormous because it creates a template to defeat benefit corporation legislation throughout the nation. (More about benefit corporations below.)
    It is delicious because it proves that a passionate group of determined Americans can outmaneuver a band of clever and oh-so-slick politicians and lobbyists.
    The parliamentary maneuvering, late night meetings and political ‘newspeak’ by Democrats and Republicans designed to ram the Act through the legislature, echoes the same sting used in selling Obamacare.
    And, just as Obamacare ended Americans’ free choice in managing their health care, so too benefit corporations end business leaders’ free choice in earning and managing corporate profits.
    Benefit corporations are a legislatively approved corporate designation formed under the premise that companies will only provide sufficient public good if ‘benefit standards’ are created for them and policed by third party evaluators. (This premise ignores the value of jobs, salaries, dividends and the many community services corporations already provide.)
    All benefit corporations are required to file an annual report assessing their overall social and environmental performance against a third party standard. They are not necessarily certified. B-Corps are simply benefit corporations that have been certified by the third party evaluator. As you will see in a minute, either designation ultimately leads to certification.
    B-Lab, of Berwyn PA, operating under a $1 million grant from the progressive Rockefeller Foundation, is a prime third-party corporate evaluator. Initially, B-Lab and similar firms pressure states’ legislators, as they did in North Carolina, to support benefit corporations.
    Once benefit corporation legislation passes, the evaluators then lure companies to become certified with promises of discounted member services and the opportunity to ‘jump’ the line for licenses, permits and lucrative government contracts. Since evaluators like B-Lab are philosophically aligned with the anti-business, pro-control Obama administration, just guess what happens to non-B-Corps attempting to win federal or even state business. It is also only a matter of time before all benefit companies hop onto the certification bandwagon to remain competitive and to prevent losing out on the juicy benefits.
    Meanwhile, B-Lab charges up to $25,000 to enroll a company and ensure that members have, as the NCBCA says, “a material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole, as measured by a third party standard.” In other words, B-Lab creates the nebulous standards, enforces them and charges corporations and their stockholders for the privilege of being told what to do.
    But Wynne and her team were not about to let B-Lab or any other third-party evaluator destroy the business economy of North Carolina.
    In 2012, she informed legislators and attended meetings, managing to keep the first version NCBCA from getting out of committee. But, this did not deter the bill’s supporters.

    The following year lobbyists returned with a vengeance and filed the bill in both houses in an attempt to sweep the measure through before voters were aware of the consequences. While the sponsors of HB 440 and the accompanying SB 99 praised them as entrepreneurial bills benefitting society and promoting sustainability, Wynne saw through the smoke and mirrors.
    To make it even harder for citizens to follow the bill, its sponsors kept reassigning it to different committees. Again, Wynne’s group stayed in constant communication and challenged the deception at every turn by creating public comments to inform North Carolinians and friendly legislators of what was happening.
    Still the politicians persisted. In spite of their trickery being exposed, they continued to conduct backroom meetings and attempted to mislead fellow legislators by misrepresenting the effects of the bill on businesses and the community.
    Wynne and her team never stopped their relentless focus on exposing benefit corporations. Wynne kept her ear to the State house doors. There were times when she threw on her clothes in the middle of the night and hurried to catch unannounced meetings. In this way she was able to assure that no bill was passed without all legislators and the public being aware.
    The work paid off. On May 15, 2013 when the final vote was taken, HB 440 was defeated 60 to 52. While there were smiles on their faces, Wynne and her team know never to rest on their victories.
    Benefit corporations are nothing more than the first step in a ‘greenmail’ scheme that, marks out ‘favored’ companies for government contracts, siphons business profits for loosely defined ‘public benefits’ programs and diminishes shareholders’ control.
    Thanks to people like Wynne Coleman and her team, North Carolina has received a temporary reprieve from benefit corporations. More importantly she has exposed their destructive nature and provided a strategy of relentless pursuit that can be used to stop the spread of this anti-free enterprise legislation across the United States.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    The Post Sustainability Institute / Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 and Freedom Advocates are launching a legal challenge to PLAN BAY AREA/ONE BAY AREA (click for a pdf of the Plan) PLAN BAY AREA is an aggressive implementation of UN Agenda 21's "islands of human habitation." We believe that Priority Development Areas are the new wave of implementation of UN Agenda 21 in regional plans. This prototype, when adopted in the San Francisco Bay Area, could then move across the United States. We need your help to fight this. DONATE.

    PLAN BAY AREA is an all-encompassing land use and transportation plan that regionalizes all 9 counties and 101 cities of the San Francisco Bay Area by limiting new construction to specific locations (only 4% of the land area) and requiring high density development: more apartments and condos on top of shops. If cities want federal and state transportation dollars they will have to agree to this Sustainable Communities Strategies plan.


    PLAN BAY AREA violates both the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The 5th amendment guarantees property owners the right to just compensation, and the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection.

    PLAN BAY AREA violates voter-approved urban growth boundary ordinances. Even though voters all over the Bay Area have voted to determine where their urban growth boundaries should be, PLAN BAY AREA actually nullifies these boundaries by restricting development to very small locations in just some cities. The plan dictates that 80% of future residential and 66% of future commercial development must be built in these Priority Development Areas. If you own property, any property whether it’s a house or an office building, outside of the PLAN BAY AREA 4% Priority Development Area you may not be able to add a granny unit, add on to your building, or develop your lot. PLAN BAY AREA is valid for 25 years! Radical building restrictions lasting for over a generation will cripple land value and your ability to start and maintain your business or residential plans. For a pdf of the MAP please click here--orange areas are Priority Development Areas.

    The only lawsuit which can block the implementation of Plan Bay Area is one that challenges the PLAN itself. Together, Michael Shaw of Freedom Advocates, and Rosa Koire of the Post Sustainability Institute have spearheaded this fight.

    We can do this! Together. To participate in this historic lawsuit please send your generous check to:
    Post Sustainability Institute
    P O Box 15192
    Santa Rosa, CA 95402
    Please put "Lawsuit" on the memo line. All funds will be used for legal services on this lawsuit.
    To donate using your credit card please click on the DONATE button above.



    PLAN BAY AREA violates the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution by taking property rights without just compensation. By the creation of Priority Development Areas, this Plan restricts 80% of residential development and 66% of commercial development to just a few small areas of your city--until the year 2040. If your property is outside of the PDA (96% of property is outside) you will likely not be able to build or expand your building--and you won't be paid for this loss.

    PLAN BAY AREA violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution--the Equal Protection Clause. Owners of properties in the Priority Development Areas will receive development permits at a rate of approximately 80 times more than owners of property outside of the Priority Development Areas.

    PLAN BAY AREA violates voter-approved Urban Growth Boundary ordinances. Because the Priority Development Areas are within the UGBs but are much smaller restricted areas they are in violation of ordinances that clearly state that development must be encouraged out to the limits of city services: Urban Growth Boundaries. These ordinances are found throughout the Bay Area and cannot be changed without voter approval.

    PLAN BAY AREA permanently strips all development rights from rural properties in the nine county Bay Area. Plan Bay Area is effectively taking conservation easements on all rural lands without paying for them.

    PLAN BAY AREA restricts development rights of property within the Priority Development Areas, too. Construction will be limited to mixed-use high density Smart Growth development. Existing buildings are likely to be out of compliance with your city's General Plan (legal non-conforming) and permits to make additions or changes will likely not be granted.

    PLAN BAY AREA says that cities don't have to comply with it but that is a lie. If your city wants state or federal transportation dollars over the next 28 years, it will have to comply with PLAN BAY AREA. Cities have already created Priority Development Areas in compliance with PLAN BAY AREA.

    PLAN BAY AREA affects every property owner in the entire nine county 101 city Bay Area. Only the 1% big developers with their connections to elected and appointed officials will take advantage of tax credits and subsidies.

    Rosa Koire, The Post Sustainability Institute, and Michael Shaw, Freedom Advocates are launching a legal action to stop PLAN BAY AREA. Their legal team is compiling the cause of action and writing objections to be entered into the legal record. Legal action is the only way to stop PLAN BAY AREA.

    TO DONATE TO THE LAWSUIT: Make checks payable to Post Sustainability Institute (put Legal Fund in memo line), PO Box 15192, Santa Rosa, CA 95404

    The Post Sustainability Institute is a 501 c4 non-profit. Donations are not tax deductible. All funds will be used for this legal action only.

    Other supporters include: Orlean Koehle, Eagle Forum; Heather Gass, East Bay TEA Party; Jim Bennett, North Bay Independent; and many US property rights groups

    Through our attorneys it has recently come to light that PLAN BAY AREA will be exempt from CEQA (Environmental Impact Report) requirements because underlying area plans have already been completed in the affected areas known as Priority Development Areas (PDAs). Completion of these underlying area plans along with their accompanying EIRs were a requirement in order for areas to quality as PDAs and to be eligible for the One Bay Area Grant program, OBAG.

    Why is this important? Because an effort is already underway to ask people to donate to a fund challenging the Environmental Impact Report. In fact, PLAN BAY AREA has a Program EIR---an overall EIR. The areas impacted by PLAN BAY AREA have already have existing EIRs in place. These will be the real basis for local plans. The EIR being prepared by the MTC and ABAG is only being done to deceive the public and distract them from the real issues of the plan's unconstitutionality. A legal challenge to the PLAN BAY AREA EIR will fail to stop PLAN BAY AREA.


    Ernst Huber, official Nazi Party spokesman, 1933

    'All property is common property. The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods. His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community. '

    Nazi Land Philosophy:

    The issue of land ownership is secondary; what counts is the issue of control. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property--so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.
    Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 1982


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    Residents and Officials Reject New Jersey Planning Region

    July 13th, 2013 by John Anthony

    Freeholders from Warren County New Jersey were under pressure to accept grant money from the newly formed NGO, ‘Together New Jersey.’ TNJ is quickly moving to create a single region out of 13 northern NJ counties.
    The first step for Warren officials was to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreeing for the county to join Together New Jersey and share in a $5 million grant. But, local residents, spearheaded by Susan Price, saw trouble.
    TNJ would be operated by a consortium of non-elected officials who portion grant money to member counties. Since recipients are wholly bound by stipulations attached to the money, in effect, local freeholders lose much of their authority.
    Susan’s group saw another problem. Sustainable regions create a layer of governance whose regulations supersede local authority. Residents want to be able to go to their elected officials, knowing they can help them with local zoning and planning issues. With the inclusion in a regional sustainable development program, local officials’ hands would be tied.
    Warren residents spent weeks meeting with officials reviewing the MOU. The very first and last paragraphs of provide some insight into their concerns:
    BACKGROUND: In June 2009, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) joined with the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency to create an Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities. In the context of the federal partnership, HUD created the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program in an effort to support metropolitan and multijurisdictional planning efforts that integrate housing, land use, economic and workforce development, transportation, infrastructure plans and to empower jurisdictions to consider the interdependent challenges of economic growth and revitalization, access to opportunity, public health, and environmental impact simultaneously.”
    “SIGNATURE: This MOU shall become effective upon signature by a duly authorized representative of the entity wishing to become a member of TOGETHER NORTH JERSEY. By signing this MOU, the entity agrees to join the TOGETHER NORTH JERSEY and comply with the provisions of the MOU.”
    Warren officials realized they would be joining a HUD-DOT-EPA aligned, centralized planning group with little say in outcomes. Members would be bound by restrictive provisions attached to the federal grant money they received.
    While counties can withdraw from Together New Jersey, exiting members would be required to return their grant money, which could prove difficult, if not impossible. As one official said, “grant money is like heroin. Once people get it, they just want more.”
    After reading the document, freeholders agreed that signing it “would not be in the best interests of our community members.”
    Officials from other counties who did sign are disillusioned. One member remarked in confidence, “We are not sure how Warren figured it out. But [Together New Jersey] is not what we thought. It is going to end up costing us money we don’t have.”
    Thanks to alert residents like Susan Price and open-minded public officials working together, Warren County, New Jersey put their community members first and rejected Together New Jersey.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    For those of you who don't not know what Agenda 21 and or sustainable development is here is a refresher course for you to read...

    Sustainable Development

    In One Easy Lesson

    Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won’t read detailed reports or watch long videos. “Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out,” I’m asked.
    So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I’ve also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.
    A word of caution, use this as a starter kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That’s how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.
    What is Sustainable Development?
    According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.
    Social Equity (Social injustice)
    Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social injustice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.
    Economic Prosperity
    Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of
    Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.
    Local Sustainable Development policies
    Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, “Going Green,” Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.
    Who is behind it?
    ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.
    Where did it originate?
    The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.
    What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?
    More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.
    Revealing Quotes From the Planners
    “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… ” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases – DR
    Urgent to implement – but we don’t know what it is!
    “The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
    “No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
    Agenda 21 and Private Property
    “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.
    “Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.
    “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.
    Reinvention of Government
    “We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development
    “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
    “We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.
    What is not sustainable?
    Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.
    Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people
    “Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.
    “False Choice” – How Sustainable Development is Transforming Property Rights *NEW!*
    U.S. House of Representatives Approves Participation in Agenda 21
    In this October 2, 1992 session, the House of Representatives passed HC 353, a resolution calling for the U.S. to assume a strong leadership role in implementing the sustainable development recommendations of the Rio Earth Summit including Agenda 21. Hear sponsors E. Engel (D-NY), N. Pelosi (D-CA) and W. Bloomfield (R-MI).
    EPA Locks up 61% of WA State Farmland
    How Agenda 21 Affects Your Property Rights:
    Explanation of The Wildlands Project:
    Downloadable Documents
    (Scroll down to see the categories below)

    1. Understanding Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
    2. Tracing the History of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
    3. Legislation Addressing the Threat of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
    4. Taking Action to Expose Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
    5. Examples of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development’s Impact on Property Rights
    6. Links to United Nations Websites
    7. Sources for Further Information

    1. Understanding Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
    A Sustainable Development Q&A
    This simplified Q&A answers basic questions about how a seemingly good idea like sustainable development can be bad for private property owners.
    Unraveling the “Sustainability” Paradox
    This single sheet makes the step by step connection between UN Agenda 21, sustainable development, Smart Growth and local planning activities. It includes sources so you can do your own checking.
    The “Sustainability” Solution
    Citizens can present the following two page document to their public officials. It contains suggestions for how to protect the rights of property owners and still keep the environment safe.
    Example of How Conservation Easements can be Detrimental to Property Owners
    While conservation easements are widely praised as a way to save the environment and keep property rights, in fact, in the long term they often do neither. The article, “Big Meadows, Big Mistake” tells the “rest of the story” on Conservation Easements.
    7 Facts You Should Know About Conservation Easements
    These are facts you need to know before entering into a Conservation Easement Agreement.
    The Hazards of Conservation Easements
    Here are more details about the pitfalls of Conservation Easements.
    2. Tracing the History of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
    The UN Conference on Human Settlements – Vancouver Plan of Action – 1976
    This conference created the baseline for the UN’s viewpoint and future actions regarding individual property rights. See pdf page 2 [document page 28] under, Land – Preamble, for their stance on private property. This position is reflected in policies being enacted across the U.S. today.
    Excerpt from The Brundtland Commission Report: “Our Common Future” Defining Sustainable Development
    This definition easily identifies UN Agenda 21 related initiatives as it traversed from various reports to the U.S and into our federal agencies. The full report can be found here.
    Jeb Brughmann Founds ICLEI to Implement Agenda 21 Worldwide in Local Communities
    In this candid 1997 interview, ICLEI founder explains how he was tapped to create an organization to “make sure this agreement [Agenda 21/sustainable development] among nations actually will get implemented…”
    The United Nations Rio Declaration from Agenda 21
    The Rio Declaration outlines the framework of Agenda 21. It was agreed to by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, thereby establishing official recognition of Agenda 21 by the U.S.. The complete 40 chapter United Nation’s Agenda 21 report can be found here.
    Executive Order 12852
    President Clinton signed Executive Order 12852 in 1993, which created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Here is a copy of that Executive Order.
    Institutional Aspects of Sustainable Development in the United States of America
    This UN document shows that the President’s Council on Sustainable Development was created for the purpose of implementing Agenda 21 in the U.S..
    The Millennium Papers
    This article in the Millennium Papers describes how the name Agenda 21 was replaced with terms such as Smart Growth, Growth Management and Comprehensive Planning to prevent Americans from recognizing the connection to the United Nations. See highlighted page 5.
    Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program – Federal Register
    These pages from the Federal Register clearly indicate that the EPA’s Challenge Grant Program was created for the purpose of implementing Agenda 21 in the U.S.. See the highlighted section on page 2.
    EPA: The Path Forward
    This scientific document shows, under the highlighted section,s how the EPA today still follows the basic definitions of sustainable development as defined by the UN’s Brundtland Commission, in their newest decision making process.
    HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities
    In 2009, these three federal agencies partnered using ‘livability’ principles to gain greater involvement in local planning and regulations. Read the ‘Livability Principles” and the “Partnership Agreement.” Notice the affect the federal government can have on your community. See more below.
    HUD NOFA – Sustainable Regional Planning Grants 2010
    This HUD Notice of Funds Available clearly shows that along with the grant money come mandates and requirements for social engineering in the form of social equity.
    Executive Order 13575
    Pres. Obama signed this EO in June of 2011 giving each of the Federal agencies authority over the “food, fiber and energy” for all of rural America or 16% of the US. Control of resources is a key requirement of sustainable development as it enables the governing authority the power to manage their useage more efficiently than individuals and communites.
    Executive Order 13602
    In March 2012, Pres. Obama signed this EO giving HUD the authority to engage in city, community and regional planning to “augment their vision for stability and economic growth…” This EO insures that “Federal assistance is more efficiently provided and used.” HUD now has the ability to create regulations to enforce that local and regional planning the government feels is beneficial to the fiscal stability of the US.
    The Partnership for Sustainable Communities
    This partnership is changing the landscape of rural America. Once allowed into your community, the HUD-DOT-EPA partnership defines what qualities your “liveable” locality must include. More transportation choices invariably means more light rail transit and bicycles. The government defines the character, context and needs of each community with token input from citizens. Social enguineering is inherent in what the government calls, “equitable housing, sustainable strategies and value communities.” Most of the plans look appealing in slide presentations, but, once implemented, local citizens are stuck with regulations imposed by the government that offer little future variation and minimal if any opportunity to return to a way of living you may find more desirable. As one planner said, “You will be able to live in a rural area if you want to…but it will cost you.”
    Partnership for Sustainable Communities – Top Down Control
    Here, in friendly sounding terms, the Secretaries of HUD, DOT and the EPA make it clear the federal government intends to manage your commuunity design, make it livable and environmentally green, all according to their needs and definitions. Each of the projects and grants, though verbally and graphically enticing, precisely echo the Vancouver Plan of Action. The results are exactly as defined in Vancouver in 1976.
    EPA - EJ2014 or Environmental Justice 2014
    In January of 2012, the EPA changed their decision making process to embrace sustainable development as defined in the UN’s 1987 Brundtland Report. In April 2012, the agency created plans to incorporate civil rights regulations in their environmental policy to establish a basis for environmental justice.

    3. Legislation Addressing the Threat of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
    RNC Resolution Exposing United Nations Agenda 21 – January 13, 2012
    In January, 2012, the Republican National Committee unanimously approved an historic resolution exposing the dangers of United Nations Agenda 21, ICLEI and the loss of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership, individual travel choices and privately owned farms under the banner of “sustainable development” and Smart Growth.
    For the first time, the leadership of one of the two major American political parties acknowledged that so-called “social justice” is robbing our society and the environment and replacing our sovereignty with a socialist/communist wealth redistribution scheme. Please read this document carefully and share it freely.
    Wisconsin Assembly Bill 303
    This bill enables the repeal of local comprehensive plans found to tamper with individual’s property rights.
    New Hampshire Bill 1634
    New Hampshire’s bill prevent the state, counties, cities and towns from contracting with or accepting money from ICLEI, a large non-governmental orgnaization[NGO] implementing Agenda 21 throughout the U.S.
    New Hampshire Bill 514
    This bill prevents federal agents from inspecting or gathering information on private property wtihout a warrant.
    Tennessee Bill HJR 587
    This bill rejects the radical policies promoted by United Nation’s Agenda 21 and rejects any grant monies attached to the UN’s program.
    Bonner County, ID Property Rights Council
    The Property Rights Council provides a committee to review planning documents and agreements prior to acceptance to assure that property owner’s rights are not exploited by planners or governmental agencies. For further information, go here.
    Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012 (S.2122)
    The EPA, under the Clean Water Act, expanded its control over citizen’s private property by redefining navigable waters to include certain artificially irrigated areas, artificial lakes and ponds used for irrigation, non-navigable tributaries to navigable waters, wetlands abutting relatively permanent waters and more. This bill defines “navigable” waters as those that are actually “navigable.”
    Alabama Protects Private Property Rights from Agenda 21 Intrusions (SB477)
    This bill prohibits Alabama and its political subdivisions from adopting environmental and developmental policies that, without due process, infringe or restrirct private property rights of property owners. Further, it prohibits policies that are traceable to “Agenda 21″ as adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development.
    Florida Bill Protects Private Property Rights
    This Florida bill protects all state subdivisions from adopting any developmental policies that, without due process, infringe or restrict the private property rights of the property owner. It specifically mentions any policy recommendations traceable to Agenda 21 as adopted by the UN at the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development. This would include those policies recommended by Non-Governmental Organizations and Federal Agency regulations that are Agenda 21 related.

    4. Taking Action to Expose Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
    What You Can do to Stop Sustainable Development – Agenda 21
    This handout provides information and links that will help you get active in stoppng Agenda 21/Sustainable Development in your community.
    The Coordination Strategy
    The Coordination Strategy can slow or stop planning processes that may endanger individual property rights. Most federal agencies are required by law to coordinate their plans that will impact the local community with local governments. Often this does not happen as most local governmens are not aware of this requirement, or do not know how to implement the process. When local governments assert coordination authority, the federal agencies must respond.
    APA’s Agenda 21: Myths and Facts Revisited
    Recently, the American Planning Association circulated a fact sheet titled, Agenda 21: Myths and Facts. The APA is a large and highly respected planning organization, that often does exemplary work. But their “fact” sheet is rife with distortions, misconceptions and inaccuracies. This document provides information to respond to the APA’s errors.
    APA’s Glossary for the Public
    The American Planning Association, rather than address critics’ concerns for private property rights, chose to re-brand their information by creating a new vocabulary. This transparent attempt to confuse the public while making it easier to implement their own chosen plans sidesteps citizens’ genuine concern for individual rights.

    5. Examples of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development’s Impact on Property Rights
    Form-Based Code is the Problem, Not the Solution
    Form-based codes are a programmed method for replacing existing zoning regulations with boilerplate zoning and development code models. They make it easier to implement Agenda 21 type plan enforcement. Form-based codes often replace the need for local zoning ordinances and reduce the role of public officials. Once installed, form-based codes become the new laws governing a wide range of activities in your community.
    Form Based Code Planning Guide
    Here is the introduction to a book describing form-based codes. When promoting this method of codification, promoters often show audiences live PowerPoint presentations of their current community followed by dazzling pictures of what their town can become. Most citizens are so impressed with the stunning design work, they overlook the draconian regulations and potential loss of rights that accompany the plans. Notice the fifth paragraph on page 14 in which Peter Katz, Pres. of the Form-Based Codes Institute, describes how to use the “charette” process to manipulate public responses.

    6. Links to United Nations Websites
    Action Plan from the Vancouver Conference on Human Settlements – 1976*
    *Note the Preamble to “Land” under section “D”
    United Nations Agenda 21
    Brundtland Commission Report – “Our Common Future”*
    *Note Chapter Two – “Towards Sustainable Development.”
    Rio + 20 “The Future We Want – Zero Draft of Outcomes”
    Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development

    7. Sources for Further Information
    America Don’t Forget
    American Policy Center
    American Stewards
    CO2 Science
    Conservative Society for Action
    Democrats Against UN Agenda 21
    Freedom Advocates
    Sovereignty International
    Taking Liberty

    More Articles to Read

    Top Climate Change Figure Calls Sustainable Development “Meaningless Drivel!”
    EPA Uses New “Sustainability” Method for Regulatory Decision Making
    Sustainable Development: What’s in A Name?
    EPA “Urban Green Grants” Cover Environmental Justice
    EPA Ignored Own Guidelines in Declaring CO2 A Threat
    Last edited by kathyet2; 07-16-2013 at 12:50 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts