Author Archives: Admin

HUD Grants Threaten To Destroy The Fabric Of American Cities

From Technocracy News:

One year ago, the New York Post released “Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database.“ In fact, his “secret race database” was merely a subset of the massive data collection scheme hatched by George W. Bush when he established the Office Of The Director Of National Intelligence in 2005. The DNI restructured all US intelligence agencies to create a unified data collection behemoth. The NY Post concluded, “Obama is presiding over the largest consolidation of personal data in US history.”

The first political use of this massive data base is Obama’s HUD grant program. The NY Post noted this in 2015:

“Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs, and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD’s maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites.” [emphasis added]

Tom’s article analyzes the details of Obama’s nefarious plan to use HUD to destroy the very fabric of American cities. ⁃ TN Editor

If you still do not understand what’s in your master plan and why, you’d better read the full article here:

HUD Grants Threaten To Destroy The Fabric Of American Cities

Taking Money from HUD Makes Lawsuits More Likely

The latest from John Anthony at Property Value Defense…

HUD’s Rickety World of Worthless Words
When public officials first learn how HUD’s new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule can force communities to overturn voters’ decisions and ignore their own zoning laws, often their first comment is, “Let’s check with HUD. We can’t afford to lose the grant money.”

Officials are rightly worried. HUD’s own documents show the agency has markedly increased their legal actions against grant recipients.

But, according to the Ninth Circuit Court, assurances from federal agency representatives may not be worth much:

In 1999, Big Meadows Grazing of Flathead County, Montana entered into a conservation easement with the US. Department of Agriculture. Prior to signing the contract, agency representatives assured Big Meadows that both parties would participate in restoration activities on the “eased” land. They estimated a needed riparian fix would cost $80,000. The government even provided a “manual” outlining the intended work and relationship.

Several months later, over Big Meadows’ objections, the government completed a massively larger “fix” than discussed, and billed the grazing association for $486,000. Outraged at what they considered deception, Big Meadows sued the government.

The results were devastating.

The court decided that “the Manual cannot bind the government because it… [was not] promulgated according to the Administrative Procedure Act.” As for the assurances of cooperation from government representatives, the court was blunt, “We will not review allegations of noncompliance with an agency statement that is not binding on the agency.”

Assurances, written notes and even manuals offered by federal representatives, unless they are in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, which includes entry into the Federal Register, are nothing more than non-binding words.

As Big Meadows learned, those words can be costly.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is a binding rule with the force of law. It relies on grassroots civic groups and legal advocates to compel local communities to bend their zoning laws to the government’s will.

Worse, as Douglas County, CO discovered, HUD’s legal requirements are a moving target, hard to define and harder to hit.

No matter what your HUD representative says, in a court of law, it is the contract that matters.

If HUD Says This, Call Your Attorney

HUD representatives offer grantee communities much AFFH advice. Some is valuable and others misleading. Here are the two most frequently cited remarks our members have shared regarding HUD advice, and PVD’s response.

HUD comment:
“Our HUD representative told us we did not have to worry about our Community Development Block Grant funds under AFFH, because our community has a much different situation than Westchester County.” (Westchester was the first county sued under the False Claims Act for failure to affirmatively further fair housing. It became the basis for HUD’s new litigious direction.)

PVD response:
Every jurisdiction that has faced HUD actions from compliance reviews to lawsuit intervention is unique. Westchester County, Marin County, Rockford, IL, Dubuque IA, among many others are each different situations resulting in various legal actions based on the False Claims Act, supposed civil rights violations and Disparate Impact issues.

To suggest that your community can accept CDBG grants that fall under AFFH with little concern because it is unique is misleading.

HUD comment:
“AFFH should not be a large concern because your community is already in compliance.”

PVD response:
There is little way for HUD to know if you are in compliance until you complete the new Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Even then, according to the Federal Register, HUD’s acceptance of an AFH “does not mean that HUD has determined that a jurisdiction has complied with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing under the Fair Housing Act; has complied with other provisions of the Act; or has complied with other civil rights laws, regulations or guidance.” §5.162(a)(2)

In addition, AFFH requires that instead of refraining from discrimination in housing as in the past, fund recipients must now work to end it by taking steps that go far beyond the construction of affordable housing.

Finally, HUD’s new expansive interpretation of the Fair Housing Act allows the agency to oversee community economic diversity, classroom socioeconomic diversity, encourage planned communities to foster upward mobility for low-income families and involve the Department of Transportation to assist in reducing poverty by “establishing access points for opportunity and mobility.”

Using AFFH as a platform, HUD has expanded affordable housing into large scale social engineering.

Stay informed and stay in control,
John Anthony, Founder
Sustainable Freedom Lab and Property Value Defense

Visit PVD on FaceBook and consider donationg to John’s group, as with Tom DeWeese, they provide the results of major research into what is happening with this situation.

*Neither PVD nor Sustainable Freedom Lab are attorneys. This email is not intended to provide legal advice. As always consult your legal advisors before entering into any agreement with the federal government or any other entities.

Attack on NH Farmers Continues

A land use dispute on Henniker’s Mount Hunger Road continues, and both sides are calling in attorneys.

Stephen Forster, a Christmas tree farmer who hosts weddings on his 110-acre farm, is planning to take the town back to court after the zoning board decided the planning board erred in granting Forster a conditional use permit.

Forster, through his attorneys at BCM Environmental and Land Law, filed the motion for rehearing right before the deadline of July 15, which was 30 days after the decision was made.

The zoning board, which is not scheduled to meet until Aug. 17, has 30 days from the date of the filing to hold a public meeting, where members will review the submission and decide if there is new evidence to constitute a rehearing.

Forster says the zoning board was “unreasonable and unlawful, and totally negated the article the legislative body voted in.”

Read more…

What Are Complete Streets?

Here is an invitation to a presentation on Complete Streets movement, a which was inspired by the US’s goal to effectively enforce the UN’s MDGs and SDGs.

If you live in this area, you are certainly going to want to attend this breakfast.

Please note at the bottom, the numerous NON-governmental groups that are promoting this, who represent the various aspects of your lives that the government hopes to control. Too fat? Complete Streets will encourage you to walk. Don’t want to use gas or oil? They expect you’ll walk or bike. Want housing? They would love it if you chose a compact apartment in the city… even if the area is NOT citified.

“Low taxes” are a hook, but in most cases these boondoggle projects cost the taxpayers dearly in unused transportation systems and other features. 25-34 year olds are in fact, wanting to leave the cities where they attended college and strike out on a plot of land of their own, as is the American Dream.

From the Lakes Region Planning Commission:

What are Complete Streets?
How can they benefit our communities?

The Lakes Region enjoys a strong base of diverse industries, civic engagement, and a high quality of life. Creativity, efficiency, and adaptability are hallmarks of both private and public enterprise in the region.

And yet:

    The population age 65+ in this region will rise from 15% to 34% by 2030. Seniors want to live where they can still be active even after they give up driving.
    Major employers increasingly tend to locate in communities where their executives want to live: ones that invest in their downtowns, and in recreation, schools, and safety. Low taxes are part of the picture, but far from all of it.
    25 to 34 year-olds with a college degree are increasingly moving to places where they don’t have to drive to get to work and entertainment.
    People are looking for opportunities to live more active lifestyles, as decreased physical activity has been linked to type 2 diabetes, cancer, stroke, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and premature mortality.
    The annual medical costs for obesity in New Hampshire are estimated at $302 million.

How do we address these needs? How do we make our streets more inviting and accessible to everyone, whether they arrive in a vehicle, on foot, on a bicycle, or by other means, regardless of age or ability?

On Friday, July 29th, come find out why 663 communities across the nation, and five in New Hampshire, have adopted Complete Streets to increase economic vitality, safety, and public health. We’ll gather at 9:00 am at the City Hall in Laconia for a light breakfast and a brief presentation with questions, then go outside to see real life examples. We’ll lead one group on foot and on the bus, or you can join the second group on your own bicycle for a short ride, coming back inside to enjoy some refreshments and compare notes. Wear comfortable shoes and bring a raincoat, just in case!

This event is brought to you by the Bike-Walk Alliance of NH, TTransport NH and HEAL NH in partnership with Lakes Region Planning Commission.

For more information, contact Rebecca Harris, RLHarris@TransportNH.org

America’s homeowners should be shaking in their shoes

America’s homeowners should be shaking in their shoes. The federal government has decided that people who have worked, saved and planned so they can buy homes in nice, safe neighborhoods of their own choosing, are racists. They charge that it is a “social injustice.” The government now claims that it’s unfair unless everyone can have the same, whether they earn it or not. And it doesn’t matter whether they can afford such a home. We’re told that it’s racist to deny someone an equal home, just because they don’t have the money for it. White privilege, don’t you know.

Read more…

Related Links

“A World Government Constitution Under The UN Already Exists – The US Is Involved Up To Our Eyeballs”
How Sustainable Development Goals are Being Met

Stop HUD’s Agenda 21-related AFFH Rule

Stop HUD’s Agenda 21-related AFFH Rule
by Tom DeWeese

I have been in the fight against Agenda 21 since the beginning – even before its introduction in 1992. For most of these years Americans have ignored the issue, as they didn’t see it affecting them personally. That apathy is now changing. The fight against Agenda 21 is heating up in cities across the nation, beyond anything experienced before. One new twist in the enforcement of Agenda 21 policy is the new Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ruling called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).

hudaffhmapmilwaukee

AFFH requires communities that apply for HUD grants to strip-search every neighborhood, detailing income level, religion, race, and national origin of every single person living there. HUD has created specific guidelines dictating specific numbers of each for a proper “balance.” If there are any shortages in any of the categories, then the neighborhood is deemed to be “out of balance.” HUD then requires that the community correct the situation. That “correction” requires communities to unnecessarily spend millions of tax dollars. (See graphic at left for an example of HUD’s online mapping tools for local jurisdictions to implement AFFH; this is a map of the Milwaukee area with “Housing Burden” shown by shades of gray and “National Origin” shown by color-coded dots with one dot equal to 75 people.)

To impose AFFH, HUD has changed tactics that are catching unaware local officials by surprise. In spite of our warnings that HUD grants came with severe strings attached, local officials have routinely sought and accepted HUD grants, declaring them as “free” money for local development. There was at least a pretense of local control. No more. HUD is now employing a stronger legal enforcement mechanism seldom used before to strictly enforce those attached and hidden strings. The result is social engineering that is leading to the destruction of property values and property rights of neighborhoods. In addition, any local governing body that takes a HUD grant now finds that their ability to govern the community as they were elected to do is basically gone, as HUD bureaucrats dictate policy.

HUD has already filed legal actions against communities such as Westchester County, New York, and Marin County, California, for attempting to stand up to the HUD rules. Meanwhile, Baltimore, Maryland, has been forced to spend $30 million over the next 10 years to build 1,000 low-income homes in affluent neighborhoods. Such threats are growing across the nation.

Meanwhile, in Congress, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Representative Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) have been trying to add amendments to legislation to defund AFFH. Twice they have presented such amendments, and twice they have been betrayed by Republican leadership. In one case such an amendment by Lee was tabled after it was basically sabotaged by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine). However, in 2015 Rep. Gosar had already introduced H.R. 1995, a bill to prohibit HUD from implementing the AFFH rule. This bill has 25 cosponsors and is in a pending status, but needs a lot more support in order to be passed. In the meantime, Lee and Gosar are continuing their attempts to add amendments to various bills to defund AFFH.

There is good news in the AFFH fight for Agenda 21 opponents. Some local elected officials are finally starting to understand the dangers of these rules and the massive overreach by the federal government to enforce them. Now many are seeking ways to fight back and are beginning to reach out to those of us who have led the fight against Agenda 21. They seek help in stopping these policies. This has been a rare occurrence until now.

You should take action by pressuring your local officials to reject calls for new HUD grants. Explain that HUD has changed the rules with the new AFFH rule and that acceptance of such grants will bring an army of federal regulators to the community.

You should also call and email your senators (202-224-3121) and representative (202-225-3121) and demand they support the efforts of Representative Gosar and Senator Lee to prohibit implementation of the AFFH rule with H.R. 1995 or to defund it with amendments to other bills.

H/T JBS

Americans Should Have the Right to Farm

Michigan Loses ‘Right To Farm’ This Week: A Farewell To Backyard Chickens and Beekeepers

Michigan residents lost their “right to farm” this week thanks to a new ruling by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development. Gail Philburn of the Michigan Sierra Club told Michigan Live, the news changes “effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals.”

Backyard and urban farming were previously protected by Michigan’s Right to Farm Act. The Commission ruled that the Right to Farm Act protections no longer apply to many homeowners who keep small numbers of livestock.

And who knew the WHO would be involved? Once again, those surveys you think are innocent are feeding the data to the international government about who is doing what when it’s none of their business.

The ruling comes within days of a report by The World Health Organization that stated the world is currently in grave danger of entering a post-antibiotic era. The WHO’s director-general Dr. Margaret Chan argued that the antibiotic use in our industrialized food supply is the worst offender adding to the global crisis.

Read more…

How HUD’s AFFH Rule Jeopardizes Local Control

Public officials across the nation are discovering that HUD’s new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule jeopardizes local zoning control.

HUD is scrambling to deny this with befuddling information.

– The Federal Register says, “[AFFH] does not impose any land use or zoning laws on any government.”

– A recent article in Urbanland, the magazine of the Urban Land Institute, defends AFFH. Its author quotes HUD’s Gustavo Velasquez…

“…opponents of AFFH “keep making this zoning argument that AFFH is about rezoning or imposing zoning provisions on local jurisdictions,”

– HUD contends they leave planning and zoning to local communities. AFFH is merely a “planned framework” that provides “nationwide uniformity and consistency for fair housing.”
In spite of this absurdly contradictory statement, many local officials, hesitant to forego HUD grants, find the lines tempting.

How can HUD deny they control local zoning when the evidence proves the opposite?

Easy. At first glance, the Federal Register appears definitive. The “agency does not impose any land use or zoning laws…” But, that all changes later in the ruling…

“It is important to note, however, that while zoning and land use are generally local matters, when local zoning or land use practices violate the Fair Housing Act, they become a Federal concern…” Federal Register July 16, 2015

The ‘catch’ for communities is that HUD places no clear limits on what constitutes violations of the Fair Housing Act.

Today a fair housing violation can be anything from a “concentrated area of poverty” to refusal to “economically integrate” upscale neighborhoods, regardless of the number of affordable homes built.

Even HUD’s definitions of “discrimination” and “exclusionary zoning” are moving targets as we learned from Westchester County.

The New York community has become the on-going incubator for HUD’s anti-local zoning campaign. Initially, HUD tried and failed to prove the jurisdiction guilty of discrimination.

Undeterred, they then accused the county of “restrictive zoning” practices. But, two independent legal studies showed otherwise. Westchester based their zoning on safety and constructed homes by virtue of economics, not people. Anyone can buy a home anywhere in the county as long as they can afford the payments. In fact, studies proved the county one of the most diversified in the state.

When that failed, HUD re-defined “restrictive zoning” to include economic considerations. This time they successfully argued the county failed to “economically integrate” their towns. As Stanley Kurtz proves in a recent article, economic integration has no legal basis in the Fair Housing Act.

That did not stop HUD. “Economic integration,” a policy that forces communities to build affordable housing in affluent areas or face discrimination charges, is now fundamental to HUD’s “planned framework” of uniformity and consistency.

In Velasquez’ words, opposition to AFFH is based on a…

“misconstrued, misguided argument that is not really what the rule is attempting to do.”

Yet agency letters to Westchester show that HUD can consider “size of lots, size of a development and the number of bedrooms” restrictive zoning practices

There is no “misconstruing” what HUD has already done to zoning in communities like Westchester County, NY and Marin County, CA. Local zoning control may not be what the agency “is attempting to do,” but it is precisely what it accomplishes.

Here is how the agency controls local zoning:
– First, HUD requires each applicant for CDBG and other grants, to complete an Assessment of Fair Housing, to identify all “contributing factors” to discrimination.
– Next, the applicant submits a plan to HUD detailing how they will eliminate the “contributing factors” and foster integrated, balanced lifestyles.
– Then, HUD can accept the plan, ask for modifications or reject it. If accepted, the jurisdiction receives funding and begins plan implementation.

This sounds straightforward. But, there is a ‘catch.’

– AFFH requires that civil rights groups, affordable housing developers and/or other civic activist organizations participate in creating the plan that defines and resolves potential areas of discrimination.
– The applicant also signs an agreement to take no actions “materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.”

If the community receives the grant money and decides to ignore one potential area of discrimination because of current zoning restrictions or voters’ choices, and instead focus on another, they are now vulnerable to lawsuits for failure meet their obligation to AFFH.

So, while HUD does not directly control local zoning, acceptance of the grant money obligates local officials to take whatever actions are necessary to meet HUD’s demands, including ignoring or changing their own zoning laws.

– Once accepting the money, any one of these activist groups can sue the community for failure to affirmatively further fair housing. When the Westchester case settled, a 2-person civil rights group that sued received $7.5 million.

In other words, there is a perverse financial incentive for citizens to sue local communities that do not, where necessary, modify zoning and land use to accommodate HUD’s erratic and continually expanding definitions of discrimination, segregation and Fair Housing.

As Michael Allen of the law firm of Relman, Dane and Colfax, one of the nation’s leading experts on AFFH explains, “it [AFFH] does provide a foundation on which civil rights advocates can build anti-segregation campaigns at the local level.” He goes on to say this will require “organizing by the national fair housing advocacy organizations…; and lawyers prepared to bring enforcement actions.” This trigger of lawsuits is the key that makes AFFH work.

Until the Westchester case, HUD had no efficient method to enforce their regulations nationwide. Now that they do, the agency is increasing their demands on communities well beyond any obligations set forth in the Fair Housing Act.

If you accept HUD grants, and fail to obey the agency, no matter how extreme their demands may be, your community is exposed to withdrawal of the grant funds or massive lawsuits. That is how HUD controls local zoning.

The above information courtesy of John Anthony, Founder of Property Value Defense

Battle Rages as GOP Saves Obama Plot to Diversify Neighborhoods

Both of New Hampshire’s US Senators Ayotte and Shaheen voted to allow this. Why?

Battle Rages as GOP Saves Obama Plot to Diversify Neighborhoods

After some grandstanding to placate outraged constituents, establishment Republicans in Congress quietly voted to fund Obama’s unconstitutional plan to fundamentally transform your neighborhood by bringing in more federally funded “diversity.” In short, if Big Brother’s race-obsessed data-gathering machine determines that there are not enough poor or minority residents on welfare living in your city, town, zip code, or neighborhood, Obama wants to change that using your tax dollars. The scheme also sidelines states and borders by considering “regions” instead, a key element of the agenda to break down the traditional United States and its federalist system of government.

Read more…

Federal Government Threatens: “A Gigantic Grab of All Water Rights in the United States”

The CKST Water Compact gives the Indian Tribes the water rights to all surface and subsurface water in almost all of Western Montana, to include Flathead Lake. The problem: these water rights are all off-reservation. The Democratic-controlled State Senate, House of Representatives, and Governor of Montana voted into law a bill that would require everyone to have a water meter placed on their wells. All revenues will go to “the Tribes” as stipulated by HHS, to be managed by the Bureau of Indian affairs, and enforced by the DHS (Department of Homeland Security).

Senator Jon Tester, D-MT is the culprit pushing the Tribes to ratify the Montana Law at the Federal level.

Read more…