Goffstown Makes the Wall Street Journal

Rob Astorino did not violate any anti-discrimination laws. And Westchester is an example that should make everyone sit up and take notice of what is going on in EVERY town and city in the country.

In NH it’s called Granite State Future and people in Goffstown, Rindge, Salem, Rochester, and Bow have beat it back. Bedford was not so lucky.

From the article:

Residents of the northern New York City suburbs were recently treated to a TV ad invoking images of the Jim Crow South and claiming that Westchester County executive Rob Astorino has “repeatedly violated anti-discrimination laws for years.” None of the ad is true, but it does reveal some important political news with national implications.

To wit, Mr. Astorino is resisting the Obama Administration’s attempt to rewrite local zoning laws by federal fiat, and as the Republican candidate for Governor of New York he has a better chance to beat incumbent Andrew Cuomo than the conventional wisdom believes.

On the credibility of the discrimination charge, consider that Al Sharpton, the racial provocateur, recently made a trip to Westchester to deplore making race a political issue. He was sent by Mr. Cuomo specifically to make race a political issue.

The facts are that Mr. Astorino took office in 2010 in the heavily Democratic county and inherited a 2009 housing settlement with the federal government signed by his Democratic predecessor. The deputy county executive at the time the original lawsuit was filed was none other than Larry Schwartz, who is now Mr. Cuomo’s chief of staff. In 2007 the county executive’s chief adviser, Susan Tolchin, called the lawsuit “garbage.”

The suit was always dubious given the lack of evidence of discriminatory practices. Between 2000 and 2010, the numbers of blacks and Hispanics living in Westchester’s mostly white neighborhoods increased by 56%. The county is the fourth-most diverse in the state and rivals Manhattan in the number of black and Hispanic residents.

Mr. Astorino has nonetheless complied with the settlement, which requires Westchester to build 750 affordable-housing units in mostly majority-white neighborhoods over seven years. Westchester has secured financing for 417 units and nearly a quarter of the units are already occupied, putting the county ahead of schedule.

Democrats still aren’t satisfied because Mr. Astorino refuses to let federal housing officials expand the deal extrajudicially. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is pressuring Westchester to declare that its zoning practices are discriminatory merely because many of its neighborhoods aren’t as racially integrated as HUD deems necessary. Westchester would then have to build thousands more public housing units, submit to HUD investigations and let the feds seize control of local zoning to determine where to build homes and schools.

Westchester conducted eight studies of zoning between 2011 and 2013 and found no evidence of racially exclusionary policies or practices. Mr. Astorino also hired an independent analyst from Pace University to look at the data, and he concurred with the county’s conclusions.

HUD didn’t like these results, so the agency’s federal monitor brought in the left-leaning Pratt Institute to produce “report cards” on the 31 communities involved in the settlement. Pratt also found no racially exclusionary policies or practices. It did find economic reasons that some neighborhoods aren’t diverse, but this is the result of individual home purchases. Pratt gave Mr. Cuomo’s own community of New Castle and other wealthy neighborhoods like Rye and Scarsdale passing grades.

When Mr. Astorino still resisted, HUD withheld $7.4 million in community development block grants last year and is threatening to withhold $5.2 million this year. This deprives Westchester’s poorer neighborhoods of the very funds that are supposed to build affordable housing.

All of this has national significance because HUD is using Westchester to test drive its racial engineering project to redefine discrimination by demography. Former HUD deputy secretary Ron Sims referred to Westchester as its “grand experiment” in 2009. HUD hit the Long Island city of Oyster Bay with a similar lawsuit in April, and other cities are wondering if federal funds are worth the threat.

Citizens in the town of Goffstown, New Hampshire, rejected a HUD-backed housing proposal in September after viewing a video that explained what had happened to Westchester. Mr. Astorino has also proposed to refuse federal funds and to use a bond issue to start Westchester’s own block-grant program “for the communities being held hostage by HUD.”

Which brings us to this year’s race for Governor. The media are portraying it as a lay-up for Mr. Cuomo, but don’t be so sure. Mr. Astorino should do well upstate, where the economy is lousy and Mr. Cuomo has banned fracking for natural gas.

The Republican has a history of doing well with suburban Democrats, who also resent Washington’s attempts to rezone their neighborhoods. In 2010 Mr. Astorino won 25% of the black vote and 30% of Democrats. Mr. Cuomo is worried enough that he recently cut a deal with the public-union Working Families Party, which suggests he will move left on taxes and the economy if he wins re-election. Mr. Cuomo is also trying to shut down Wall Street donations to Mr. Astorino, who needs money to get out his message of economic revival.

This is the context for the HUD-Cuomo-Sharpton racial squeeze play: Try to stigmatize Mr. Astorino just as he is trying to introduce himself to a broader electorate. Such race-baiting politics is what should be stigmatized, just as the country should reject HUD’s attempts to dictate the racial composition of America’s neighborhoods.

Read more…

Save Our Town Rindge Responds

Larry Cleveland of Save Our Town Rindge had this to say about an article that appeared in the Ledger Transcript that blamed their group for voting to reject certain federal grants supporting local projects in Rindge, and to cut their relationship with the Southwest Region Planning Commission.

In response to the article: High Speed Internet project at a standstill due to town vote (Karina Barriga Albring, June 18th).
by Larry Cleveland, SOT

First of all, the title itself is misleading. The standstill is caused by the fact that the Fast Roads project in Rindge is complete. Please go to their website and see the press release. It has nothing to do with the “town vote”. They are out of grant money. Selectwoman Oeser keeps saying that the town can’t apply for any grants allowing for more broadband. To the best of my knowledge, there are no more grants available. If there were, don’t you think Fast Roads would be all over them? If there is, please Ms. Oeser, state what they are. I have been to several meetings, and not heard of one. Is this behavior just a tactic to discredit Save Our Town?

The article alleges that Fast Roads brought high speed internet to the Police Department, RMS, and the library. At a recent meeting, the question was asked, “are there any Rindge town buildings connected to this broadband?” The answer was, “no, it’s too expensive.” The fact is this broadband “pipeline” only runs by 467 homes in Rindge. This is less than 25% of residences. Out of those, only 80 have chosen to be connected. This project cost the American taxpayer $2.5 million in Rindge alone. At that rate, with only 80 homes connected because of the high price to connect, and service rates, that amounts to over $31,000 per house. What a bargain. And now they want even more taxpayer dollars to run more lines that won’t be used?

This article, like others, has again misquoted me. I never said that I believe there is no need to expand service in Rindge. I did say that I believe according to the Fast Roads press release, they have no intentions on expanding service in Rindge. Frankly, there are not enough houses per mile to make it a lucrative business for ISP’s.

Another untruth in this article is the line “voters decided they didn’t want Rindge officials to receive any (HUD) grants.” Not true. We want to be able to see what they are, and what strings are attached before accepting. After this last round of HUD grants, it was revealed that town officials never read the whole contract, nor did they have legal counsel look at them. As far as “not having the tools” to apply for additional grants, I ask what grants? What tools? Oeser is stated as saying “getting geographic data from the SWRPC is the most convenient approach”. I say, it might be convenient, but there are other resources. It might take a little more work, but isn’t that your job as an elected official? Maybe the real convenience is blaming everything on Save Our Town.

Agenda 21: Global Conspiracy or Climate Savior?

Updated Article: 7/19 5:27 PM

“These events and many others like them are connected by one resonant term: Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a United Nations advisory document, adopted in 1992 by 178 signatory nations including the U.S., which provides guidelines for sustainable development. But opponents of the plan see it as something more sinister: In her book Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21, Koire describes Agenda 21 as “the action plan to inventory and control all human beings and resources on the planet.” Koire’s book has become a common manifesto for the dozens of groups and untold thousands of individuals across America opposing the document, its goals, and what they see as its vast influence.”

Amazingly, while denying international involvement, they cite ICLEI, the UN’s sustainability arm which has worked its way into many local governments.

“According to Michael Schmitz, executive director of the U.S. chapter of the ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, there has been a broad rise in these sorts of incidents, with “a very small but very vocal group of protesters who will essentially try to disrupt the process [of local planning meetings].””

If the plan is to disrupt the process of Soviet-style top down direction of our lives by central planners via unelected boards, be prepared for more.

Our hero, Rosa Koire, is mentioned.

Here is her response.

Fortune Magazine (Fortune 500/Time, Inc.) published an article yesterday highlighting me and our fight against UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. The article is a nuanced manipulation that lies by omission and half-truths, and slimes by intent. David Morris, the author, brings in ICLEI public relations and the Southern Poverty Law Center to ‘balance’ the article, and then concludes that Agenda 21 is necessary to save the planet — it ‘requires some sacrifices, not all of them made entirely willingly’.

The following quote is from our interview; David Morris asked me if I had anything to add.

I guess what I want to ask you, David, is how committed you are to representing a particular point of view that’s going to marginalize what I’ve told you? I’m hoping that you’re going to write an article that is genuine and fair… We have something serious going on in our country and around the world and it needs to be dealt with in a serious manner. If the major corporations which own the media are controlling that information we will not be able to get that information out to the people so that they can make these decisions for themselves. So I’m hoping — you have an opportunity here — and I’m really hoping that you’re going to use it.

Watch the interview here on YouTube. Judge for yourself how the media operates to manipulate public opinion and block the truth.

Here is Rosa’s rebuttal to what she calls a “smear” article by Forbes. [Video]

Rosa’s Website

Sadly Rosa passed away on May 31, 2021

Does Richmond Need a Grant?

There will be a public forum on Saturday June 21, 2014 from 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM at Veterans Memorial Hall in Richmond to discuss what should happen to the Richmond Four Corners site.

The site is privately owned so we wonder why and how the regional planners are going to jump in and get involved with their grant money?


Read more…

SNHPC Meeting Agenda on GSF Program

The Southern NH Planning Commission will meet on June 19th 2014 from 3:00 to 4:30 PM at the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission offices, 438 Dubuque Street, Manchester, NH 03102 to talk about Prioritizing of Action on the Granite State Future program.

If any of you choose to attend please send a report back to us at info@granitestatefutures.org

http://www.snhpc.org/pdf/GSF_Agenda_061914.pdf

HUD Out of Control Creating Dossiers on Homeowners

A new National Mortgage Database Program will be launched as part of a joint venture by the FHFA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It will collect intimate personal information on every mortgage holder in the United States. It is a growth in government that could and will one day be used against the individual.

The database will collect information on “first-lien single-family mortgages in existence any time from January 1998 forward.” The news release states that “it is to be used to support the agencies’ policy making and research efforts and help regulators better understand emerging mortgage and housing market trends in this evolving and changing finance market.”

Our personal information is all over the government computers and they are unreliable keepers of that information.

The April notice in the Federal Register informs that the database expansion will include numerous data points: a mortgage owner’s name, address, Social Security number, all credit card and other loan information and account balances, entire credit history -including delinquent payments, late payments, minimum payments, high account balances and credit scores.

The two agencies will then assemble “household demographic data,” including racial and ethnic data, gender, marital status, religion, education, employment history, military status, household composition, the number of wage earners and a family’s total wealth and assets.

This is the same government that is “mapping” every neighborhood in the country to reallocate resources from those who have to those who have-not in a grand wealth redistribution scheme.

Mr. Obama has ordered the mapping of all neighborhoods across America, in every town and in every city, so he can redistribute the assets of wealthier neighborhoods to poorer neighborhoods, particularly into minority neighborhoods.

He is using a HUD housing rule which will set up a long-term plan for redistributing resources.

HUD plans to provide data for every neighborhood in the country listing the access minorities have to local assets such as schools, jobs, transportation,and other neighborhood resources that help bring people into the middle class.

The plan will then develop long-term solutions to help ‘people gain access to different neighborhoods,’…’channeling investments into under-served areas.’ The mapping tool may be used to guide development and zoning decisions as two examples.

It won’t make people productive but it will set up a system for stealing from those who are.

Government Expands Its Power Into Hundreds of Millions of American Homes

A Chicken Coop for All

“President Obama seeks to use the power of the national government to create communities of a certain kind, each having what the federal government deems an appropriate mix of economic, racial, and ethnic diversity.

Clearly, the Obama administration’s interest is not in combating discrimination in housing; its interest is imposing a preordained view of the proper racial and ethnic mix for neighborhoods.”

To that end he has created the AFFH rule; “affirmatively furthering fair housing”.

Powerline blog has a two part article:

Obama moves to impose his vision of how we should live, Part One

Obama moves to impose his vision of how we should live, Part Two

Read more about where we stand on AFFH…

Obama will wait until after election to impose his vision of how we should live