Finally, after a few slaps in the face and some loss of property rights, people are waking up to the fact that our government is committed to enforcing the agenda set out by the United Nations in 1992 and before.

Here is Tom DeWeese being interviewed by Eric Bolling on the very moderate Fox News Channel.

Direct Link: http://youtu.be/kkbppsdaoO4

As he warned he would, Obama is using the EPA to do things he otherwise would not be able to get passed in Congress. One of the effects of this is the implementation of the Agenda 21 program, or in NH otherwise known as Granite State Future.

The purview of Granite State Future is like Agenda 21 in that it is not just about conserving resources but about controlling every aspect of your life.

“Through the stroke of a pen, President Obama on Friday used his executive powers to elevate and take control of climate change policies in an attempt to streamline sustainability initiatives – and potentially skirt legislative oversight and push a federal agenda on states.

The executive order establishes a task force of state and local officials to advise the administration on how to respond to severe storms, wildfires, droughts and other potential impacts of climate change. The task force includes governors of seven states — all Democrats — and the Republican governor of Guam, a U.S. territory. Fourteen mayors and two other local leaders also will serve on the task force.”

Read more…

Compare and Contrast Agenda 21 and our local Granite State Future program with Soviet Style central planning

This excellent research by D. Niwa should bring home the problems of crony capitalism and loss of rights associated with sustainable cities, and smart growth.

I came across an article about Soviet “comprehensive planning” (see after my note) while searching for “Housing in the U.S.S.R.” by S. Tutuchenko. The latter was cited in Jo Hindman’s “METRO vs. The American Individual” [1].

FYI for those unfamiliar: “Comprehensive planning” is taking place throughout the U.S. (via “sustainable development” (U.N. Agenda 21) — i.e., ICLEI’s sustainable cities/communities, resilient cities, smart growth, urban resilience and adaptation, biodiverse cities, low-carbon cities, resource-efficient cities, smart urban infrastructure, green urban economy, happy & healthy community, blah, blah, blah.) [2][3]

The institutional structure to support comprehensive planning was created with “Metro” or “Metropolitan” (regional and council) governance — a subject Jo Hindman wrote about in articles and books published in the 50’s, 60s, and 70s. K. Maureen Heaton also covered similar issues — ie., involving government restructuring at local, state, and federal levels. (Later I’ll send out some of Hindman’s and Heaton’s works that I’ve been compiling into pdfs so their information will be more easily accessible).

Endnotes:
[1] http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmMercury-1960dec-00012
[2] http://www.iclei.org/our-activities/our-agendas/
[3] Examples–MUST SEE:
. . . Austin [Texas] Comprehensive Plan is Local Agenda 21 in Disguise . . .

South Carolina & Comprehensive Planning:

Programs and Problems of City Planning in the Soviet Union (1963)
by Zigurds L. Zile*
Washington University Law Review, Vol. 1963, Issue 1 Symposium: Land Use Planning
http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3175&context=lawreview

Excerpt from the Introduction (highlights added):

This article traces the forty-five year history of city planning in the Soviet Union. It describes and interprets the landmark events and the periods of progress which have alternated with periods of stagnation and retreat. The focus is on the principal normative acts and the agencies charged with their execution.

Soviet writings, especially those for foreign readers, propagate the notion that truly far-reaching city planning is possible only where private ownership of land is absent, where housing is publicly owned and where a single economic plan directs the national economy, as is the case in the Soviet Union. The same writings imply that Soviet planners have actually learned to control urban growth and are routinely creating individualized cities which blend into their physical environment and reflect the residents’ ethnic and cultural heritage. 1

In fact, there is wide disparity between plans and results. The programs are not perfect, and their realization is beset by problems which have betrayed many an ideal. It should be kept in mind that the Soviet Union is inhabited and governed by human beings. Some of them are competent, imaginative and devoted; others are given to apathy or covet power, recognition and material wealth. Marxist-Leninist ideology has predicted the emergence of “the new Soviet man,” a man free of all unsavory traits, but he is still a fictitious figure. In the meantime, errors due to miscalculation, obstinacy, corruption and other failings are common.

It is true that a number of institutional factors which hamper city planning under market conditions are not found in the Soviet system. For one, the word “planning” does not arouse suspicion in the Soviet Union. On the contrary, planning is presented as a concept central to Soviet life and largely responsible for Soviet achievements. Secondly, the wealth of the country is state owned. It includes land and may, without violating any constitutional principle of inalienable rights, include anything attached to land as well. But, whereas a number of obstacles to comprehensive planning have been removed, many others remain and make themselves felt much the same as elsewhere. However vast and rich is the land of the Soviets, its resources are not superabundant. Some of them appear almost scarce when their immediate availability is set against the competing demands of all sectors of the country. Moreover, it is not for the professional planners to determine when and to what extent a major sector shall be advanced and where development shall be retarded. The making of these fundamental judgments, often without the benefit of open discussion or consultation, is reserved to a relatively small group of political decision-makers who hold the reins of the supreme organs of both the Communist Party and the State. This feature of the decision-making process, a belief in quick results through administrative reshuffling, and a propensity for doctrinal discourse have combined to produce impediments to planning which are peculiarly Soviet. The drastic shifts in high-level policy discourage the planners from formulating reliable long-range plans, the frequent administrative overhauls confound routine work, and the requirement of ideological conformity inhibits discussion of the ends and means. Despite a long history of urban planning, Soviet cities are not picturesque models of purpose and balance.

[Footnotes:]

*Assistant Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin. This study was supported in part by a fellowship from the Law School and the Russian Research Center of Harvard University, and in part by the Graduate Research Committee of the University of Wisconsin from special funds voted by the State Legislature.

1. E.g., Chossudovsky, The Development of Housing in the USSR, U.N. HOUSING AND TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BULL. No. 5, at 81, 88 (ST/SOA/SER.- C/5) (1951. IV. 6) (1951); TUTUCHENKO, HOUSING IN THE U.S.S.R. passim (Moscow 1960).

“Since Eisenhower’s speech in 1961 Florida has seen a government industrial complex with growing influence — economic, political, even spiritual — felt in every city, county and in Tallahassee. This greatest threat to one-man-one-vote and local control of government goes by many names: globalization, regionalism, sustainability and a new form of corporation called simply “B” Corp or “Benefit Corporation”.”

Benefit Corporations: The new government-industrial complex

This is but ONE of the wealthy foundations that greatly influence government affairs in NH, particularly what our RPCs are doing. They are the impetus behind “NH Listens”, the PR firm used to dupe residents about Granite State Future.

UNH grad donates $20 million to create public policy center

DURHAM — Emmy-winning television producer Marcy Carsey, Class of 1966, has made a gift of $20 million to the University of New Hampshire to support the creation of the new Carsey School for Public Policy. The gift marked the second- largest donation in the university’s history.

“It is crucial that we prepare leaders for the governmental, private and nonprofit sectors who can translate rigorous research into effective policies and practices to solve the complex issues of our world,” said Carsey, a cum laude graduate in English literature from UNH The Carsey School will be distinguished from other public policy schools in that faculty and students will not work within a single discipline, such as political science or public administration. Its work will involve sociologists and environmental scientists, health care experts and economists, demographers and foresters. It will train future leaders, both in the United States and around the world, to use research to solve problems. A national search for the school’s first director will begin soon.

Read More…

That is what regionalists and new urbanists would love to see… no more dream home on your plot of land in the country.

In this article is a discussion which should give you an idea why our own RPCs are doing ‘health impact studies’ on their HUD projects. Since the word ‘sustainability’ has gotten such a bad rap, now they have turned to things like ‘economic resilience’ and ‘health’ to brainwash you into thinking you should be herded into a city.

“Suburban sprawl “has taken a huge toll on our health,” wrote Ms. Gallagher, an editor at Fortune magazine. “Research has been piling up that establishes a link between the spread of sprawl and the rise of obesity in our country. Researchers have also found that people get less exercise as the distances among where we live, work, shop and socialize increase.”

Read More…

Rosa Koire and Attorney Michael Shaw have filed a lawsuit challenging Plan Bay Area’s (California) power to impose regional control over nine counties and 101 cities.

Read more at their GoFundMe site.

This could be the model suit for residents of other states.

Regional Planning Commissions: Planning for WHOM?
by Representative Jane Cormier

As a Rep. for Belknap District, I have been working on a bill in our state house trying to repeal and replace the NH Regional Planning Commissions. (I know, I know – I’m crazy…) However, after doing voluminous research, it is quite apparent these commissions are instrumental in Federal agencies fulfilling their “smart growth” agenda here in NH. “Smart Growth” is basically organized planning which tries to prevent urban sprawl, “nudging” people to live in planned urban communities under the tent of ‘sustainable living’. You know the drill – less pollution, less car travel, more green areas, and with the federal programs of EPA – DOT – HUD running the show, private property rights are greatly diminished. In the Progressive mindset, water and other “resources” belong to the COLLECTIVE. And it is the COLLECTIVE who rules in sustainable living. Private (natural) property rights are a “barrier” which must be overcome. These words come directly from Granite State Future – the “home” of NH Regional Planning Commissions.

Here are some figures from the Lakes Regional Planning Commission 2012 budget:

Total Income $850,281.00

Lakes Region Membership Dues $123,521.00 (we could use this money)
Total Federal Income $572,500.00 (WHAT!)

When you look at these figures, you can see a huge swathe of LRCP income is federal money. This is typical in RPCs. Now, here are some expenses:

Lakes Region Planning Commission Salaries:
Director $90,086
Senior Planner $60,784
Planner $41,714
Planner $40,170
Planner $39,188
Administrative Asst $35,360
Part time (?) $22,888
Part time $22,360
Part time $12,866
Temporary $12,300
Total Salaries $369,548

Now, we have benefit expenses in the mix as well. But just from salaries, not including health insurance, SSI, and other benefits, almost 50% of the budget just pays for salaries. Let’s add $100,000 (on the lean side) for benefits and such. We also have to remember normal office and business expenses. Taking all of this into account, what money is actually left to “improve” our communities? Even more importantly, where do the RPC loyalties lie? The federal government who subsidizes/pays for their salaries (with our Federal tax dollars) or the local taxpayer just trying to get by? The answer is of course, the Federal government.

The question now arises, what specifically does the Lakes Region Planning Commission offer our communities? Let’s see, we have lots of NH Listens public relations sessions, a nifty website, and unending entanglements with FEDERAL agencies. Wow. What a deal. And we should not forget, most of our local towns already support PAID administrators and planners. Now, tell me again why we need to pay even more for Regional Planning Commissions?

NH Regional Planning Commissions are a scam, fueled by the feds, to reach the goals of sustainable “smart growth” in our Live Free or Die state. RPC’s will tell you they are “advisory” only, but make no mistake, RPC’s are instrumental in proposing and implementing zoning and other changes within our NH communities. They are the supposed “experts in planning” and our local administrators and planning boards frequently defer to what RPCs propose. Private property rights beware!

Please – participate in your local planning commission meetings. Listen to what they propose. Ask yourself, what benefit does MY community actually receive from the RPCs? The answer just might surprise you!