Some background reading on regionalism and the dangerous power grab of public-private partnerships.

Walter Tejada Elected to National Association of Regional Councils

The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships
“Advocate and facilitate the formation of public-private partnerships at the federal, state and local levels, where appropriate, and raise the awareness of governments and businesses of the means by which their cooperation can cost effectively provide the public with quality goods, services and facilities.”

Private-Public Water Partnership, UN Agenda 21

Note: While we do not recommend the formation of property rights councils as advocated by DeWeese, we recognize his contributions in the way of explaining what the Agenda 21 program is and does and what it means for towns and cities in the US.

Why we Oppose Agenda 21
By Tom DeWeese

Agenda-21 – It’s important to note that we fight Agenda 21 because we oppose its policies and its process, not just its origins. Why do we see it as a threat? Isn’t it just a plan to protect the environment and stop uncontrolled development and sprawl?

As the late Henry Lamb of Freedom 21 put it, “Comprehensive land use planning that delivers sustainable development to local communities transforms both the process through which decisions that govern citizens are made, and the market place where citizens must earn their livelihood. The fundamental principle that government is empowered by the consent of the governed is completely by-passed in the process…the natural next step is for government to dictate the behavior of the people who own the land that the government controls.”

To enforce the policy, local government is being transformed by “stakeholder councils” created and enforced by the same NGO Agenda 21 authors. They are busy creating a matrix of non-elected boards, councils and regional governments that usurp the ability of citizens to have an impact on policy. It’s the demise of representative government. And the councils appear and grow almost overnight.

Sustainablists involve themselves in every aspect of society. Here are just a few of the programs and issues that can be found in the Agenda 21 blueprint and can be easily found in nearly every community’s “local” development plans: Wetlands, conservation easements, water sheds, view sheds, rails – to- trails, biosphere reserves, greenways, carbon footprints, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage areas and comprehensive planning. Every one of these programs leads to more government control, land grabs and restrictions on energy, water, and our own property. When we hear these terms we know that such policy originated on the pages of Agenda 21, regardless of the direct or indirect path it took to get to our community.

You’ll find Watershed Councils that regulate human action near every trickling stream, river, or lake. Meters are put on wells. Special “action” councils control home size, tree pruning, or removal, even the color you can paint your home or the height of your grass. Historic preservation councils control development in downtown areas, disallowing expansion and new building.

Regional governments are driven by NGOs and stakeholder councils with a few co-opted bureaucrats thrown in to look good. These are run by non-elected councils that don’t answer to the people. In short, elected officials become little more than a rubber stamp to provide official “approval” to the regional bureaucracy.

But the agenda outlined in Agenda 21 and by its proponents is a much bigger threat that just land use planning. They openly advocate massive reduction of human populations. Some actually call for as much as an 85% reduction in human populations in order to “save the planet.” David Brower of the Sierra Club said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” The UN’s Biodiversity Assessment says, “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.”

They also openly advocate the destruction of modern society as Maurice Strong, the head of the Earth Summit said, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

This issue then is not about simple environmental protection and modern planning. It is about a complete restructuring of our society, our values and our way of life. They use as their model an urgency based on global warming and climate change, claiming there is no need for discussion on these dire issues. Yet science is showing more and more proof that there is no man-made global warming. Are we to completely destroy our society based on such a shaky foundation?

And that is just what the proponents are rushing to do.

Barack Obama has issued a flurry of Executive Orders to bypass the Congressional process and dictate sustainable policy. In 2011 Obama issued EO # 13575 creating the White House Rural Council. It brings together 25 Cabinet Secretaries to enforce multi-jurisdictional enforcement of farming virtually controlling every decision for food production. It is a major assault on American farm production intended to enforce Sustainable farming practices. In truth it will only lead to food shortages and higher prices as farmers have no ability to make a decision without the approval of 25 government agencies, working at cross purposes and causing chaos in farm production.

On May 1, 2012, Obama issued EO # 13609, dictating that the government must enforce coordination of international regulatory policy. Those international regulatory policies are UN-driven and the basic translation means enforcement of Sustainable Development policy.

The fact is, we fight Agenda 21 because it is all-encompassing, designed to address literally every aspect of our lives. This is so because those promoting Agenda 21 believe we must modify our behavior, our way of doing everyday things, and even our belief system, in order to drastically transform human society into being “sustainable.”

We who oppose it don’t believe that the world is in such dire emergency environmentally that we must destroy the very human civilization that brought us from a life of nothing but survival against the elements into a world that gave us homes, health care, food, and even luxury. Sustainable Development advocates literally hope to roll back our civilization to the days of mere survival and we say NO. Why should we? We have found great deception in the promotion of the global warming argument. We believe in free markets and free societies where people make their own decisions, live and develop their own property. And we fully believe that the true path to a strong protection of the environment is through private property ownership and limited government. Those who promote Agenda 21 do not believe in those ideals. And so we will not agree on the path to the future. And our fight is just that – a clash of philosophy. There is very little room for middle ground.
###

Tom DeWeese is President of the American Policy Center, Editor of The DeWeese Report, and author of the book, “Now Tell Me I Was Wrong.” He has been an activist for the causes of limited government, individual freedom, free enterprise and private property rights for more that 45 years.

Once again, the importance of LOCAL CONTROL and what is going on right here in your town was highlighted when some of our GSF warriors traveled to help the residents of Rindge.

From the Ledger-Transcript:

“RINDGE — A group of approximately 200 Rindge residents met at the Rindge Recreation Building on Tuesday night to hear Save Our Town Director Larry Cleveland, State Rep. Jack Flanagan of Brookline and State Rep. John Burt of Goffstown speak about their concerns with accepting N.H. Housing Finance Authority and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development grants.

Cleveland began the non-town-sponsored meeting by sharing with the audience what he found out in January: The town of Rindge had plans to change the zoning regulations for the area at the intersection of Routes 119 and 202, and the town would be using $24,800 in grant money from the NHHFA and associated with HUD to help with these zoning regulation changes. The suggestions for these new regulations were outlined in the Rindge Charrette, a compilation of ideas created over a two-day intensive and open-to-the-public session in January 2012 with help from the Plan NH non-profit.”

And therein lies the problem. Non-profits, NGOs, and other special interests from out of state seem to be driving the discussions about whether towns should change their zoning laws to satisfy the demands of HUD which seeks to redistribute the wealth through zoning.

“A number of people showed up to the charrette last January and helped with the conceptual design of West Rindge Village,” Pini said. “After that, the Planning Board adopted the design as part of the Master Plan.” She added, “However, we currently don’t have zoning regulations that allow for that design.” ”

Indeed, HUD expects zoning to be changed just as it did in Westchester NY. And that non-profit who “helped” of course was none other than Plan NH who ran the Delphi Session.

The words Granite State Future were not mentioned in the article, but thank goodness the people of Rindge woke up just in time.

Read more..

We’d heard that Austin was pretty much taken over by the urbanists/regoinalists and here is a clip that shows why.

In Austin TX, the city govt is selectively enforcing Agenda 21 as a tool to squeeze out small businesses under the guise of’ ‘Saving the Earth’, while big businesses are allowed to thrive with no regulation under this ILLEGAL UN plan being forced upon the Citizens of our republic.

Make no mistake… Agenda 21 (GSF in NH) is a tool to close up small businesses making the employees as well as the owners of these businesses dependent and subservient to the government. The UN has NO BUSINESS being in America directing things that should be strictly under local control.

The Story of Liberty Farm
from our friend Tom DeWeese

Martha Bonata bought 64 acres of beautiful farm land in Fauquier County seven years ago. The barn was in disrepair and the land hadn’t been well taken care of. She set out to change that, spending thousands to turn the barn into a quaint little store. She brought in over 150 rescued animals, including goats, ducks, turkeys, even an emus.

She used the store to sell items grown on the property, including tomatoes and eggs. In addition, Martha is incredibly talented in crafting decorative and useful items from her farm sources. For example, her emu’s feathers, which it drops on the ground, are turned into jewelry. She created a wooden item that contains small slits on each of its four sides. In the slits she stuffs bits of wool discarded by her sheep. The item’s purpose was to hang in the yard so birds can use the bits of wool to make their nests. Above all, Martha turned the farm into a classic organic farm of naturally grown produce.

Everything was looking great for a lady anxious to get her hands in the dirt. Oh yes, there was just one small detail brought up during the negotiation for the purchase of the property. The Piedmont Environmental Council slipped in a conservation easement on the property. This specific easement did not pay any cash to Martha nor did it provide any tax credits. All the benefits went to PEC. Martha signed the document because she had been told conservation easements were a way to protect the farm from being developed. She was for that.

But there is one major aspect of Martha’s value system that doesn’t fit the PEC profile for the perfect small farmer. She believes in private property rights. And that’s when the trouble started. Space does not allow a full description of the battles Martha has faced over her attempts to farm her land. Here is the “Cliff notes” version:

Martha does not live on the farm, she owns a home in another location. The conservation easement she signed said she could have a small 1600 square foot residence on the property. She never used the facility as a residence.

The Fauquier County planning board suddenly issued notice that Martha would be fined for selling items that were not produced on her farm, something she never actually did. And they warned that she needed another permit in order to use the facility for events.

She was immediately threatened with fines of $5,000 a day for each violation brought by the County. The evidence used against her by the county was a photo of a children’s birthday party that Martha had posted on her face book page, allegedly proving that she had rented out the barn for a party. in fact, it was a private party for personal friends. No money exchanged hands for the facility. But the battle was on.

Martha began to learn what a powerful weapon conservation easements can be in the hands of those who wanted to control her actions. The easement gave the PEC the right to occasionally inspect the property for “violations’ of the easement. Suddenly Martha was informed that PEC inspectors would visit the farm to investigate the “living quarters.” Rather than a random, occasional, or annual visit, PEC came back again and again; demanding to look into her private closets; even banning her right to video tape the inspections on her own property.

The PEC found fault with a simple water nozzle Martha had purchased to use in washing her animals. Somehow that was a violation. There is an old cemetery on the property dating back to 1832. In it are buried the families of former residents of the area and black slaves. To keep the farm animals from walking though the cemetery, Martha installed a simple fence. “Violation,” said PEC, “It damages the view shed.” On and on went the harassment over such idiotic claims. Along with it came thousands of dollars of legal expenses as Martha fought to defend herself.

Eventually, as a result of non-stop pressure and the threat of fines from the County, plus the pressure from PEC, not to mention a “coincidental” IRS audit, Martha was forced to close her little store, seriously damaging a major part of her ability to earn income from the farm.

Worse, county officials have made outrageous claims in attempts to justify their actions. They claim that Martha’s small store, and others like it on local farms, will lead to the establishment of Walmarts in rural areas. And most recently one official has made the claim on local television that her store is the pathway to junk yards and car lots.

What was her real crime? She had challenged county planning restrictions. And in doing so, she had become a threat to their authority and that of the PEC, which is the driving force behind county controls over private property.

These are the results of the implementation of Sustainable Development policy and why the American Policy Center is dedicated to stopping it. For more information about Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 and how to stop it, go to APC’s web site, www.americanpolicy.org and join the fight to end this tyranny over American citizens and your property rights.

Related Links:
Sustainable Development Financing Committee Holds First Meeting

What is Sustainable Development?