It’s happening everywhere. Regionalism is taking precedence over local control.

Taxpayers find themselves at the mercy of a supposedly “advisory only regional planning commission” who then engages NGOs and other private entities to influence the elected governing bodies, who then shape and plan the area with complete disregard for what the local taxpayers would do, and how they would do it.

Here are just some examples that show NH is not alone… with excerpts that should sound very familiar. After reading these examples, one may get a better feel for what “regionalism” is all about. As Andrés Duany claims, cities and regions are more important government-wise, than states and towns.

Wind-farm rule revisions won’t see a vote by planning commission

“Under the Illinois Counties Code, a regional planning commission is responsible for making “a plan” for the region to “best promote health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, efficiency and economy in the process of development and the general welfare of said region.” The commission is described as a “fact-finding body” for the “planning and development” of the region.

The law does not say anything about the commission being allowed to make changes or recommend changes to ordinances.”

And, this from Vermont. Does “infill development” make sense with the title of the article?

Town plan focuses on energy, wildlife

“From the chapter on future land use: “The over-arching goal of the Land Use Plan is to guide growth and development by reinforcing Waterbury’s traditional pattern of concentrated settlement surrounded by rural countryside. This can be achieved by directing growth into areas most appropriate for development. The objective is not to prevent growth but rather to encourage ‘infill’ development within currently developed areas and to support additional development in areas identified as ‘Growth Centers.’”

Does this sound familiar?
Tahoe Regional Planning Association’s Shoreline Plan nears approval

“The proposed Shoreline Plan puts a cap on shoreline development imposing a limited number of new shoreline structures such as piers, buoys and public boat ramps. With the new regulations, new shoreline programs will be put in place aimed at addressing the environmental effects of shoreline activity and will be paid for through fees on moorings, boat stickers and boat rental concessions.”

Notice in the above article, the ‘advisory’ RPC suggests to the governing board that new taxes and fees be imposed, which is usually the end result of these unelected bureaucrats basically making the decisions for the voters.

And here is an example of the town creating a ‘cultural district’… as in, circus on every corner… This is not something most bedroom communities aspire to, but it is part of the “social engineering” present in most Master Plans.

Great Barrington prepares to celebrate its new cultural district

“The town pursued a cultural district designation as a result of its 2013 Master Plan. Arts organizations, nonprofits and businesses were convened to provide input. The selectboard then applied to the Massachusetts Cultural Council for the downtown area to be designated as a cultural district, and the application was unanimously approved by the council in August.”

And this town gave the county planning commission the boot, as should all towns and cities in NH.

Michigan county that’s tourist mecca nixes planning group

Here is proof that sustainablists don’t mind uglying up miles of natural landscape for the purpose of their failed alternative energy schemes… Notice the supporters gathered in force and wore similar shirts to show their positions?

Wind energy firm files for DeWitt County special-use permit. Here’s what’s next.

Granite State Future(s) will continue to present examples such as this in an attempt to monitor what goes on in other towns, cities and states to be able to make the public in New Hampshire aware of what could happen to their own state if “regionalism” is not dealt with in a timely fashion.

Forget the promise to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, for as we’ve seen, the agenda of “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) rages locally. Currently, towns and cities in NH and across America are grappling with a new threat called “New Urbanism”.

In addition, despite the fact that the US is fully committed to Agenda 2030, they could not agree on the full document as they refused to oppose human rights abuses of a terrorist country (item 12, subject for another website).

Here is how the US voted on a High-Level Political Forum Ministerial Declaration at the United Nations

Ambassador Kelley Currie
U.S. Representative for Economic and Social Affairs
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
July 18, 2018

Explanation of Vote on a High-Level Political Forum Ministerial Declaration

AS DELIVERED

Good afternoon. I want to thank the ECOSOC President Ambassador Chatardova for organizing the High Level Political Forum and the co-facilitators of the HLPF Ministerial Declaration, Ambassador Gillian Bird and Ambassador Masud Bin Momen, for their efforts throughout the negotiations.

We regret that we were unable to join consensus on this document, as the United States remains firmly committed to its role as a leader in promoting sustainable development.

Throughout this process, we have made our issues with this text well known. We offered numerous constructive amendments in the spirit of compromise. Therefore, it was with regret that the United States had to call a vote and vote no on the Ministerial Declaration due to inappropriate language on foreign occupation and trade, as well as the elevation of an inappropriate development model and the domestic policy rhetoric of a single Member State.

The HLPF was created for the international community to provide updates on how countries are implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Regrettably, we have seen countries deliberately and repeatedly insert non-consensual language into this Ministerial Declaration, largely for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with sustainable development or poverty alleviation. Including this language detracts from the opportunity to collectively report on and advance progress toward sustainable development. We urge those Member States and groupings that insist on the inclusion of this divisive and derivative language to reflect upon the damage they are doing to the efforts to implement the SDGs. This continued, relentless politicization of this declaration should force all Member States to question whether the resources we have all devoted, in staff time, travel, and negotiations, on this Ministerial Declaration would not have been better spent actually promoting SDG implementation on the ground.

Let me be clear: the United States’ commitment to sustainable international development is enshrined in President Trump’s National Security Strategy. Our commitment to financing development is demonstrated in everything we do, as the largest donor to and a significant private sector investor in developing countries. We remain the largest provider of Official Development Assistance, and we are focusing more of our ODA on catalyzing both domestic revenues and private investment in partner countries most in need as they progress on their journey toward self-reliance and sustainability. The United States supports the spirit of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as a framework for development and will continue to be a global leader in sustainable development through our policies, partnerships, innovations, and calls to action.

The United States joined Israel in voting against Paragraph 12, which contains an unacceptable reference to “foreign occupation.” Given our strong support for conflict prevention, human rights promotion and good governance, we are very disappointed that we were unable to reach a common position on this paragraph with our partners and that, yet once again, certain Member States have sought to politicize development issues at the UN by including “foreign occupation” language in this declaration.

The concerns of the United States about the existence of a “right to development,” also referenced in paragraph 12, are long-standing and well known. While we recognize that development facilitates the enjoyment of human rights, the “right to development” does not have an agreed international meaning. Furthermore, we continue to face serious challenges to make any such “right” consistent with fundamental human rights, which the international community recognizes as universal rights held and enjoyed by individuals and which every individual may demand respect for from his or her own government‎.

The United States believes that all development, including sustainable development, needs to be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with human rights. The United States underscores that there are no circumstances under which development goals permit countries to deviate from their human rights obligations and commitments. Therefore, we continually encourage all states to implement their human rights obligations and commitments, regardless of level of development.

With respect to references to the Paris Agreement, we note that the United States announced that it intends to withdraw as soon as it is eligible to do so, consistent with the terms of the Agreement, unless suitable terms for re-engagement are identified. We recognize that climate change is a complex global challenge, and affirm our support for promoting economic growth and improving energy security while protecting the environment.

Regarding language in paragraphs 24 and 28, to the extent that it encourages financial assistance to the Technology Bank and characterizes technology transfer that is not clearly indicated to be both voluntary and on mutually agreed terms, the United States reiterates its long standing objections. For the United States, any such language will have no standing in future negotiations. The United States continues to oppose language that we believe undermines intellectual property rights.

In paragraph 28, the United States reiterates its objections to the reference to “mutually beneficial cooperation.” The terms “win-win cooperation” and “mutually beneficial cooperation” have been promoted interchangeably by a single Member State to insert its domestic policy agenda in UN contexts. As a result, these terms have come to be synonymous with a model of development that is dangerous to the future of sustainable development and the Sustainable Development Goals. None of us should support incorporating language targeting a domestic political audience into multilateral documents. This is especially true, as the term “mutually beneficial cooperation” increasingly appears to refer to a model of development cooperation that comes at the cost of well-established development best practices.

The United States also objects to the trade language in paragraph 28. The United States does not view the UN as the appropriate body to opine on the WTO and does not support references to WTO issues in UN documents. Further, we do not find it acceptable for UN Member States to attempt to prescribe the appropriate characteristics of an international organization that is independent of the UN system, or to comment on the membership of that international organization.

With regard to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the United States applauds the call for shared responsibility, including the emphasis on national responsibility, in the 2030 Agenda and emphasize that all countries have a role to play in achieving its vision. However, the 2030 Agenda recognizes that each country must work toward implementation in accordance with its own national policies and priorities.

We also underscore that paragraph 18 of the 2030 Agenda calls for countries to implement the Agenda in a manner that is consistent with the rights and obligations of States under international law. We highlight our mutual recognition in paragraph 58 that 2030 Agenda implementation must respect and be without prejudice to the independent mandates of other processes and institutions, including negotiations, and does not prejudge or serve as precedent for decisions and actions underway in other forums. For example, this Agenda does not represent a commitment to provide new market access for goods or services. This Agenda also does not interpret or alter any WTO agreement or decision, including the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property.

With regard to the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, AAAA, we note that much of the trade-related language in the AAAA outcome document has been overtaken by events since July 2015; therefore, it is immaterial, and our reaffirmation of the outcome document has no standing for ongoing work and negotiations that involve trade.

Finally, the United States reiterates our views on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction set forth in the U.S. Explanation of Position delivered in Sendai in March 2015. We have been a strong supporter of disaster risk-reduction initiatives designed to reduce loss of life and the social and economic impacts of disasters. This assistance helps recipients build a culture of preparedness, promote greater resilience, and achieve self-reliance.

Finally, we take this opportunity to underscore that this non-binging (sic – non-binding) document does not create or affect rights or obligations under international law, nor does it give rise to financial commitments.

Thank you.

Original link: Explanation of Vote on a High-Level Political Forum Ministerial Declaration

It appears that this article is under a NEW LINK.

Sometimes, the only way to stop what is being promoted via unaccountable, illegal regional governments is to opt out of them completely. That is exactly what sensible people did in Hesperia, California.

Watch the video.

Direct link: https://youtu.be/UxAE5mlPEK4

Each state is different as to the procedure, but in New Hampshire, getting items on the ballot at town meeting time can accomplish this. Regional government and governance by influence of many unelected private groups is currently out of control in NH.

“Lewis Silkin, the Minister of Town and Country Planning in Britain’s postwar Labor government, argued that the only solution to urban chaos was for the government to nationalize land ownership outright.”

“Nearly everywhere, and especially in the United States, these socialist planners were opposed by conservative coalitions of business interests and landowners. In New York City, their chief antagonist was Parks Commissioner Moses, who cast himself as a centrist guardian fighting a common-sense battle against the overreach of utopian bureaucrats. As the historian Mark Gelfand has written, Moses scorned Tugwell as “a dreamer in a world that called for hard-nosed, practical men.” Tugwell represented the “centralization of decision making,” while Moses “held that great deference had to be paid to politicians and public opinion.”

Read the full article here: Rexford Guy Tugwell and the Case for Big Urbanism

Listen to activist Tom DeWeese from the American Policy Center explain how the “Sustainable Development” movement is driving the regionalist and urbanist agendas in towns and cities.

Direct link: https://youtu.be/Gc0NoPmI3Ms

As the smarter among you already know, Smart Cities (being promoted under the ‘new urbanism’) are being created in order to herd us into more controllable areas, curb the population, and preserve rural lands for the wildlife only.

Part of the control will be the 5G network, or ‘internet of things’.

Nothing you do will be private any longer.

Benjamin Freed of Technocracy News – Trilateral Commission: 5G Technology Will Be The Backbone Of Smart Cities said, “Gen. James Jones is a member of the Trilateral Commission and was President Obama’s first National Security Advisor (NSA). He never used computers at the White House because they were not secure, but for us, somehow 5G is going to be secure as it lights up Smart Cities and autonomous driving? Consider the source: the Trilateral Commission has been the primary actor in pushing modern Technocracy since its inception in 1973.”

Read more… 5G technology will be the backbone of smart cities, as long as it’s secured, retired generals say

Regionalism wants to control every person, animal, plant, and virtually every blade of grass on the planet. Their plans are not just about property, but about health, education, transportation, communication and more. A new fad is regional education centers.

“There are cities and regions promoting sustainability throughout the United States, and there are various sustainability initiatives and projects implemented by the city government, NGOs, private sectors and individuals. An RCE (Regional Center of Expertise) can connect all these actors and accelerate collective impacts over the region, and also provides opportunities to impact the global policies such as GAP on ESD and SDGs through the UN platforms provided by the headquarter of RCEs, UNU.”

Advancing Education for Sustainable Development Goals through Regional Centers of Expertise (RCE)

The following links concern issues about which we have written before.

Indeed, from the US State Dept, to HUD and other federal agencies, to your local town governments and schools, this ’embedding’ has already been done. Where are conservatives to stop this?

‘Embed the essence of 2030 Agenda into everything,’ UN chief urges at close of Global Goals forum

Public-Private-Partnerships put taxpayer dollars and decisions into the hands of private corporations. This is NOT the same as ‘privatization’. Again, where are conservatives to put a stop to this?

Op-ed: To meet housing needs, public-private partnerships a must

Unelected, unaccountable regional planners are telling NH towns what to do.

Bike and pedestrian plan for Merrimack in final stages

Dover is paying an unaccountable agency to formulate a ‘master plan on homelessness’.

Dover taking the lead on $15K homeless planner contract

The New American is one of the few organizations that has kept abreast of this issue.

“The Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quietly signed a deal with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) vowing to cooperate on everything from climate change “education” to imposing the highly controversial UN Agenda 2030”.

They also agree with GSF(s)’s assessment that “Even as President Trump walks away from the Paris Climate Accord, with this MOU in place the EPA has still agreed to its basic implementation.”

Remember, the Smart Cities Caucus is now firmly entrenched in our US Congress.

Don’t think our State Department is fully committed to the goals of the United Nations? Well you’d better look HERE, because it’s almost as if they think the UN is our duly elected government.

Read more: Obama-era EPA Deal With UN to Impose Agenda 2030 Still in Force

In addition to the outsider NGOs that are working to force towns to install low-income housing, according to the NY Times, there are groups within NH who have taken up the task of solving NH’s “lack of diversity” which is viewed as a “problem”. (see NY Times article below)

It is true that forces that shouldn’t matter have shown their hand in the recent survey sent to Bedford residents in the form of the 5th and 6th questions which ask:

“5: Do you find it easy to stay engaged in the Bedford community and to maintain an active social life?”

“6: In your opinion, are there steps the Town or non-profit sector could take to promote a better-connected, more socially engaged community? Please explain.”

It is true that the United Nations wants to be in charge of your “very happiness” (quote from past head of that NGO) and thinks that forcing diversity through zoning regulations via your Master Plan is the way to do it.

As far as we know, no one is “asking” how to diversify NH other than the natural way. People are free to move here if they wish. But it’s not the government’s job to socially engineer it!

NY Times Article – New Hampshire, 94 Percent White, Asks: How Do You Diversify a Whole State?