California Declares War on Detached Homes

New American ^ | 11 APRIL 2012 15:36 | RAVEN CLABOUGH

[robowombat]

California Declares War on Detached Homes WRITTEN BY RAVEN CLABOUGH WEDNESDAY, 11 APRIL 2012 15:36

In its ongoing move to establish a full nanny state, the state of California has passed laws intended to minimize car use and carbon dioxide emissions. Those laws are now leading to policies that permit the state to mandate that up to 30 homes may be built on a single acre of land, in an effort to assuage concerns by climate-change advocates that humans are taking up too much space.

“Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house. State and regional planners also seek to radically restructure urban areas, forcing much of the new hyperdensity development into narrowly confined corridors,” reported the Wall Street Journal.

Currently, in five southern California counties, as well as in some areas of Los Angeles County, 30 houses per acre is being mandated. Advocates of this mandate contend that such actions fall under the same laws that were passed to cut vehicle usage and limit carbon dioxide emissions, including the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act and the 2008 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act.

WSJ explains,“The campaign against suburbia is the result of laws passed in 2006 (the Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in 2008 (the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act) on urban planning. The latter law, as the Los Angeles Times aptly characterized it, was intended to "control suburban sprawl, build homes closer to downtown and reduce commuter driving, thus decreasing climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions." In short, to discourage automobile use.

Transportation consultant Wendell Cox admitted that the ultimate goal of the 30 homes per acre is to make construction of detached houses “illegal.”

Not only will California’s new housing rules bring about an increase in condos and apartment complexes and a significant decrease in detached homes, but would also drive up the cost of California’s already unaffordable housing. California’s housing became increasingly unaffordable, notes Dartmouth economist William Fischel, after California began to impose restrictive regulations, such as development moratoria, urban growth boundaries, and impact fees. Stephen Malpezzi of the University of Wisconsin also notes a relationship between extreme land-use regulations and expensive house prices.

California’s new housing policy fits right in to the eco-fascist agenda as laid out during the “Planet Under Pressure” conference in London, where climate-change alarmists unveiled their intent to minimize the amount of space humans utilize on the planet, leaving the rest to nature. Scientists at the conference called for denser cities in order to minimize global population growth.

The conference was cosponsored by NASA and UNEP. Its chief scientist, Michail Fragkias, said, “If cities can develop in height rather than in width that would be much more preferable and environmentally not as harmful.”

“Planet Under Pressure” attendee and Yale University professor Karen Seto told MSNBC, “We certainly don’t want [humans] strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely together.”

The call for compact cities to stifle population growth has increased significantly since the inception of a new era in planetary history, called Anthropocene, described as a new geological era in which humans are the drivers of geological and meteorological processes. Scientists have used the Anthropocene to call for an end to human population growth.

Martin Rees of the Royal Society stated at the conference,“This century is special in the Earth’s history. It is the first when one species — ours — has the planet’s future in its hands. We’ve invented a new geological era: the Anthropocene.”

Also appearing at the Planet under Pressure conference was Professor Kari Norgaard, who published a paper that stated global-warming skeptics should be “treated” for a mental disorder. Norgaard’s paper went so far as to compare climate-change skeptics to racists.

Norgaard also wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to suspend democracy and push through climate-change mandates by way of executive fiat.

Furthermore, California’s environmental efforts fall under the type of policies set forth by the United Nations’ Agenda 21 project, which mandates that all member states participate in “sustainable development” policies.

Agenda 21 is defined by the United Nations as a “comprehensive plan for action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the United Nations system, governments and major groups in every area in which humans impact the environment.”

The New American’s William Jasper wrote of Agenda 21 in February, explaining that the plan is virtually all-encompassing:

The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global — breathtakingly so. Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and “protecting” the atmosphere. It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption — in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.

The American Policy Center made a similar assertion in its analysis of Agenda 21:

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

Section 1 of the plan outlines the social and economic dimensions, i.e. social justice, which focuses on the redistribution of wealth, changing consumption patterns, changed population and usstainable settling.

Agenda 21 is rooted in the writings of Gro Harlem Brundtland, vice president of the World Socialist Party. Brundtland has connections to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Maurice Strong, the architect of the Kyoto protocol.

Agenda 21 is also supported by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), which garners funds from George Soros’ Open Society Institute. Soros’ Center for American Progress, Van Jones’ Green for All, and the Apollo Alliance, part of the TIDES Foundations, are also ICLEI partners.

Conservative pundit Glenn Beck examined Agenda 21 in one of the final episodes of his popular Fox News program and concluded that after reading through the entire document outlining Agenda 21, “Sustainable development is just a really nice way of saying centralized control over all human life on earth.”

One of the authors of Agenda 21 has even admitted, “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on earth…. It calls for specific changes in the activities of all people…. Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.”

Beck observed, “This is a massive movement, and its real intentions are being masked with environmental issues. This structure was set up by those who want to set up a global government system. They wanted to set this structure up years ago.”

The state of California appears all too happy to comply.

[Finny]

California is, for the most part, a DESERT.

I'm a fifth generation CA native and know my very large Golden State -- the only states bigger are Alaska and Texas -- pretty well. It's amazing what some people consider "desert." I heard radio clowns John & Ken (KFI) once describe Cholame, where James Dean was killed in an auto wreck, as "out in the desert." Right -- rolling hills with creeks, oak trees, grazing land, and dry-farmed fields of livestock feed. If that's a desert, I'd hate to know what they thought Lancaster and out Edward AFB way is. Super desert???

I'd say maybe 25 percent of CA is actually desert -- you could irrigate those areas it 'til the cows come home and still not grow much of anything but scrub. The great, flat, and (when not irrigated) bone-dry San Joaquin Valley isn't a desert, it's a dried-up ancient inland seabed, which is why its soil is so fertile that it feeds (or did until environmentalists put a stupid tiny fish higher on the food chain than humans and stopped irrigation for farmers) most of the U.S.

It's such a myth that "Southern California is really one big desert!" Wrongo. Even before water was brought in, most of Los Angeles proper and the San Fernando Valley, and the areas from LA down to San Pedro and on down through Orange County all the way down to San Diego, are so UN desert that people settled to live here, farm, ranch, and prosper LONG before water was shipped in.

I've read enough California history and seen enough old photos, and talked to enough old-timers who remember life here in the 1800s, to know better than to believe the ol' "California is mostly desert!" poppycock.

[righttackle44]

Weren't these called strategic hamlets during the Vietnam war? Weren't they considered a part of a pacification program?

And as for them not wanting people to stroll the countryside, might such strolling be called a patrol? And might those on patrol be called armed citizens?

And is that or is that not part of the Declaration of Independence that says, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"?

Interesting questions, I think, for strategic hamlet planners.

[maine-iac7]

It seems some of you aren’t really aware of what Agenda 21 is really about. It’s VITAL to you and your children/grandchildren that you study this as though your life depends on it - for it does, if you want your life to be free

Below is just a hint of it -

IF you aren’t aware - you’d best check your own communities for anything that says ‘Sustainable’ - this is HARDLY just California. It’s in every state - and even in small, rural areas.

You’d all better do a crash course in Agenda 21 = or y ou will find yourself, your kids ad grandkids squeezed into what is no more than a ghetto - where walls can quickly be built to surround them.

Thes ‘sustainable’ communities are much like the Kitbutz in Israel a few decades ago. they turned out to be disastrous and destroyed a whole generation of families, as to the traditional family structure...and individual autonomy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3qW2XJZdSA&feature=related

Do you know what ICLEI is? It’s tha arm of AGenda 21 that is coing into your towns - in every state - and making deals with your town officials (big money changes hands) and “Sustainable Communities” will start to spring up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3qW2XJZdSA&feature=related

and it isn’t just conservative republicans who are against AGenda 21

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDtCb45Lqt0&feature=related

A book every one of us need to have -

“Behind the Gren Mask” -

[Lorianne]

Zoning and land use laws are coercive, period.
Always have been.

I guarnatee you those complaining about these laws mandating 30 units per acre where not complaining about laws mandating no more than one dwelling per acre.

Let owners/developers decide how many units to put on land that they OWN.

You either defend property rights or you don’t. If you support zoning and land use laws, then you have already conceded owners not having the right to develop their property as they see fit.

[Lorianne]

Zoning and land use laws are coercive, period.
Always have been.

I guarnatee you those complaining about these laws mandating 30 units per acre where not complaining about laws mandating no more than one dwelling per acre.

Let owners/developers decide how many units to put on land that they OWN.

You either defend property rights or you don’t. If you support zoning and land use laws, then you have already conceded owners not having the right to develop their property as they see fit.

[righttackle44]

Yale University professor Karen Seto told MSNBC, “We certainly don’t want [humans] strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely together.”

Someone ought to have a discussion before a public forum about this matter.

[Political Junkie Too]

Can we start with Barbra Streisand's home on the Malibu coast?

-PJ

[maine-iac7]

Wouldn't you love to live here? You won't even need a car - won't be allowed to.

This is a pic of a former Kibutz in Israel - and as bad as it is, it's better than the 'Sustainable Communites" thay are puttin up in America 0 for one thing, in the photo , they have even MORE yard per house...

It's past discouraging that so many are unaware that this is ALREADY in EVERY state - and in even small communities -

This is stealth takeover of the most insidious ever perpetrated on society.

BTW, Newt is the ONLY one who mentions Agenda 21 and vows to get America out of it. The others, I believe, know - but they are in with it. They like the idea of being the ruling elite over a people totally under their tule.

[Finny]

RE my post #21: Make that, talked to enough old timers who remembered life in the 1800s, or who were one generation from parents who remembered because they were here. My own great-great grandfather and great-great uncles came from Michigan in the late 1800s and travelled all up and down California, on foot, to find the best place to grow flower seed crops, and ended up in Santa Ana (Orange County, near Disneyland). This was LONG BEFORE 1913, when the Mulholland's Los Angeles Aquaduct was completed. That water wasn't to irrigate "the desert," it was to support farmers and a growing population.

Just so y'all know -- when you hear somebody say "Oh, California (and/or Southern California) was all desert before the aquaduct!" it's a sure sign they don't know what they're talking about.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Thirty per acre? No problemo...you'll even have room to park your SmartCar...

[muawiyah]

There has always been a little bit of water in the South ~ enough to support about 100,000 people!

Today there are well over 22,000,000 people there, or 220 times as many as the naturally occurring water supply can sustain.

Those facts are readily ascertained. Now, answer me this, Rubio's ~ on Tuesday ~ are the fish tacos still $1.25 or have they raised the price again?

[muawiyah]

My own ancestors were the Americans who hauled the furs from the Russian Camp to the Spanish Mission to trade for vegetables to haul back to the Russians to take to Alaska.

Some of them lived on Sutter's property later on, and others managed to come up with a Mexican landgrant near Shasta. Been trying to figure out if they owned Shasta but the court cases were no more specific on that matter than the rough Spanish surveys of the region.

What else you want to know about water in California? It's all in the North ~ 'ceptin' the Japanese figured out how to dry farm (which still takes water but you don't bathe or drink for years on end eh ~ just keep the ofuro fired up no more than once a week to hold down evaporation).

[muawiyah]

Just about everyone who opposes tight zoning and planning restrictions will turn into proponents if somebody wants to move a modern hog factory in upwind of them!

[calex59]

You either defend property rights or you don’t. If you support zoning and land use laws, then you have already conceded owners not having the right to develop their property as they see fit.

When I was young I used to argue with so called "conservatives" who thought it was just dandy for the government to put restrictions on private property owners. They thought property values out weighted property rights. There are FReepers today who will scream and shout at anyone who says they should have the right to park as many vehicles on their property as they want and let their grass grow as they please, totally ignoring the fact that if the government can mandate that they can mandate anything to do with private property.

We in the USA are supposed to own property in Fee Simple, in other words we are supposed to have full control over our own property and what we do with it, but in fact we have virtually NO control over what we do with our real estate, thanks to a**hats the embraced, and still do, zoning and land use laws.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Climate Panel Retreat

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Kookiefornia is officially dead to me.

Green Marxist Envirowhacko Nanny State PING!

[Still Thinking]

Currently, in five southern California counties, as well as in some areas of Los Angeles County, 30 houses per acre is being mandated.

That's 1452 square feet to a lot! That's less area than I have INSIDE my house, excluding the garage!!

[TigersEye]

You beat me to it. Cabrini Green California style.

[Still Thinking]

California’s new housing policy fits right in to the eco-fascist agenda as laid out during the “Planet Under Pressure” conference in London, where climate-change alarmists unveiled their intent to minimize the amount of space humans utilize on the planet, leaving the rest to nature.

So the same people who think humans are morally nothing more than "naked apes" somehow exclude us from the "nature" entitled to make use of Earth. World class fools, intellectually dishonest/bankrupt. If they were any smarter, I'd be scared of them.

[musicman]