UN Agenda 21 - Coming to a Neighborhood near You

Most Americans are unaware that one of the greatest threats to their freedom may be a United Nations program known as Agenda 21. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created Agenda 21 as a sustainability agenda which is arguably an amalgamation of socialism and extreme environmentalism brushed with anti-American, anti-capitalist overtones.

A detailed history on sustainable development, definitions, and critical actions can be found here. Section III of the Agenda 21 Plan addresses local community sustainable development. The Preamble and Chapter 28 discuss how Agenda 21 should be implemented at a local level. The United Nations purposely recommends avoiding the term Agenda 21 and suggests a cleverly named alternative: "smart growth." The United Nations Millennium Papers - Issue 2 (page 5) says this of Agenda 21 and smart growth:

Participating in a UN-advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear 'one-world government' and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined 'the conspiracy' by undertaking LA21. So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth [emphasis added].

Undoubtedly, residents of any town, county, or city in the United States that treasure their freedom, liberty, and property rights couldn't care less whether it's called Agenda 21 or smart growth. A recent example of this can be found in Carroll County, Maryland, where a smart growth plan called Pathways was drafted by the County Planning Department. The plan, if enacted, proposed a breathtaking reshuffling of land rights:

* Rezoning of thousands of acres of beautiful, low-density agricultural farmland and protected residential conservation land into office parks * Down-zoning of agriculture land to prevent future subdivision by farmers * Up-zoning of low-density residential land around small towns into higher density zoning to permit construction of hundreds or possibly thousands of inclusive housing units, including apartments and condominiums * Inclusive housing with placement of multi-family construction on in-fill lots within existing residential single family communities * Endorsement of government-sponsored housing initiatives (subsidies) to ensure healthier, balanced neighborhoods

Carroll County, Maryland is one of 1,168 cities, towns, and counties worldwide that are members of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) - Local Governments for Sustainability, which is an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organizations that have made a commitment to sustainable development. The ICLEI mission statement closely resembles that of Agenda 21. In fact, the ICLEI has Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council and coordinates local government representation in the UN processes related to Agenda 21.

Community leaders working together in Carroll County recently defended their county against overreaching smart growth initiatives. Richard Rothschild, a candidate for Commissioner, emphatically remarks, "Smart growth is not science; it is political dogma combined with an insidious dose of social engineering. Smart growth is a wedding wherein zoning code is married with government-sponsored housing initiatives to accomplish government's goal of social re-engineering. It urbanizes rural towns with high-density development, and gerrymanders population centers through the use of housing initiatives that enable people with weak patterns of personal financial responsibility to acquire homes in higher-income areas. This has the effect of shifting the voting patterns of rural municipalities from Right to Left."

Smart growth plans usurp property rights and constitutional rights. Local officials, at the behest of State Government, revise zoning laws to fit into a "smart code" zoning template. A massive reshuffling of property rights ensues. Farmers may lose subdivision rights; conservation land adjacent to population centers may be rezoned into commercial employment centers; and low-density land in small towns is re-designated as growth area and rezoned to accommodate diverse housing including high-density apartments and condominiums.

Finally, a healthy dose of federal- or state-sponsored housing initiatives is embraced to ensure communities are properly balanced. The net effect of these plans is to create highly urbanized population centers throughout otherwise-rural counties, while simultaneously limiting the availability of land for suburban and estate subdivisions, as these are considered an unsustainable waste of land by Agenda 21 disciples.

Clearly, smart growth plans will impact Americans' future choices in where and how they live. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal and state agencies may attempt to deny grant funds to states and cities that do not adopt smart growth plans.

Most Americans will remain unaware of the implications of smart growth and Agenda 21 until after it is promulgated in their own backyards. Ironically, these plans are more insidious than the Eminent Domain ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v City of New London. Under Eminent Domain rulings, property owners usually receive compensation for their losses.

Conversely, smart growth municipal plans, required by statute, enable municipalities to change zoning laws and engage in other regulatory actions that devalue property, restrict off-conveyances, and otherwise erode property values without payment of any compensation to the property owner.

Smart growth has another interesting unintended consequence: it can disrupt conventional alliances and lead to strange political bedfellows. Rural urbanization plans may raise the ire of environmental groups while simultaneously stirring the wrath of both conservative and liberal residents that want to maintain the rural fabric of their communities. Conversely, developers, sensing opportunity, may side with government smart growth bureaucrats in support of these plans.

Regardless of political orientation, two indisputable facts remain. Agenda 21 is a direct assault on private property rights and American sovereignty, and it is coming to a neighborhood near you.

> Sustainable living initiatives that are applied to existing urban areas are not the big concern here. Clearly, the problem is the “de-ruralization”, or forcing rural dwellers together into existing or new urban areas.

West Auckland is an interesting example because it combines long-established middle-class to lower-middle-class housing and industrial areas, plenty of suburbia, an Air Force base, rural land and vast tracts of wilderness jungle. For the most part it is a “breakfast community” that feeds into the gaping maw that is the Auckland CBD.

> I’m curious, though... what did a focus on sustainable living do to make West Auckland less smelly and undesirable — and why were the problems that caused those conditions not able to be fixed before?

Much of the historic industrialization was of an unsustainable nature, causing pollution and social issues out of proportion to the benefit they returned to the community. So Council focused instead on attracting new “sustainable” industries to displace these legacy operations. As a result, we ended up with a film industry and a luxury yacht building sector. Both of these employ large numbers of locals, have minimal impact on the living environment, and act as catalysts to related feeder industries: for example, boat builders need upholsterers, films need caterers and gurneys, etc.

Zoning laws were used creatively and aggressively, with a District Plan carefully mapping out the limits to growth and the form which such growth could take place.

The wilderness area was a great example: it is a stunningly beautiful part of town, consisting of rolling hills and “jungle”. It could easily have been carved up into little bits and become an urban sprawl, but instead it was protected from over-development, with large tracts set aside as a regional park.

Similarly, there are controls on the rural landscape: it is no longer possible, say, to sell off an entire vineyard, mow it flat and carve it up into quarter-acre sections and plunk cheap housing on it.

Alongside all of this came a focus on the “EcoCity”, which involved initiatives to clean up the city environment, implement eco-friendly initiatives and make the city a sustainable place to live.

As to why none of these issues were able to be fixed before, I believe there would have been a lack of political focus and a lack of will, with plenty of temptation to retain the status quo.

IMO it is an excellent example of good city planning. Sometimes the politicians can get it right, and this is one case where they did — as anyone visiting West Auckland would agree.

BOHICA is right, Waspman, but people won’t listen until it bites them in the butt.

The Nexus: Immigration, Mexican organized crime, enviromentalism and the UN.

TheTownCrier has for years been talking about the unlawful use of our public lands, especially government designated ‘wilderness areas’ by armed illegal alien drug cartels.

Liberty and this nation succeeded because PROPERTY rights were the first and foremost protection. It will fail, as it has with every nation who couldn’t/wouldn’t protect its borders, because that protection has been abandoned by ‘those in the know’ of both parties. From planting and burning our national forests and parks to squatting in people’s houses in Portland, Oregon (this happens along the border all the time! Ask Sue Krentz...oh, that’s right, she’s trying to stay alive because of this same invasion only months after her husband was murdered by these invaders.)

Stephen Wilmeth, an Arizona rancher, knows all too well what this invasion has done to property along the Mexican border.

His recent article, ‘Wilderness: Expansion and (Unlawful) Beneficiary Use’ brings all the players together and explains how much of this incursion has happened. The threat is to our national sovereignty and is the result of not-so-unintended consequences to the greatest strength of this nation: Property Rights.

His article below is worth the read to everyone!
_____________

The Battle of Juarez is showing signs that the good guys are not prevailing. The Juarez newspaper, El Diario de Juarez, has cried uncle in its mixed stance of reporting the progress of the war. In the front page editorial that appeared recently, the editor waved the white flag and asked the cartels publicly what they want from him. The murder of a photographer and another reporter in the recent past are hitting far too close to home for him to continue to be a brave purveyor of the truth.

In a city ravaged by nearly 7,000 deaths since 2006 and the loss of as many as 40% of its businesses, the fear of the cartels is not a surprise. The only question the El Diario should have asked is should it be uncle or tio and should it be capitalized?

Can any American imagine the chaos that would occur in the United States if a city the size of Detroit had experienced the loss of 40% of its businesses and suffered twice the number of casualties that occurred on 9/11? Similarly, can any logical American buy the administration’s premise that border cities are safer than they have been in years?

Numbers never lie, but liars are gifted with numbers, right? Perhaps the logical place to be looking these days is not in the cities, but in the country where conflicting governmental policies and agendas have created physical voids now overrun with lawlessness.

The symptoms are not new

Retired Border Patrol officer, Zack Taylor, has a simple, logical point. “Nature abhors a vacuum. In the case of wilderness on the border, when you lock out or prohibit ordinary law enforcement activities in an area you invite illegal activity and create a safe haven for the criminal to operate.”

Mr. Taylor’s point is best exemplified not on the Mexican border, but in places inland like the Mendocino National Forest in California. How long ago did we first hear fragmented stories about the growth of marijuana businesses in those remote, federally controlled lands? It was years ago and that problem hasn’t gone away. In fact, within the last week Americans have been exposed to more news coverage of the same topic in California and Colorado many miles from the border. The question must be asked, “Where else is it happening and what is causing the problem?”

The answer to what is causing the problem is simple. The environmental movement and the cooperating and coordinating policies of federal land management agencies have created geographical vacuums where illegal activities are allowed to exist and expand. In the case of the most dangerous vacuums, those near the border, control has been seized by Mexican drug cartels. In the case of inland voids, the operational control is shared variously, but cartel influence there is expanding alarmingly.

The most dangerous sector

The most dangerous Border Patrol Sector is the Tucson Sector. Not long ago, the Tucson Sector was known as the sector where not much happened. It was in El Paso and San Diego that bad things happened.

A change in that situation started when then Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar and El Paso Sector Chief Sylvestre Reyes conceived the idea of “Hold the Line” that returned Border Patrol agents to the border. It was there, where in Reyes’ words, “(they) could look the illegals in the eyes” that they successfully stemmed the flow of illegals that were taking over El Paso.

The Hold the Line success carried over into a similar operation in the urban centers of southern California. It was there that the El Paso lessons were combined with stadium lighting and other high tech gadgetry to stem that tide of illegal immigration.

“Few could have predicted that the agenda of the environmental movement and the actions of the federal land management agencies would create a perfect conduit for the pipeline of drug flow into the United States.”

It was in southern Arizona where similar actions failed. When the tactics were tried at Nogales, the illegal immigrants found the security of wilderness and administrative safe havens which allowed them to evade CBP surveillance and interdiction. Human and drug smuggling routes were altered and the El Paso, San Diego, and Yuma Sectors were no longer the preferred points of entry. That remains the case today.

Over the last 10 years, the Tucson Sector has had more investment by CBP than any other sector, but the facts suggest that progress has not only failed to match the success of other sectors the conditions have deteriorated. In 2009, nearly half of marijuana interdiction on the entire American border occurred in the Tucson Sector. Total drug flows were up and 2010 deaths among illegals will surpass the record death toll of 2005 when 282 bodies were found. This is all at a time when human smuggling is down dramatically.

The wilderness connection

The Fraternal Order of Police has for a number of years published a list of the 10 most dangerous parks. Consistently, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument directly on the Mexican border has been named the most dangerous “park” and it has become the poster child for the danger posed by border wilderness areas. The wilderness danger, though, is no longer just on the border.

Places like Lake Mead and Saguaro West (near Tucson) are now in the annual listings of areas that pose the most danger to the American public. Whereas the former doesn’t have wilderness the latter does. Both have large expanses of territory that make it difficult to maintain a constant law enforcement presence. Taylor’s “vacuum” bubbles up yet again and illegal activity fills that vacuum . . . every time.

Retired Border Patrol Sector Chief, Gene Wood, believes strongly that the border wilderness and safe haven corridors have had a profound effect on expansion of the drug trade. “We are continuing to recognize the impact these border corridors have had on not only Arizona, but the entire United States. When you interdict nearly half the marijuana intercepted across this country on just this border section, you must realize the implications of that. This border area has become the preferred point of entry. It is not only dangerous it has become an open wound in the American fight against drugs. It has affected the entire nation.”

Joe Dreyfuss, a fifth generation Arizonan, hosts a radio talk show from Tucson on Sunday evenings. In a recent show, Mr. Dreyfuss commented on hunting in the Chiracahua Mountains of southeastern Arizona. “I have hunted a particular area in those mountains on and off for 30 years and I will no longer hunt there. Local friends (ranchers) know where two permanent (drug) spotter locations are on a particular ridge and those guys are armed with night vision and automatic weapons. I will not hunt under conditions like that.”

Similar comments are made by a growing number of folks. Former Chief of Flight Operations, Border Patrol, Richard Hays, talks similarly about the Buenos Aires Wildlife Refuge area. “I used to hunt down there and love that country, but I wouldn’t hunt there now on a bet. It is overrun with cartel activity. It is a dangerous place.”

The observations of Taylor, Wood, Dreyfuss, Hays and others who have lived their lives and spent entire careers on the border are attempting to sound the alarm, and yet the lessons are being ignored by the leadership that represents the folks who are most affected.

In New Mexico, wilderness legislation introduced by Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall include border areas that duplicate Arizona conditions. If CBP enforcement activity is altered and constrained, there is every reason to believe that the same corridor expansion will occur on those lands. The Taylor vacuum will be introduced and the cartels will find the seam.

Federal land management connection

Few could have predicted that the agenda of the environmental movement and the actions of the federal land management agencies would create a perfect conduit for the pipeline of drug flow into the United States. The designation of wilderness seemed like an honorable and harmless endeavor except to the few Americans who were unfortunate enough to have duties, responsibilities, and private property rights in its footprint. Congressional leadership agreed and federal legislation was enacted.

Meanwhile, the drug trade was moved from Columbia to Mexico. The turf war that ensued escalated as the corridor growth into the lucrative United States market was developed. The urban centers were the initial ports of entry but that changed when American wilderness areas were discovered. The corridors created there allowed unlimited expansion of business and the turf war erupted into a revolution to control drug movement. Juarez became one of the primary battle grounds.

Today, the environmental groups and the cartels have a continuing mutual interest in the land. The wilderness areas and the large federally managed lands offer opportunities for each. To the environmental camp, the designation of wilderness remains the gold standard for preserving lands into perpetuity. To the cartel camp, the designation of wilderness is continuing to be the gold standard for delivering drugs across the border onto American sovereign territory.

“The Arizona Class corridors have created direct access onto sovereign American soil for the drug cartels while the United States Congress has played politics”.[snip]
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=Agenda+21

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.