Peeking Behind the Curtain of Big Oil-Funded Agenda 21 Conspiracy Mongers

Literature from the Koch brother-funded Americans for Prosperity links smart growth policies to the UN and the sinister-sounding "Agenda 21." Their brochure is actually on the milder side of Agenda 21 paranoia. Image: ##http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-policy/who-behind-agenda-21-paranoia-how-can-we-fight-back.html##TreeHugger##

If you haven’t been following the story of the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory, here’s a quick overview. Some people believe a two-decade-old, non-binding UN plan to promote sustainable development means the government is going to seize their land and cars and force them to live in tenements. The ultra-conservative John Birch Society says that Agenda 21 “seeks to curtail your freedom to travel as you please, own a gas-powered car, live in suburbs or rural areas, and raise a family.”

Despite its complete detachment from reality, the conspiracy theory seems to have influence and staying power. The Republican National Committee has condemned Agenda 21. The state of Tennessee passed a resolution against it (one legislator even said it would result in “forced abortions“). Colorado gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes infamously cited Agenda 21 as the basis of his opposition to Denver’s bike-share system. Tea Party adherents convinced that smart growth projects are a threat to their liberties have disrupted planning meetings all over the country. In Maine, Republican Governor Paul LePage halted an award-winning transportation and land use plan after one such outburst, though state officials denied that the decision was influenced by the conspiracy theorists.

Overall, a small percentage of Americans have been taken in by Agenda 21 paranoia, according to a survey commissioned by the firm Collective Strength, which does market research for many smart growth-related organizations. They found that 85 percent of Americans had never heard of Agenda 21, and only six percent oppose it.

“I genuinely believe the Agenda 21 phenomenon is highly manufactured,” Collective Strength’s Robin Rather told TreeHugger. “It’s not out there in the mainstream.”

She continued:

Usually when you listen to complaints like those of Tea Party members, there are different inflections, a much wider variation. But this isn’t organic and local, the same talking points come up everywhere. They are being played and used. The whole campaign serves no interest to anyone who isn’t trying to ensure that we keep burning as much fossil fuel as we can for as long as possible.

So who’s manufacturing the paranoia?

TreeHugger’s Lloyd Alter runs through the cast of characters on the Agenda 21 speaking circuit. They are a small group of people affiliated with a handful of outfits with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry.

A major player is Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center, which Alter calls the “loudest mouthpiece of the Agenda 21 conspiracy crowd.” DeWeese’s conspiracy-fueled “expertise” is propagated by far-right groups including the John Birch Society, the Conservative Political Action Committee, and Americans for Prosperity — which was founded thanks to the fossil fuel-generated wealth of the Koch brothers. DeWeese’s board includes several veterans of the dirty energy industry’s campaign to discredit the scientific consensus on global warming.

For more on the ties between the Agenda 21 conspiracy mongers and the fossil fuel industry, Alter’s full piece is worth a read. Ultimately, he says, disarming the misinformation campaign will depend on exposing these connections.

  • Gee, this sounds just like the manufactured controversy about Bryan Fischer’s “atheist tax,” too.

  • Anonymous

    hahaha! attacking “conspiracy theories” by inventing absurd conspiracies about the oil industry trying to discredit the already discredited climate propaganda 🙂 Priceless! Don’t forget to adjust your tin-foil hate 😉
    As I’m sure you are aware most of the biggest oil companies (BP and Shell and many others) were part of the CAP group promoting the cap and trade scam. All of the billionaires (Soros, Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Richard Branson, etc) have been trying to sell this garbage too. Nobody believes you anymore.  
    Read about the UN’s Agenda 21 yourself and decide whether you think dictators, communists and global bureaucrats have any business helping to develop and impose any environmental and development policies, let alone the ones in Agenda 21, in our cities and towns.

    Get US out of the UN!

  • MBB Associate

    CHThompson,

    So we have absurd theories to discredit the oil industry, even though the oil industry is actually on the pro-“climate propaganda” side? Do I understand you correctly? Climate change activists hate Shell, a company which sponsors climate change activists…. because …. uhm…. uhhhh…. uhhhhh…..
    Great story, bro

  • Station44025

    Fee and dividend. Only thing that makes sense.

  • Jeff Hogan

    Hi Angie,  I think you insulted your readers by not referencing any web sites opposed to Agenda21 in this article above. 

    The

    debate is so unnecessary that your journalistic integrity requires you
    to dismiss the opposition as delusional and paranoid?  What does that
    tactic actually say about you?

    Is there a possibility that you’re either not informed about
    Agenda 21 or that you are intimidated by the mounting backlash against
    it? 

    Please feel free to warn your readers of the delusional and paranoid arguments and case studies in my essay at http://deltacountyagenda21.yolasite.com/   

  • JopOSopHop

    So, 85% have never heard of it, and only 6% are a part of the “conspiracy crowd”?  I think we need to educate the 85% before some world government attempts to trump our constitution.  Treehugger, Angie, you stand aside and let this happen, but the ball is rolling and gaining steam.  I hope it is all kum ba yah, but i’m not going to wait around and get caught with my pants down.  Do you truly think it’s not worth keeping an eye on as the UN’s documented plan is implemented?  Do you think it’s unreasonable to educate the uneducated on this “manufactured” theory.  Read the book, pay attention to the details.  It’s a rope a dope…  Don’t worry, there will be plenty of trees to hug, you just wont be allowed to step foot near them…

  • Rene’ Holaday

    Hello Angie,
          Don’t feel too bad, you’re in the same exact shoes as all the elected officials we’ve been educating.  Now that they know better, they also are on board against Agenda 21.
         Since you clearly don’t have all the material at your fingertips, let me direct you to a  book to read that is a quick and easy read with nothing but direct quotes and article references on this subject.  This book is called “The Perils of Sustinable Development” and is available online at http://www.stopiclei.com
         This book has the UN’s “Un-sustainable List” from the UN’s Global Biodiversity Assessment Report.  Below is a partial list of their “unsustainable items” followed by page numbers from this document.  You can see for yourself that this is a direct quote, and direct quotes cannot be “theories”, as in “conspiracy theories” at all.  Tell me if you think the eradication of these things in this list would affect you or your way of life here in America??:

    Private property rights 767, 782,
    Population growth, human population density 771,
    Ski Runs 337,
    Grazing of Livestock: cows, sheep, goats, horses 350,
    Disturbance of the soil surface 351,
    Large hoofed animals, compaction of soil, reducing filtration 350,
    Fencing of pastures or paddocks 351,
    Agriculture 728,
    Floor and wall tiles 730,
    aquaculture 733,
    Modern farm production systems 728,
    Chemical fertilizers 728, Herbicides 728,
    Building materials 728,
    Industrial Activities 730,
    Human-made caves of brick and mortar, concrete and steel 730, 86 86 Paved and tarred roads, highways, and rails 730, 351,
    Railroads 730,
    Technology improvements 733,
    Farmlands, Pastures, Rangelands 733,
    Fish ponds, 733,
    Plantations 733,
    Modern hunting 738,
    Harvesting of timber 738,
    Logging activities 749,
    Fossil fuels used for driving various kinds of machines 728,
    Dams, reservoirs, straightening rivers 755,
    Power line construction 757,
    Economic systems that fail to set a proper value on the environment 763,
    Inappropriate social structures 763,
    Weaknesses in legal and institutional systems 763,
    Modern attitudes toward nature-Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions 766, 838, Consumerism 773,
    Fragmentation of habitat-cemeteries, derelict lands, rubbish tips, etc. 774,
    Sewers, drain systems, pipelines 774,
    Land use that serves human needs 783,
    Fisheries 969,
    Golf Courses 970,
    Scuba Diving 970,
    Synthetic drugs 728,
    Fragmentation-agricultural development, forestry urbanization(impervious surfaces) 990

    Sincerely,
    Rene’ Holaday

  • JamesR

    Did this piece somehow get linked to some tinfoil hat blog or something?

    To the tinfoil hat/Bildeberger Worldwide Conspiracy crowd below: I’m a public sector urban planner. A ‘bureaucrat’, if you will. You’d probably hate me if you knew me. That said, Agenda 21 has ZERO bearing on the planning work that we do. Just as it has no bearing on the work that any US planners do. Agenda 21 is a nice paperweight, but that’s it. 

  • Anonymous

     21 Truths About Agenda 21 & Sustainable Development
    1) From the largest metropolitan cities to the smallest towns of
    Main Street America, communities all across our nation are being
    influenced with a new political philosophy known as Sustainable
    Development and its primary framework for implementation called Agenda
    21.

    2) Agenda 21 is the global blueprint of implementation for Sustainable
    Development devised by the United Nations and was signed by 178 world
    leaders at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992.

    3) Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 call for a complete
    re-orientation of the world system of governance in every area in which
    human impacts on the environment.

    4) Sustainable Development, like Communism or
    Fascism, is a doctrine or philosophy of governance complete with its
    own agenda, beliefs, and goals.

    5)  On June 29th, 1993 President Clinton signed Executive Order 12852
    creating The President’s Council on Sustainable Development. This step
    began the full-scale implementation of Agenda 21 and Sustainable
    Development within the United States of America.

    6) Sustainable Development is entrenched throughout
    our government at every level from federal, state and regional agencies
    to county, city and community councils and planning boards.

    7) Sustainable Development or “Sustainability” is
    often promoted with the environmental message of “going green”, or
    “being a good steward” but in reality there is actually a much, much
    deeper political philosophy of control and governance at work.

    8) Sustainable Development is a political philosophy
    that is built upon three pillars.   These three pillars are known as
    the “3E’s”, or “the triple bottom line”.  The three pillars of sustainable development are Ecological Integrity, Economic Prosperity and Social Equity.

    9) Sustainable Development demands that the perfect balance of “the triple bottom line”
    be the deciding lens through which all community development, growth,
    and decisions are viewed. All growth which fails to achieve this
    perfect balance is considered unsustainable.

    10) Communities are being drawn down the path of
    Sustainable Development by the lure of numerous monetary grants and
    incentives from state and federal government agencies as well as
    non-governmental organizations.

    11) Sustainable Development views traditional
    capitalism and the American way of life as a failing and inequitable
    system that must be replaced with a new governance system in order to
    achieve sustainability and a just world.

    12) An overwhelming number of businesses and
    corporations have began shifting to a Sustainable Development
    operational model and in so doing have rejected the traditional “bottom
    line” of American Capitalism replacing it with the “triple bottom line”
    of United Nations Sustainable Development.

    13) Almost every College and University in the nation
    has become indoctrinated with the philosophy of Sustainable
    Development. From campus infrastructure and administration to student
    life and the curriculum America’s Colleges and Universities are awash
    in this radical, collectivist philosophy.

    14) The philosophy of Sustainable Development calls
    for a complete change in the lifestyle of the average American citizen.
    Numerous aspects of normal American life are subject to intense
    scrutiny under this radical new philosophy. Where and how we build our
    homes, what products we use, which foods we eat, what and how much we
    consume, and which methods of transportation we choose, are just a few
    examples of American life that United Nations Sustainable Development
    seeks to bring under its controlling grasp.

    15) Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 promote a
    paradigm shift in attitudes away from the norm of national borders and
    individual nation-states toward a globalist, collective, one-world,
    interdependent, and interconnected planetary mindset.

    16) Sustainable Development philosophy teaches that
    mankind is living beyond the “carrying capacity” of the Earth and that
    we are in the midst of multiple crises that are converging to create
    conditions that are not livable unless they are halted by a rapid
    global transition to a sustainable development system. Some of these
    perceived crises include overpopulation, global poverty and wealth
    inequality, manmade global climate change, and rampant environmental
    destruction.

    17) Across our nation numerous communities of all
    sizes are putting into place the radical policies of Sustainable
    Development and United Nations Agenda 21.  From new comprehensive land
    use plans, to smart growth, and sustainable community planning, the
    ideas and infrastructure of Sustainable Development are being
    implemented and added to daily.

    18) The policies of sustainable development and
    Agenda 21 seek to change the way people live and build their cities and
    towns. Sustainable Development promotes high density, urban,
    pedestrian oriented, low carbon, walkable communities and discourages
    traditional American automobile usage, suburban lifestyles and
    development.

    19) The Sustainable Development philosophy perceives
    the automobile and the ongoing use of fossil fuels as unsustainable.

    20) In addition to the high level efforts within the
    United Nations and other similar globalist organizations, much of the
    work in promotion of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is being
    carried out by a massive network of Non Governmental Organizations
    (NGOs). These organizations have been fully consumed by this radical
    collectivist philosophy and are working overwhelmingly to advance the
    Sustainable Development Agenda.

    21) Sustainable Development and the implementation of
    Agenda 21 are not some far off future possibility.  In fact, America
    and the world are in the midst of what the sustainable development
    movement calls “the great transition” to a sustainable new model of
    living. 

  • Anonymous

    I appreciate that the anti-Agenda 21 acolytes appeared out of the woodwork to enlighten us as soon as you brought up the topic, but sometimes listening to such avid conspiracy theorists throws me into minor existential crises. Can they make things true, simply through hysterical, unrelenting insistence? Is it really possible to disarm a misinformation campaign when no one is interested in the truth? Conspiracy theorists are never placated; does it just take the passing of generations to move on from this sort of roadblock? It’s tragic that we’ll have blown through so many of our limited resources by the time we get over this. 

  • Rene’ Holaday

    James R,
         This is funny because here where I live, I was just looking over the Sustainability Action Plan manual that the public was not supposed to get ahold of, and low and behold there are hundreds of references where they have to get together and talk with the planning department. 
         Anything that has to do with your city’s or county’s Comprehensive Plan, Sustainability, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Growth Management, etc, all pretty much has to go through or coordinate with he planning department and vs.vs.  If what you do has anything to do with water, sewage, septic systems, building a home, etc, then of course you are adhereing to Agenda 21 regulations for water control, zoning laws, etc. 
         Basically, no planning can occur without following strict guidlines for zoning laws and revised codes for your state.  The majority of these existing regulations have come about through the Growth Management Act, which is enacted in almost every city and county in America.   
          Florida recently ousted the entire Growth Management Act(GMA) as well as over 1,000 of the regulations supporting the GMA, as GMA and these regulations were cited as being the central cause for the stifling of all economic growth in FLA.  FLA Governor, Rick Scott stated that now that they have removed GMA from FLA, they expect to see at least 700,000 new jobs created.
         To say that the Planning Department has nothing to do with Agenda 21 is only ignorance.  If you are a Planner, how could you possibly plan anything outside the GMA regulations…that is unless you live in the State of FLA?  GMA is Agenda 21, whether you are aware of that or not.  This subject does take research and I can only encourage you to investigate for yourself.
         Also, one night in 2009 myself and about 150 other people were all called Conspiracy Theorists by the city’s environmental attorneys, the university’s biology Professors, environmentalists, etc, in a City Council Hearing on the adoption of Sustainable Development.  It went on and on for about 2 hours.  Finally in the end I gave copies of the UN’s website link to the exact info we were telling them.  I also quoted several American Mayors who attend UN Conferences on a regular basis that were describing how they are happy to bring home Sustainable Development to their cities and surrounding areas.  I gave each city council member a copy of that info and told them not to believe me or what I said, but to go and look up those sites for themselves to verify that we were telling the truth.  When I did that, it forced the Mayor to admit in her closiung statement that yes, it was a UN program afterall.  All those high powered liars had to eat crow.  Only later when I got ahold of this Sustainability Action Plan manual did I discover that all those nay sayers accusing us of being Conspiracy Theorists already knew it was a UN program.  They were supposed to be the respectable people of the community, yet there they were, all of them lieing through their teeth about this garbage, the whole while knowing we were telling the truth.
         So you may want to investigate more if you’re a planner and you honestly have no idea that the regulations you have to abide by come from UN programs.

    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news…. that is the truth.  I always say I’d rather know the truth, no matter how awful, than be lied to- I just hate being lied to- don’t you?? 😉

    Sincerely,
    Rene’ Holaday

  • Newsnow09

    James R.

    What city and state do you live and work in?

  • Coloradoan

    Angie,
    With all due respect, I believe you desperately need to educate yourself before you write columns like the one above which simply showcase ignorance. 

    Watch the movie UN Me, read up on how many communities are now signing onto U.N. codes for various aspects of local government, how Hillary Clinton wants to get the UN Small Arms Treaty passed so Americans can lose their second amendment rights, and so forth.  These are not conspiracies, it is happening right under our noses and our complacency and ignorance is allowing it to happen. 

    Have you actually watched or heard anything by Tom DeWeese?  Or do you just believe what TreeHugger Lloyd Alter is telling you? Thankfully hundreds of U.S. cities and communities are waking up to what is going on and putting a stop to the United Nations being allowed to override the Constitution of our land and America’s sovereignty.

  • Anonymous

    First, I’d like to welcome all the right wingers to streetsblog!

    Second, you might want to take a few breaths and think this through. The densest cities and neighborhoods in the US predate urban planning and zoning, and if planning and zoning go away, US cities will start to get denser very quickly. From NY to LA, the free market is practically begging for single family houses to be replaced with taller apartment buildings. The exurbs only grow at the rate they do because excessive regulation forces it to be that way.

    Third, the UN, really? One of the most toothless organizations history, that’s your bugaboo?

  • Hal F.

    Hey Suburban Capitalist, nice cut and paste job there. You forgot the point about foreign UN agents in black helicopters spying on Americans, though.

  • JamesJ

    Relax folks, no UN troops are coming for your guns. No one is going to force you into Michele Bachmann’s mythical “high-rise slums near railroad tracks”. No one is coming for your bibles, barbecue grills, and SUVs.

    The market is eventually going to make suburbia change and is going to direct growth in a different pattern than during the auto/highway boom age…and what could be more “American” than that. Unless you don’t believe in capitalism and are some kind of sosh’list-commie-pinko lib’ruul. 🙂

  • Anonymous

    Hey Hal F… nice job disputing what was posted…lol. I pasted 21 points about sustainable development, care to comment on the veracity of those?

  • Kmcrawford111

    Apparently the agenda of the last 6-7 decades – doing everything possible to force people into cars – was perfectly OK, as far as these people opposed to Agenda 21 are concerned.

    “The Sustainable Development philosophy prrceives the automobile and the ongoing use of fossil fuels as unsustainable.”

    Uh, maybe because they are? This Agenda seems to me to align a lot closer with reality than the current meme in America: “Sustaining the Unsustainable at All Costs”.

  • Dave

    Since Agenda 21 is “soft law” as apposed to a treaty situation, many Agenda 21 policies are being adopted and implemented by regional bureaucracies like Regional Planning commissions” and “Councils of Government.” I have been my town’s Conservation Agent for nearly tens years and I’m now fighting off “Land Trusts” that are banning tractors from farms they’re claiming to revitalize. The system is built to be abused by environmental extremists……grants are only given to groups that will deed restrict land in perpetuity. Water policy, comprehensive land use zoning and redevelopment schemes are quickly and quietly eliminating local controls and killing economic potential. Agenda 21 is a very real threat, but it’s not a conspiracy discussion, it’s a policy discussion.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GykzQWlXJs

  • Anonymous

    The nice thing about the internet is that we can share ideas. Unfortunately people like this author can take advantage of the internet to promote ideas and thoughts which have no basis in fact.

    Extremely nice touch to headline ‘big oil’ and then slam the Birch Society in the body of the article.

    Readers interested in factual information might want to review ‘The Future We Want’ which is a paper published after the Rio+20 meeting in June when 50.000 people converged on the city of Rio to discuss and plan implementation of Agenda 21 which this author would have us believe is some manufactured conspiracy theory with no serious intent to change the world. 

  • Anonymous

    “Looking Behind the Door for Socalist Mongers of the U.N.”   THE Agenda  21 ‘phenomenon’ was not manufactured, that is the name the UN. gave the plan in 1992 (Rio).  They had another meeting in June of this year (2012), in Rio.  They are not going away, ever, until they obtain their goals; which are listed in their 40 Chapter book—“Rio+ Agenda 21”.  The United States of America does not need the UN. or any of their supporters telling us how to maintain or govern our country.  Obviouslly, we’re not perfect but we’re better off than ANY European Union country.  Why would we even consider adopting ANY of their plans?  Everyone, who has some education, knows who owns the oil companies.  These owners are at the Agenda 21 and Bilderberg Meetings. Just because the “mainstream media” will not report the events does not mean they don’t exist.  Have you seen Angie Schmidt or Mile Lydon report on these two events? :  Both meetings were in June,2012.  The answer is NO.  What are they afraid to report?         

  • marcotico

    I don’t think all the critics realize that most of the Streetsblog readers do support the ideas in Agenda 21, and would like to see them implemented.  I for one think regional goals should trump property rights.  I guess that makes me anti “normal” Americans.  However, I am an American citizen, born and bred, so as long as I get to vote, I get to determine for myself what is and what isn’t “American”.  If you want to say that only Jeffersonian agrarianism is American, that is your opinion, but not a fact.  Hamilton was a founding father, so was Sam Adams, so was Ethan Allen (ironically a communitarian, and not a furniture store).  Ben Franklin was an atheist and firm admirer of European Urbanism. 

    So I get it, you like your wasteful suburban living, and your gas guzzling less than 4 mile drive to your local grocery store.  But I do not.  I don’t think it is morally defensible.  And I have every right to advocate for my vision of America as you do for yours.  By the way I have read a lot of Anti-Agenda 21 documents, and a lot of pro-Agenda 21 documents.  I reserve the right as a free American to make up my own mind, same as Angie does.  And I have determined that in my opinion you are all crazy, your 21 points are wrong, and that the idea that you are all unique holders of the “truth” and the rest of us are misguided is completely hypocritical. 

    Welcome to Streetsblog, it is an open forum, but don’t be surprised if many of the regular commentaters think you guys and women, are total delusional ranters and ravers.  Sorry about that, you have implied that we are un-American communists, so if I have offended you.  Good.  Let the polarizing debate continue!

  • marcotico

    Hi Suburban Capitalist, here is my refutation, clarification, or re framing of your 21 points:
     
    1) From the largest metropolitan cities…new political philosophy known as Sustainable
    Development and its primary framework for implementation called Agenda
    21.

    Good!  There are lots of political philosophies, yours might be described as radical libertarianism, or might be something else I won’t presume to define you.  There is no such thing as a non-philosophy philosphy.  Doing nothing in the face of change over time is its own idea, and I do not support it.  Whatever we did in from the 60’s-90’s was a philosophy. 

    2) Agenda 21 is the global blueprint of implementation for Sustainable
    Development devised by the United Nations and was signed by 178 world
    leaders at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992.

    Again, sounds good to me. Wish I was there, probably a lot of smart people from around the world worked on this. 

    3) Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 call for a complete
    re-orientation of the world system of governance in every area in which
    human impacts on the environment.

    Excellent.  The world needs that.  The current system of government is inadequate to deal with multi-national global corporations, who on balance are a good force for economic development, still need a super governance to reign in abuses.  Countries should be free to work together for common human goals, like international trade, and civil rights.  If they want to work together on pollution, and resource waste I applaud that.  Countries NOT working together when we all live on the same planet seems pretty dumb.

    4) Sustainable Development, like Communism or
    Fascism, is a doctrine or philosophy of governance complete with its
    own agenda, beliefs, and goals.

    see, point 1, above agreed.  You could also add corporate personhood, radical libertarianism, Judeo-Christian fundamentalism, or any other -ism, including whichever -isms you believe in.  Local isolationist determinism.  “I get to do whatever I want with my land regardless of how it impacts my neighbors, my city, my region, my world-ism.”

    5)  On June 29th, 1993 President Clinton signed Executive Order 12852
    creating The President’s Council on Sustainable Development. This step
    began the full-scale implementation of Agenda 21 and Sustainable
    Development within the United States of America.

    Oh no!  A bunch or people around the world came up with an idea (which I think is a good idea, but you obviously think is a bad one), and a duely elected representative took the wild step of creating a way to implement it!

    6) Sustainable Development is entrenched throughout
    our government at every level from federal, state and regional agencies
    to county, city and community councils and planning boards.

    Good.  For 55 years or longer “Unsustainable Development” was entrenched the same way, and it is time to replace it. 

    7) Sustainable Development or “Sustainability” is
    often promoted with the environmental message of “going green”, or
    “being a good steward” but in reality there is actually a much, much
    deeper political philosophy of control and governance at work.

    Yes there is.  Governance is all around you.  Once people live together, they establish rules.  Once you have rules, you have governance.  If you don’t want to live with rules and governance, don’t live with people.  If you want to live off the land, and not deal with anyone else, move to Montana. 

    8) Sustainable Development is a political philosophy
    that is built upon three pillars.   These three pillars are known as
    the “3E’s”, or “the triple bottom line”.  The three pillars of sustainable development are Ecological Integrity, Economic Prosperity and Social Equity.

    This is true.  People often refer to 3-legged stools, because that conjers an image of a system that needs to be balanced.  And sustainability is about balance.

    9) Sustainable Development demands that the perfect balance of “the triple bottom line”
    be the deciding lens through which all community development, growth,
    and decisions are viewed. All growth which fails to achieve this
    perfect balance is considered unsustainable.

    Again agreed.  If something is sustainable it can carry on, if it is not it will eventually have to stop.  If you have economic development, but it subjects some people to bad conditions they will revolt.  If you have economic development that ruins the environment, you will end up with a poisonous place that no one wants to live.  If you favor the environment and justice for everyone, but there are no jobs, and no functioning economy, then people can’t live. 

    10) Communities are being drawn down the path of
    Sustainable Development by the lure of numerous monetary grants and
    incentives from state and federal government agencies as well as
    non-governmental organizations.

    Governments, and non-profits give grants to support things they agree with.  The military gives grants to support defense activities.  The justice department gives grants to support better police departments.  Governments tax people then distribute that money, by writing checks.  Its what the government does.

    11) Sustainable Development views traditional
    capitalism and the American way of life as a failing and inequitable
    system that must be replaced with a new governance system in order to
    achieve sustainability and a just world.

    Close, but the word “traditional” can be disputed.  Jefferson was an agrarian thinker, so he thought corporations were bad.  Adam Smith, believed that in order for the “invisible hand of the market” to work you needed perfect information, and producers had to be directly responsible for firm activities, so he too would be against corporatism, or what you call “traditional” capitalism as it has developed over the last 200 years. 

    If you define capitalism, as using money and equipment to create goods, market them, sell them, and make a profit through improved productivity, then that is a perfectly sustainably actvity, and your point 11 is wrong.  If you define capitalism, as a system where a company’s primary and ONLY obligation is to create shareholder wealth then yes that, I would define as unsustainable.  Eventually bad decisions will be made for short term gain instead of long term growth. 

    Look at some of the 100+ year old companies that have gone bankrup recently to see examples – Lehman Brother, Bear and Stearns used to be firms that bragged about how long they had sustained themselves, but became unsustainable.  New of the World was a 100+ year old newspaper that crumbled in 2 years due to acting unsustainably.

    12) An overwhelming number of businesses and
    corporations have began shifting to a Sustainable Development
    operational model and in so doing have rejected the traditional “bottom
    line” of American Capitalism replacing it with the “triple bottom line”
    of United Nations Sustainable Development.

    Good!  Again balance.  Private companies have always acted this way.  Would you rather make more money tomorrow, but go out of business, or would you rather be around for 10 years and make money the whole time.  IF you owned your own company would you rather make $X doing something you believe in, or $XXX dollars doing something you thought was bad? 

    13) Almost every College and University in the nation
    has become indoctrinated with the philosophy of Sustainable
    Development. From campus infrastructure and administration to student
    life and the curriculum America’s Colleges and Universities are awash
    in this radical, collectivist philosophy.

    Yeah, what can I say, you use a lot of scary words there.  I would say ” A majority of Colleges and Universities have studied sustainable development practices, and have been convinced that they represent positive values for their institutions.  From campus infrastructure and opertions to administration to studentent life these institutions are promoting this revolutionary community empowering philosophy” 

    You say tomato that i can throw and stain your shirt, I say red delicious vegetable high in vitamins that makes a good basis for many different sauces. 

    14) The philosophy of Sustainable Development calls
    for a complete change in the lifestyle of the average American citizen.
    Numerous aspects of normal American life are subject to intense
    scrutiny under this radical new philosophy. Where and how we build our
    homes, what products we use, which foods we eat, what and how much we
    consume, and which methods of transportation we choose, are just a few
    examples of American life that United Nations Sustainable Development
    seeks to bring under its controlling grasp.

    Yes sustainable development calls for examination of a number of unstated assumptions. “Growth is always good”  “Every child must have there own 300 sq. ft. room otherwise they will be unhappy”.  But again these aspects are not under scrutiny, by some group of people in the UN building in New York, they are being srutiized, because after 60 years of outward growth, we have higher rates of asthma, obesity, heart disease and cancer, than any developed country in the world, and the UN cares, because most third world counties want to follow our lead.  So if there is a way they can have our standard of living in terms of technology, productivity, and education, but without the downside of unhealthy environments and disease, then they should know what that is.

    See the way science works, is that people are curious about why things happen the way they do, and why things work they way they do.  So people (Corporations and governments) who have money pay other people (scientists and researchers) who have skills and knowledge to study those things.  IF they learn things that can make things better then the results are commercialized, if they learn things that can make bad things less bad, the other people (policy experts and polticians) who have power create rules to stop those bad things from happening. 

    15) Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 promote a
    paradigm shift in attitudes away from the norm of national borders and
    individual nation-states toward a globalist, collective, one-world,
    interdependent, and interconnected planetary mindset.

    Nation-states are not eternal.  As political concept they are about 500 years old.  Italy didn’t become a country until the 1800’s.  There have been other political units in the past Tribes, Kingdoms, City-States, and then Nation-States.  Each political unit was replaced when it confrontes challenges it was ill-equiped to face.  We now have a global economy.  Banks operate with international lending rates,  Corporations operate globally, diseases, and environmental challenges easily cross borders.  As I mentioned above, once you have rules, you create governance, once you have governance you need poltical bodies that can change and enforce those rules.  So we have been making international rules for hundreds of years, therefore we have international governance for longer than you realize.  We have two world business organizations the WTO, and the IMF, and the UN, which is barely

    16) Sustainable Development philosophy teaches that
    mankind is living beyond the “carrying capacity” of the Earth and that
    we are in the midst of multiple crises that are converging to create
    conditions that are not livable unless they are halted by a rapid
    global transition to a sustainable development system. Some of these
    perceived crises include overpopulation, global poverty and wealth
    inequality, manmade global climate change, and rampant environmental
    destruction.

    Yes it does.  So the debate we are having has to do with, are there crises, how serious are they, and what can we do about it.  

    17) Across our nation numerous communities of all
    sizes are putting into place the radical policies of Sustainable
    Development and United Nations Agenda 21.  From new comprehensive land
    use plans, to smart growth, and sustainable community planning, the
    ideas and infrastructure of Sustainable Development are being
    implemented and added to daily.

    Yes they are. Experts are studying systems to see how they work, bureaucrats are developing rules to follow and punishments if they are not followes, and elected politicians are approving those rules and determining how they will enforce them.  This is what government does. 

    18) The policies of sustainable development and
    Agenda 21 seek to change the way people live and build their cities and
    towns. Sustainable Development promotes high density, urban,
    pedestrian oriented, low carbon, walkable communities and discourages
    traditional American automobile usage, suburban lifestyles and
    development.

    Yes and no.  It does all of those things for NEW development.  Current development, believe it or not, is expected to stay the way it is, until it changes over time due to market and population forces.

    19) The Sustainable Development philosophy perceives
    the automobile and the ongoing use of fossil fuels as unsustainable.

    Yes that is correct.  Fossil Fuels are viewed as finite resources, that are necessary and are currently being wasted.  Did you know that if you drive a standard sedan, for every gallon of fuel you use to transport one person you use twenty gallons to move the weight of the vehicle itself.  That seems like a waste to me, but I still drive when it is too far to walk or bike, because it is economically worht my time and money to take a car. 

    20) In addition to the high level efforts within the
    United Nations and other similar globalist organizations, much of the
    work in promotion of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is being
    carried out by a massive network of Non Governmental Organizations
    (NGOs). These organizations have been fully consumed by this radical
    collectivist philosophy and are working overwhelmingly to advance the
    Sustainable Development Agenda.

    Yes correct.  People who agree with this philosophy have joined together to promote it, and to develop new ways of getting cities and companies on board.  And I am glad they do that.  There are also NGOs who disagree, such as the ones cited above, who are doign whatever they can to make sure that the poltical philosophy that they agree with is not replaced.  You may be a member of one, you may not, but if you copied this from a website on the internet created by any other group of people, then you too are promoting the work of an NGO. 

    21) Sustainable Development and the implementation of
    Agenda 21 are not some far off future possibility.  In fact, America
    and the world are in the midst of what the sustainable development
    movement calls “the great transition” to a sustainable new model of living.

    I hope so.  What would be the point of all of these people doing all this work (which you obviously disagree with) if they didn’t try and get it done as quickly as possible! 
    movement calls “the great transition” to a sustainable new model of living.

    I hope so.  What would be the point of all of these people doing all this work (which you obviously disagree with) if they didn’t try and get it done as quickly as possible! 

  • marcotico

    HI Rene’ Holaday,  Regarding that list many of those things probably are sustainable, meaning if you did them all the time you would eventually run out of space, money, or other resources, and you would have to stop doing them.  However many are things that can be done unsustainably or sustainably.  If I farm grass in the desert I will eventually run out of water.  If we always cut down forests to graze cattle we will run out of land, and have to stop.  But if we rotate drought resistant cash crops, and use water responsibly adjusting for wet and dry cycles we can probably conduct agriculture any where for as long as we want.  Ranchers move the livestock around to take advantage of different pastures, so they don’t destroy their land.  Are they kool-aid drinking, naive, misinformed and uneducated? 

  • marcotico

    I have some sympathy for anti-Agenda 21-ers, whatever they want to call themselves.  They are have learned about a 30 year old idea that is gaining lots of traction and are now scared that they haven’t participated, and feel threatened. 

    I realized the self-delusion when I read a facebook comment where a person said “Obviously you have drunken the Agenda 21 kool-aid because you use the word good stewardship, and that is an obvious Agenda 21 communist code word.”

    Wow, really, now we are just re-defining words.  To be a good steward is to take care of something.  How can that possibly be a bad thing?  I get regular oil changes for my car, and lube my chain on my bike.  Oh, heavens me!  I’m a good steward, how un-American! 

  • marcotico

     CLNZgPRNTS  You state “50.000 people converged on the city of Rio to discuss and plan
    implementation of Agenda 21 which this author would have us believe is
    some manufactured conspiracy theory with no serious intent to change the
    world. ”  I think, you don’t get the audience for this blog.  You see 50K people showing up and independently coming up with this master plan to tell the rest of “us” what to do.  I see 50K experts who study things, and develop ideas that I agree with and support getting together to figure out how to promote them world wide.  Those 50K people aren’t alone.  I agree with them and support them, and so do millions of other people.  Now do more people agree with them or disagree with them, I don’t know, but neither do you.  You can’t say nobody agrees with them, just because you are people like you don’t, and i can’t say everybody does because people like me do.  So the debate continues.  Each plan that is adopted is not just because faceless bureaucrats came up with this.  Its because they agree with the same underlying ideas and are convincing elected officials it is the right thing to do. 

    As for the big oil link.  There are monied interests on both sides.  This article states that some of the sources of “facts” you are relying on, probably are relying on money from those companies, and aren’t the individual patriotic americans you think they.  By the way Streetsblog is probably supported by some organizations that you disagree with, and would characterize as sponsoring Agenda 21 ignorance.  Just don’t kid yourself is what Angie is saying.

  • Rene’ Holaday

         Marcotico and all others;Please feel free to copy/paste any info I have provided below and ask questions directly to each point so that I can answer them accordingly.  I feel it is time that we honestly discuss this issue.  If we can do this rationally in a single point by point format, I am certain we can all come to a consensus, or at least get straight forward answers with real factual data.  Please refrain from throwing out generalities and criticisms.  Nothing ever comes out of generalities and criticisms, so lets just discuss nothing but the facts with exact details and quotes to reference this subject.  Let’s just have a straight forward point by point discussion on this subject.  Agreed?All questions are welcome, and one at a time.Sincerely, Rene’ Holaday  .” .”     

  • Marke Smith

    The defense of transit village development masking as the “green agenda” is just as filled with myths and boogeyman hunting as that employed by the Agenda 21 folks. Keep your crap “SCAG housing” out of my town. If you want to ride buses, then go for it. I prefer my single family home and personal transportation. But if that is what you want, then go move to rancho Cucamonga. They built that crap, and half of it is still on the market.

  • Karen Westmont

    We subsidize suburbs & cars:  your choosing low-density living means that the rest of us have to subsidize your roads and highways, the police car cruising your spread-out neighborhood, the upgrade of water stations pumping to your house, the treatment of your road water runoff, the US post office walking to your house,  and so much more.  Suburban living has bankrupt local government, the post office, and this nation:  all for your pretend “free choice”. 

  • dynamicdiscord

    Who are the green on the outside, red in the center, enviromarxists think they are fooling? Everybody is now fully aware your nefarious plot pretending to care for the Earth and “social justice” was a globalist wealth redistribution scheme from the very beginning. These Watermelons may as well drop the whole green facade now that the genie is out of the bottle and your charade has been exposed, Club of Rome hijacked the environmental movement back in ’68. Club of Rome admits that the fake “green” movement always has been just a means to an end from the star in their 1993 book The First Global Revolution:

    “either a real one (crisis) or else one invented for the purpose.” Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified.”

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” 

    The Watermeloms never did really care about the Earth, just a means to an end to usher in the new ant-free market Third Way Communitarian  PPP system

  • Coloradoan

    Karen,
    Please give factual data to support “Suburban living has bankrupt local government, the post office, and this nation…” 

    Also give factual data to support how suburbs and cars are being subsidized.  By who and what? 

    I believe you have no real factual evidence to support these claims and instead are making up your own just to justify that those of us who choose “low density” living are costing more money than those who live in high density areas. 

  • Rene’ Holaday

    Hello Karen,
          So that I am clear on your point, you are not happy about Americans having the choice to live where they want to live- right? 
         Ok, assuming I have understood your point correctly, I will reply to that point.

         In America, people have the right to be able to buy property and live where they want to live, according to what they can afford.  This is nothing new.  This is how it has been since the country was established. 
        As far as suburban living bankrupting local government, nothing could be further from the truth, as each person is taxed according to the value of their property, and therefore, each person pulls his own weight as far as “paying for services” goes. There is a tax for each and every thing provided for by the government, and people pay for these services  equally through these taxes. 
         As far as city people having to subsidize suburban roads, that is also not factual, as the tax on fuel at the pump is responsible for paying for all road maintenance.  The farther suburban people drive, the more they pay for the upkeep of the roads they use most often, through the taxes placed on the fuel they use.  When/if city living people drive less, they pay less for road/highway maintenance.  So nobody is paying for road maintenance disproportionally.
          Do you believe that people should not have the choice to live where they want?  If so, then you would probably do very well in a dictatorship type of a country and there are many of them such as North Korea, Zimbabwe, Libya, Chechnya, Sudan, etc..  
          The settlers that moved to this continent established America for the sole purpose of escaping oppression such as you are describing, so this country will remain in support of freedom of choice.  For the few people out there who despise their own right to live where they want, I would imagine there are plenty of those dictatorship countries that would allow you to be a citizen of their country.
          Another thing to consider is that rural and suburban America is under attack.  Who do you suppose grows the food that you eat each day?  Supposing everyone were herded into Sustainable Cities, stacked and packed on top of each other, who do you think would provide your food?  Do you think that the food you would be supplied with would be of good quality, free of chemicals?  Do you think there would ever be healthy organic food available ever again at that point?  If so, a captive market would likely not be able to afford to buy it.
         Below is a quote that proves this idea of moving people into the sustainable cities is their goal:
    At the International Conference on Governance for Sustainable Growth and Equity in July of 1997, two American Mayors attended.  According to International Journalist, Joan Veon, San Francisco Mayor, Willie Brown said:  “I am delighted and honored to participate in this very necessary conference.  Cities are going to be where people actually live.  Cities are going to be where policies of the UN, as well as the federal government, will ultimately be implemented.”

         You may think that having people all live in the city is a great idea until it actually happened.  Not being able to leave your city, regardless of immense social stresses caused by compacting too many people too closely, would pretty much make you feel imprisoned almost immediately.  You don’t feel that way right now because you have not ever experienced the scenario of not being allowed to leave your city that would be virtually stressed to the maximum at that point.  For a Comparison, imagine being forever trapped in Calcutta.

    Sincerely,
    Rene’

  • Kmcrawford111

    Kind of like how a big deal of suburban crap is still, and newly, on the market, huh?

    You prefer “personal transportation” and a single family home. Fine. Guess what? Not everyone does. In fact a growing number of people don’t. What makes this “anti Agenda 21” crusade so ridiculous is your utter hypocrisy: you have had no problem with the agenda of the last half-century. Now that some people propose a different agenda that doesn’t suit what YOU prefer, you want to get all pissy about it.

  • Kmcrawford111

    Wow… just, wow. So everyone that proposes sustainable development has some behind-the-scenes nefarious goals, huh? And you got this from a book that’s nearly fucking two decades old?

    How does one even respond to such nonsense?

  • Kmcrawford111

    How you could enter this debate *without* knowing of the myraid subsidies for cars and suburban living is beyond me, but here you go anyway: (Cars) electric car subsidies, federal bailout subsidies, hybrid purchase subsidies, government help to the oil companies that produce the fuel for the overwhelming majority of cars. (Suburban living): THE United States spends more than $100 billion annually to subsidize homeowners. Renters get no breaks; homeowners get tons of them. Their mortgage rates are subsidized through the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; they get a big deduction on federal income taxes for mortgage interest payments and for state and local property taxes; and they even get favored treatment on capital gains from the sales of primary residences.

  • Kmcrawford111

    For someone concerned about being factual you didn’t heed your own advice very well. Here, once again, the oft-cited incantation that the gas tax completely pays for road maintenance. That’s a lie. Local roads are pretty much universally paid with GENERAL funds. The gas tax pays for SOME federal roads, but those, too, have used general funds for maintenance. A lot of general funds, in fact – try $20 billion in 2008 alone.

    2. “Freedom of Choice” is exactly what has been LACKING in America. Of course, anyone following the suburban drive-everywhere meme couldn’t possibly understand this. Try exercising your “freedom” to get around using any means other than a car in this country, and then, if you survive, come back and talk to us about freedom.

  • Kmcrawford111

    3. Your argument that food production would dissapear under any form of proposed sustainable development patterns is absurd. Show me ONE that mentions forcing farmers into cities. Besides, it’s not like there’s a strong correlation between suburban/exurban living and food production – there just aren’t a whole lot of farmers today since the overwhelming majority of the work is accomplished via machine. If anything, sustainable development patterns would be BETTER for food production because less land would be paved over to build more Walmarts.

  • Kmcrawford111

    4. “Below is a quote that proves that moving people into sustainable cities is their goal.” Who is this “they”? Pigeonholing everyone that supports sustainable development as having the same goals as the ONE guy qouted is ridiculous at best. That man speaks for one person: himself.

    5. The overarching theme here is perposterous anyway. Don’t think so? Look at the way the anti-Agenda 21 posse is actually manifested: to discredit any alternative to the actually-implemented, corporate backed meme of doing everything possible to support suburbia.

  • Kmcrawford111

    You pretend that you’re some kind of defenders of a free-market, but the suburban project was created and subsidized via government mandates – it is in no way, shape, or form, a product of freedom or free market. It was an Agenda just like the Agenda you’re now fretting over. Younger people, including myself, are abondoning suburbia because (1) it’s boring as hell, and (2) it creates all kinds of problems – health, environmental, and monetary to start with. It’s too bad the generations before us were more concerned about the farce of perpetual growth than they were about the real problems (i.e. resource depletion) its progeny will be forced to face.

  • Anonymous

    Interesting how numerous posters here label us Anti-Agenda 21 folks as conspiracy theorists and kooks, because we suggest that there is an ongoing effort to completely restructure the American way of living…while at the exact same time these very same posters argue for and defend an ongoing effort to completely restructure the American way of living. Funny how that works.

  • Kmcrawford111

    I think that the bigger concern we have is the lie that there is some kind of mandate to move people from where they are already living. The suburbs, despite their government-propped up nature, are still failing and all indications are that they will continue failing whether proponents of sustainable development want them to or not. What does that tell you about what the demand for compact development, which does not receive these subsidies, truly is?

    Meanwhile, those of us trying to obtain alternatives to suburbia and driving everywhere have to fight tooth and nail for relative pittances.

  • marcotico

    Rene and Suburban Capitalist, 

    I have some points in answer to some of your points. 
    Instead of quoting back exactly which comment you made that these respond to
    consider this a conversation. 

    1) Sustainability means chasing people out of their houses
    and their cars. 

    As others have pointed out, all of this talk has to do with
    NEW development… NEW construction moving forward.  Some may call for immediate transformation, but
    that is not what all the sustainability plans around the country are talking
    about.  There is plenty of suburban
    development for years to come.  None,
    let me repeat, no plan I’ve read calls for existing suburban houses to be
    ripped out and replaced with apartments. 
    The plans state that if growth is to be supported without excessive
    drain on resources then new growth needs to be in existing areas.  This brings up an interesting point in reply
    to your comments about choice Rene.  In
    fact, most zoning codes even, in cities demand certain minimum lot sizes, and
    require a certain amount of parking. 
    This is what other commenters have point out as the existing legal bias
    supporting suburbs and impeding urban environments.  So you have it backwards.  People who don’t want to live like you are
    the ones who have no choice. 

    Same thing with cars. 
    None of the plans I’ve read say you can’t use your car.  What they say is that if you want to keep
    using your car that is fine, but you can’t claim untold billions of dollars in
    public money just to make sure you don’t have to sit in traffic.  AS more people move into your area, you can’t
    keep using your car as an excuse to widen 2 lane roads to 4, and to 6 and
    onwards. Use your car all you want. Just don’t crowd everyone else out. 

    2) Just because the UN had a conference and published their report does not
    mean this a movement run by the UN.  “Correlation does not prove
    causation.” is the first thing you learn in research. 

    You are being branded as kooks and conspiracy theorists, not because your
    claims about a concerted effort are wrong, but because of the claim that the UN
    is driving this effort in a top-down manner.  The ideas behind
    sustainability as a concept date back to the late 1890s, with the founding of
    the Sierra Club and the first law giving the President to create parks. 
    The idea of carrying capacity goes back to the 1800s, as well.  Finally,
    combining environmentalism, and social justice as balancing forces against
    economic development was a reaction against the Urban Renewal movement of the
    50s and 60s. The first urban growth boundary in the US was instituted in 1957 (http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/5010/CRNA-UGBReport.pdf) with other ones in 1967, and 1973. 

    So Agenda 21 is a reflection of lots and lots of work by lots and lots of
    people.  It does not dictate to planners and advocates, but is rather
    along the same line of thinking.  Getting back to the  article above it asserts that it is your side
    of this debate, not ours that refuses to acknowledge that there are also
    coordinating forces behind what is seemingly an individual movement. 
    While you may be individuals reacting to things you think are not fair, there
    are also big monied interests funding the newsletters you read, and the facts
    and material you are quoting.  Rene, you came to the blog and asked
    regular commenter to dispute your assertions with facts, and Suburban
    capitalist asked for links.  So you
    should live up to your own standard, and prove that Koch Brothers wealth is not
    being used to promote these issues. 

    3) Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it is unconstitutional or
    un-American.

    There is a lot of vague high minded rhetoric about is and isn’t American in
    your posts.  However one thing to remember is that the USA is NOT a direct
    democracy, it is a representative republic.  Ancient Greece was a direct
    democracy in that every eligible citizen could come to council and directly
    vote on matters.  Ancient Rome was a republic.  We get to vote on
    many things but not everything.   We vote for politicians, and they vote
    on the specifics.   I challenge you to
    prove that statement is false.  It is
    assumed that if a local body votes in favor of a plan then it is supported by
    residents and citizens.  In that regard you are doing the right thing by
    agitating against something you don’t support, but you are wrong in that just
    because you don’t like something it is illegal.  You can only do what you
    are doing which is to try and get things blocked or overturned.

    All of these ideas are being adopted by local politicians.  The
    constitution expressly defines what the federal government can and can’t do,
    and reserves all other powers for state and local bodies.  If a duly
    elected local body assigns itself powers, as long as they do not affect your
    personal liberties as defined by the bill of rights, then that are okay. 

    Zoning was supported by the Supreme Court in 1925.  The court has
    repeatedly found that regulation of property is not the same thing as taking of
    property.  As long as you are left with some economic value it is not the
    same thing as taking the land.  Even in Kelo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
    ), which people on the right and the left dislike, the court found that eminent
    domain can be used to take private property (with compensation) and deliver it
    to another private user.  In both the affirmation and the dissent,
    justices said, basically, “We’ve already determined that taking is
    constitutional, and we’ve determined that private uses can considered to be
    public goods (private hospitals, schools, etc.) So the combination is
    constitutional, HOWEVER if you don’t like it you have to get local and state
    laws passed to ban it.” 

    I just did a word search of the constitution including the
    Bill of Rights (http://www.usconstitution.net/)
    : the word “land” appears 4 times, three of those refer to the “land forces”
    meaning the army.  Interestingly,  the fourth reference is “This Constitution,
    and the laws of the United States which
    shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall
    be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of
    the land…” .

    I also did a word search for the word “property”, again it
    only appears 4 times.  Once regarding congress’
    authority to dispose of federally owned property, and the only other references
    are here:

    5th amendment – “No person shall be held to
    answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment
    of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
    militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any
    person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
    limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
    himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
    process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
    without just compensation.”

    14th amendment- “No state shall make or enforce
    any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
    United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
    without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
    equal protection of the laws.”

    So if your duly local city council, like them or hate them drafts
    a law, holds hearings, then passes that law limit to what you can do with your
    property, that is due process. 

    4) Finally,  when you
    argued that suburban dwellers pay their fair your are incorrect in 2 ways.  First, local taxes pay to build new water and
    other infrastructure, but they rarely go up enough overtime to take care of
    maintain all that infrastructure, which is why new areas have lower taxes than
    existing areas.  2nd you are incorrect
    about the gas tax.  Here is a link to a
    report that explains how roads are subsidized: 
    http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf.  92% of the cost of local roads are by paid by
    the general fund, and not gas taxes. 

    From pg. 11 “ Currently, only about half of U.S. roadway
    expenditures are financed by motor vehicle user fees, as indicated in Table 3.
    The portion of roadway expenses funded by user fees is declining, as indicated
    in Figure 2, because roadway costs increase with inflation, but fuel taxes and
    registration fees, are fixed fees that do not. Vehicle user fees would need to
    double to fully fund roadway costs. The rest of highway expenses are financed
    by general taxes that people pay regardless of how they travel.”

     

    Table 3 Roadway Expenditures by Level of
    Government (2008 Billions)

    User Fees Other Taxes

    Federal Roads Gas Tax $30.8 (74%) Other taxes $11.1 (26%)

    State Roads: Gas Tax $59.0 (60%) Other taxes $38.7 (40%)

    Local Roads: $4.3 (8%) Other Taxes $48.8 (92%)

    Per vehicle-mile (2,974 B. VMT)  3.2¢/mile 3.3¢/mile

     

  • RK

    It’s nice to know that Agenda 21 has gotten attention of so many concerned citizens and at least one major national party. Any attempt by a government to impose a policy or a law which is contrary to vox populi should be resisted. Having said that, all the opponents of Agenda 21 (including said concerned citizens and the major national party) are missing the single most important point: IT IS NON BINDING. For any treaty to be considered binding, it has to be ratified by the Congress. It is for lack of ratification by the Congress the US never joined the League of Nations in 1919 (even though President Wilson was its primary architect), never ratified CTBT, never ratified the International Crimina Court, etc. Folks, we have enough real problems to worry about without having to manfacture new (unreal) ones.     

  • Jonathan Krall

    > Please give factual data to support “Suburban living has
    > bankrupt local government, the post office, and this nation…”

    Basically, when you build homes far apart on roads that are not well-connected (culs de sac), it is expensive to keep up all those roads.  However, this sort of development used to sell at high prices, so money could be made by governments in the short term by planning and zoning for spread-out development. 

    Here is a discussion of the cost of spread out development:
    http://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/11/14/quantified-the-price-of-sprawl-in-florida/

    > Also give factual data to support how suburbs and cars
    > are being subsidized.  By who and what?  

    The fact is that gas taxes are terribly unpopular and rarely raised.  The federal gas tax hasn’t gone up in 15 years and roads have not magically become cheaper.  The result is that, more and more, other taxes pay for roads, which are the biggest direct public cost related to cars.  On the federal level, it means income taxes from non-drivers pay for drivers.  On the state level it is less clear because taxes vary so much from state to state.  On the local level is is mainly property taxes that pay for roads.

    Here is an analysis:
    http://www.buffalorising.com/2011/12/wisconsin-road-trip-who-really-pays-for-roads.html

  • Jackesavage

    Awesome job, Angie! I saw a small item in the NYT months ago, but never found any follow-up. Thank you for fleshing out this outrage. Keep up your valuable work!

  • Barry Klein

    My study of the Agenda 21 phenomenon leads me to speculate is that 4 or 5 individuals or groups are able to attract large amounts of donor money by reviving the fear of Marxism and Leninism… Tom DeWeese, Michael Shaw, the John Birch Society, and Henry Lamb..perhaps one or two others.

  • Conspiracy?  Maybe you need to look at this video:

        THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE

  • If after watching this lecture you  doubt a single word just take a look at the “new ten commandments” on the Georgia Guide Stones.  http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

  • In this shorter version of the information in that video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM you will hear George H. W. Bush say he has SWORN the ALLEGIANCE of the American people to the UN AGENDA 21…NOBODY WAS LISTENING!

  • Most aren’t familiar with the Term Agenda 21…does Sustainable Development ring bells for anyone…but they are definitely making headway already…you just aren’t hearing from the people enough (ooops…probably a media blackout stops them from reporting).  Like the recent LARGEST protest that happened in Mexico and NOT 1 station showed it!  

    Calling this a conspiracy is ridiculous when this MAP is VERY real:
    MAP of SIMULATED RESERVE AND CORRIDOR SYSTEM TO PROTECT BIO DIVERSITY or in our nice Fuzzy language… THE WILDLANDS PROJECT…. http://www.wrsc.org/attach_image/simulated-reserve-and-corridor-system-protect-biodiversity
        If you don’t live in one of those black dots you soon will.  Where are YOU located on that map right now? The plan is to drive humans out of the rural lands and pack em and stack em in urban developments. Only 500 million world wide of course all others must be eliminatied… remember the Georgia Guide Stones… the first item of what is not sustainable?

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Tea Party Conspiracy Theorists Descend on Charlottesville, VA

|
Unless you are a member of the Tea Party or a United Nations historian (or you followed the 2010 Colorado governor’s race), you’ve probably never heard of Agenda 21. But this obscure 1992 resolution of the United Nations figures prominently in a conspiracy theory that is being used to undermine community planning efforts around the […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Obama Team Drawing Up a Specific Transportation Bill Proposal (The Hill) EPA Chief on the Road This Week to Promote Climate Action Plan (EHS Today) WaPo: What Price Will Riders Pay for Metro’s Mess? Beth Osborne: Focus Transpo Resources on Local Communities (Atlantic Cities) Across the Country, Transit Agencies Shift Away from Diesel (Governing) How […]

Agenda 21 Alert: Glenn Beck’s Words to Watch

|
Sure, we know the movement for “sustainable” transportation and development is a front for Agenda 21, a.k.a. The UN Plot to End Private Property in the United States. But what to do? As with any battle, the first step is identifying the enemy. Fortunately (and none too soon), Glenn Beck has published a “comprehensive list […]

Glenn Beck: Double Agent for Agenda 21?

|
Yesterday, we couldn’t help poking fun at Glenn Beck’s red alert about the words he associates with an imaginary UN plot to take away our cars and our freedoms. But it gets better: Everyone’s favorite conspiracy-monger is touting his newest project — a “city-theme park hybrid” called Independence, USA that in some ways bears a shocking resemblance […]

Today’s Headlines

|
2012 Bicycle Friendly State Rankings: WA Still on Top, CO and DE Surge (LAB) Exiting Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Approving KXL Pipeline Will Raise, Not Lower, Gas Prices (Hill) NRDC’s Kaid Benfield Takes You on a Google Street-View Walk Through Copenhagen The Most Delay-Prone Highway Corridors in the U.S. Are Mostly Near L.A., NYC (Atlantic Cities) […]