U.N.'s Agenda 21 is in your community

 

 

 

Posted: April 23, 2011
© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

Anyone who reads Chapter 7 of Agenda 21 and then reads his local comprehensive land-use plan will immediately recognize that most of the provisions of the local land-use plan come directly from Agenda 21. More often than not, the elected officials who adopt these plans have never read Agenda 21, and many have never even heard of the U.N. document, signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

The facilitators and professional planners have heard about Agenda 21, but frequently claim that the plan they are working on has nothing to do with the U.N. or Agenda 21. Don't believe it for one minute.

Gary Lawrence, former director of the Center for Sustainable Communities at the University of Washington, and chief planner for the city of Seattle, told an audience in London:

In the case of the U.S., our local authorities are engaged in planning processes consistent with LA21 [Local Agenda 21], but there is little interest in using the LA21 brand. … So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.

In community after community, the same scenario is repeated. The federal government, through the EPA or the Department of Commerce or the Department of Interior,offers special grants to communities for the purpose of developing a vision for a greener future and a plan to convert the vision into reality.

Read more: U.N.'s Agenda 21 is in your community http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=290225#ixzz1KOxcxQEM

Technorati Tags: Agenda 21,comprehensive,land-use,Sustainable Communities

THIS IS A STICK-UP - GIVE ME YOUR PROPERTY

 

Open this message in your web browser. THIS IS A STICK-UP, GIVE ME YOUR PROPERTY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN MIAMI DADE COUNTY Sustainable development defined by property owners who have lost their land: Property owners in the United States who have come face to face with "sustainable development" would define it simply as, "This is a stick-up, give me your property!" Hundreds of thousands of ranchers, farmers, loggers, foresters, miners, fishermen, builders, developers, and other property owners are losing the right to use their property because of juggernaut environmental-government regulations; local, state, federal or international - or all of these combined. These regulations include: the Endangered Species Act, Wetland Regulations, and laws governing use of air, water, land, and sea. There are also countless international UN treaties controlling and regulating the use of private property. Property owners are finding out - because of an endangered species being discovered on their land, or that their land iss being declared a wetland - they are no longer able to use it, develop it, build on it, or even water it. They can hang on to it and pay the property taxes, or sell it at rock-bottom prices, because land that cannot be used has little economic value. Of course, the only people willing to buy the land are the Nature Conservancy or other environmental agencies, which in turn sell the land to the federal government. Often property owners not only lose their property but are put in jail and pay enormous fines for the violation of some obscure environmental regulation or law. Eagle Forum of California

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, December 17, 2010

CONTACT: Ryan Houck

TEL: (407) 496-4035

EMAIL: RHouck@Florida2010.org

COURT DECISION SENDS WARNING TO PREDATORY LAWYERS
State appeals court rules that so-call environmental groups must pick up the tab for "frivolous" lawsuits

(Orlando, FL - December 17, 2010) After years of clogging up the courts with frivolous lawsuits and then sticking taxpayers with the bill, anti-free market interest groups finally got a taste of their own medicine.

Earlier this week, Florida's First District Court of Appeals ordered 1000 Friends of Florida and the Martin County Conservation Alliance to repay Florida taxpayers for attorneys fees incurred during the course of a land-use appeals case.  (Read the court's opinion here)

Environmental groups quickly predicted that the ruling would have a "chilling" effect on future litigation.

"Good," said Ryan Houck, executive director of Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy.  "Taxpayers have been footing the bill for this type of frivolous, dead-end litigation for years while special interest groups abuse the legal system with impunity.  Too often, these lawsuits are simply a tool of the anti-free market agenda, designed to obstruct job-creation at taxpayer expense.  Policymakers should follow the court's lead and take action to deter this type of costly, frivolous litigation in the future." 

Litigation stemmed from the 2007 passage of Martin County's Land Protection Incentives Amendment.  The amendment to the county's comprehensive plan permitted property owners to cluster houses in exchange for preserving the rest of the land.  The amendment did not increase the number of houses permitted on the property and an Administrative Law Judge ruled that the amendment would not create sprawl or more development.

Paid political advertisement - paid for and sponsored by Citizens for Lower Taxes and a Stronger Economy, Inc., 610 South Blvd., Tampa, FL 33606

---

Note: Maybe this will “chill” the lawsuit-crazed environmentalists against the Indian Street Bridge Project.

Technorati Tags: Agenda 21,Audubon,Indian_Street_Bridge,Martin,environment,jobs

Audubon asks state to bar Indian Street Bridge on 'conservation' land

By George Andreassi
Treasure Coast Newspapers

STUART —
Audubon of Martin County wants the Florida Communities Trust Governing Board to stop the Indian Street Bridge from being built across an unspoiled peninsula in the St. Lucie River.

The six-member board, which includes former Indian River County Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge, is set to review Audubon of Martin County’s request during a meeting starting at 2 p.m. Thursday in Tallahassee.

The FCT board could create a major stumbling block for the highly anticipated project if it rules the peninsula cannot be used for the bridge supports needed to traverse the St. Lucie River between Indian Street in Stuart and 36th Street in Palm City. The FCT board has already forced the realignment of the Green River Parkway to avoid land purchased for conservation with state assistance.