Our first webinar on Communitarianism is on April 13, 2013, at 2:30 to 4:30 PM Alaska Time. Enrollment for each class is limited to 10. The cost is 40.00 USD, payment accepted via paypal only. Email registration requests to nikiraapana@gmail.com. Make your reservation today! Scholarships available.
http://nikiraapana.enterthemeeting.com/m/A14ZH1UN
Showing posts with label united nations local agenda 21. Show all posts
Showing posts with label united nations local agenda 21. Show all posts
Friday, April 5, 2013
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Undeniable Proof the US Government adopted Agenda 21
I keep seeing articles in the mainstream press ridiculing the Tea Party groups over their concern about Agenda 21. The standard line is that Agenda 21 is a "non-binding" agreement and holds no force of law behind it. That is true. The laws that enforce Agenda 21 have to be passed at the local levels, and that is where Agenda 21 has been passed and adopted in the USA for the past 20 years. Never to rarely introduced to Americans as Communitarian Law, these changes to the constitutional system have gone un-noticed and un-challeneged for over 2 decades.
Now that some people have learned about it, looked into it, and decided they don't want it, their opposition has been relegated to a right wingnut conspiracy. Yet, many documents exist that say otherwise, and this is but one of thousands that confirm our worst suspicions about the plan:
Intervention
http://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/remarks/2011/157993.htm
{Note: "balancing" is the communitarian concept that all national and state constitutional law must be balanced in favor of the global elite's objectives,)
Now that some people have learned about it, looked into it, and decided they don't want it, their opposition has been relegated to a right wingnut conspiracy. Yet, many documents exist that say otherwise, and this is but one of thousands that confirm our worst suspicions about the plan:
Objectives of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development
Lawrence J. Gumbiner
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Second PrepCom of UNCSD
Washington, DC
March 7, 2011
The United States is pleased to participate in the PrepCom and to contribute to a successful Rio 2012 Conference on Sustainable Development. We have developed a robust process within our government to evaluate how far we have come since Rio, and to identify gaps that we need to address and emerging issues where we need to make progress. This effort is reinvigorating discussions on sustainable development within our government as we work together to identify shortcomings and replicate successes, and to avail ourselves of new science, information, technologies, and collaborations to make real progress toward achieving sustainable development.
In doing this, we increasingly understand that, while the United Nations and national governments are essential to sustainable development, our participation alone is not sufficient for achieving meaningful progress that improves people’s lives and the environment. We are beginning to engage our stakeholders – including nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, local and regional governments, and academia – all of which have important contributions to make to this process.
In this vein, a concise political document should only be a part of the outcome. We also need to look to major groups and stakeholders to bring forward good ideas and take on commitments and actions. Sustainable development can only be achieved when we enable all citizens and empower all stakeholders to take action to achieve a sustainable future. We need to invest in people, recognizing women and youth as key agents of change in society. We need to promote human capacity development through education, especially in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and to enable the development of skill sets vital to emerging sectors of the economy. development path.
The partnership approach out of the World Summit on Sustainable Development continues to be an important tool for achieving sustainable development, and we should look at how we can strengthen and further legitimize this approach. For example, our domestic policy on innovation realizes that governments can catalyze and leverage action across stakeholders, provide enabling frameworks and incentives for private sector investment, invest in people, and facilitate meaningful collaborations across all stakeholders. Together, we can address market failures, invest in sciences and innovation, develop human capacity to meet today’s challenges, and adapt solutions for local contexts.
Good governance at all levels is critical to our ability to make good on our Agenda 21 commitments. While national governments will make the political commitments, we rely upon regional and local governments to implement new policies in the context of local situations, to enforce environmental regulations, to innovate and adapt solutions that will succeed in unique environmental, social, and political realities. Some of the most creative solutions to our sustainable development challenges are emerging in the U.S. from our state, regional and local governments. We should encourage communities to do integrated planning, to develop sustainability plans and a local Agenda 21. {emphasis added}
Cities are hotspots for population growth, investment, and increasing demand for energy, water, food, buildings and waste disposal. Rapid urbanization is a challenge and an opportunity to focus our global efforts to minimize impacts from this development, to develop state-of-the-art disaster preparedness plans, to integrate planning with smarter designs, to build more livable communities and to address the needs of the poorest of the poor. With good governance and sound planning we can implement solutions that address the needs of people and promote inclusive growth that works for all strata of society. We can identify and leverage solutions to improve access to water, sanitation, food, and energy that will help us to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
Chair, we support the Rio 2012 process and the need to review our progress and to identify gaps and emerging challenges. We want Rio 2012 to be forward looking, to address ways that we can learn from past struggles, build on our successes, and achieve a sustainable future. We believe that all countries should be able to monitor natural resources and make informed and integrated decisions about their development paths. We support efforts to measure progress and to share information and best practices.
Our challenges are significant. We recognize that economic growth is an essential component of any sustainable development strategy. But economic growth should not and does not need to be “development at all costs.” It should be balanced in a way that takes into consideration the environment, natural resource, and social dimensions, addressing poverty and improving the status of women. This is a challenging objective, but one toward which we are making great strides. We are committed to this process and to working with all stakeholders to identify actions we can take reinvigorate our commitments and to harness 21st century tools and human capacity to achieve sustainable development.
Thank you.
In doing this, we increasingly understand that, while the United Nations and national governments are essential to sustainable development, our participation alone is not sufficient for achieving meaningful progress that improves people’s lives and the environment. We are beginning to engage our stakeholders – including nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, local and regional governments, and academia – all of which have important contributions to make to this process.
In this vein, a concise political document should only be a part of the outcome. We also need to look to major groups and stakeholders to bring forward good ideas and take on commitments and actions. Sustainable development can only be achieved when we enable all citizens and empower all stakeholders to take action to achieve a sustainable future. We need to invest in people, recognizing women and youth as key agents of change in society. We need to promote human capacity development through education, especially in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and to enable the development of skill sets vital to emerging sectors of the economy. development path.
The partnership approach out of the World Summit on Sustainable Development continues to be an important tool for achieving sustainable development, and we should look at how we can strengthen and further legitimize this approach. For example, our domestic policy on innovation realizes that governments can catalyze and leverage action across stakeholders, provide enabling frameworks and incentives for private sector investment, invest in people, and facilitate meaningful collaborations across all stakeholders. Together, we can address market failures, invest in sciences and innovation, develop human capacity to meet today’s challenges, and adapt solutions for local contexts.
Good governance at all levels is critical to our ability to make good on our Agenda 21 commitments. While national governments will make the political commitments, we rely upon regional and local governments to implement new policies in the context of local situations, to enforce environmental regulations, to innovate and adapt solutions that will succeed in unique environmental, social, and political realities. Some of the most creative solutions to our sustainable development challenges are emerging in the U.S. from our state, regional and local governments. We should encourage communities to do integrated planning, to develop sustainability plans and a local Agenda 21. {emphasis added}
Cities are hotspots for population growth, investment, and increasing demand for energy, water, food, buildings and waste disposal. Rapid urbanization is a challenge and an opportunity to focus our global efforts to minimize impacts from this development, to develop state-of-the-art disaster preparedness plans, to integrate planning with smarter designs, to build more livable communities and to address the needs of the poorest of the poor. With good governance and sound planning we can implement solutions that address the needs of people and promote inclusive growth that works for all strata of society. We can identify and leverage solutions to improve access to water, sanitation, food, and energy that will help us to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
Chair, we support the Rio 2012 process and the need to review our progress and to identify gaps and emerging challenges. We want Rio 2012 to be forward looking, to address ways that we can learn from past struggles, build on our successes, and achieve a sustainable future. We believe that all countries should be able to monitor natural resources and make informed and integrated decisions about their development paths. We support efforts to measure progress and to share information and best practices.
Our challenges are significant. We recognize that economic growth is an essential component of any sustainable development strategy. But economic growth should not and does not need to be “development at all costs.” It should be balanced in a way that takes into consideration the environment, natural resource, and social dimensions, addressing poverty and improving the status of women. This is a challenging objective, but one toward which we are making great strides. We are committed to this process and to working with all stakeholders to identify actions we can take reinvigorate our commitments and to harness 21st century tools and human capacity to achieve sustainable development.
Thank you.
http://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/remarks/2011/157993.htm
{Note: "balancing" is the communitarian concept that all national and state constitutional law must be balanced in favor of the global elite's objectives,)
Friday, December 14, 2012
Anchorage 2020, Title 21, Smart Growth and UN Local Agenda 21
How Local is Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Bowl Plan?
Putting together some new research for the local resistance to Agenda 21. This is the first draft.
The future "vision" for Anchorage was written by a private Denver Real Estate firm and the Anchorage Citizen's Coalition. The planners insist this vision is what the residents of Anchorage want. The ACC claims everyone in the "community" agreed on the plan. The 2020 plan itself says the community wants the plan.
As the Alaska Commons recently wrote: "If you haven’t heard of Title 21, you are in good company."
So what is Title 21?
implementation strategies. •Transferable development rights systems, •Affordable/fair housing
analyses •Design standards and guidelines, •Urban redevelopment evaluations, and
•International land use and governance systems.
http://www.ewg.org/transportation/letter/EWG-joins-allies-in-promoting-smart-transportation-planning
The ACC Expert Speaker Series features facilitators from two of the first communitarian pilot test cities in the United States, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington. Two of the three "experts" have direct affiliation with the environmental law firm 1000 Friends of Oregon, whose affiliates in Washington were the lawyers seeking to abolish the WA state right to bring an initiative before the voters.
Robert Liberty
Beyond Freeways - How to Link Land Use and Transportation”
Connecting the Global to the Local
ACC member John Weddleton laughed and assured his audience on Nov 26, 2012, that Title 21 is not Agenda 21. Was he being honest? Does Anchorage 2020 advocate the same changes to our government structure based on recommendations inside UN Agenda 21? In the Future We Want - Outcome document, we easily find the answer.
Here's the UN Agenda 21 plan update:
{with direct quotes from Future We Want in RED}:
Creating Healthier Communities
Title 21: A Presentation on the Future of Anchorage
Among the speakers at this year’s State of Our City Forum, put on by Anchorage’s Community Councils and Community Patrols, was John Weddleton – a businessman and a Title 21 advocate.
If you haven’t heard of Title 21, you are in good company. However, your ranks will soon be dwindling.
Title 21 is the city’s land use code; the legal framework we use to figure out how to build our city for the foreseeable future. The code that we end up with has very real consequences when it comes to our property value, our quality of life, as well as how both of those transfer to future generations.
Weddleton delivered a ten minute primer to bring the forum’s attendees up to speed on one of the most important issues immediately facing the Anchorage community. The full video of the presentation is below the following transcription of his introduction. More information can be found at the Anchorage Citizens Coalition and the muni website.
The state of the city is remarkable. It’s very good. That’s now, but change is coming. The city has grown since I’ve been here and it will continue to grow. And our Comprehensive Plan was written in 2001 and thought we’d have twenty or thirty thousand more people in twenty years, and that won’t happen. But we just did another housing market study earlier this year, and it figured around the next twenty or thirty years, we’ll have twenty or thirty thousand people show up. And the interesting part of that is that if we develop like we’ve been developing in that time, we will be nine thousand housing units short of what we need to house these people.
So, things are going to change. We’re going to get a little more crowded. And something that is going to be very different from the previous change is [in the past] we could kind of spread out and just go to the next empty lot. But that’s not going to happen so much because we’ve kind of bumped into the boundaries.
The change will be coming to your neighborhood. And what we’ll be doing is tearing down the old building and building in the vacant lots and it will be a very different kind of growth than we’ve seen in the last many decades. So how are we going to handle it?
http://www.alaskacommons.com/2012/11/26/title-21-a-presentation-on-the-future-of-anchorage-by-john-weddleton/
December 6, 2012 Alaska, Anchorage, Class & Economics, Editorials, Issues
At the turn of the century, residents of the largest city in the 49th state recognized that the city was changing around them. The population had tripled since statehood. In the final decade of the twentieth century alone, the municipality added over thirty-thousand residents. Thus, in 2001, Anchorage residents turned to the pioneer spirit that built a city from tents spread over a couple city blocks on 4th Avenue, and sought to devise a strategy for the future of their city on the move.
The municipal assembly, the mayor, and an engaged citizenry, developed that strategy into a plan for development going into the future. It was called “Anchorage 2020: Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan.”
Then-Mayor George Wuerch touted the process that led to it’s passage through the assembly: “The plan was produced over a five-year period through the collective efforts of many individuals and groups throughout the community,” he said in an introduction, also adding that the community process had produced “a better understanding of the many factors that contribute to the quality of life we enjoy in Anchorage.” He viewed the effort as something that should serve as a “guide for elected and appointed officials as they deliberate community development issues.”
The effort won a Public Education award from the American Planning Association, because of how the process that culminated in its existence “enlisted hundreds of citizens, published numerous clip-and-send surveys in local newspapers, and held well-publicized focus groups, workshops, organized task forces and community meetings” which clearly outlined the “future goals for the municipality as prescribed by the desires of its residents, who made educated decisions and selected preferences from clearly illustrated scenarios.”
A decade and change later, however, a new administration lead by Mayor Dan Sullivan – who voted for the plan as a member of the assembly in 2001 – has scheduled “Anchorage 2020” for a face-lift.
Some people aren’t too happy about that.
One of them is John Weddleton. Weddleton is a 25-year Anchorage resident, a businessman, and a self-described “Title 21 advocate.” Over the past handful of months, Weddleton has been on a tour around the city, addressing community councils and forums, giving voice to concerns regarding the “Title 21 Rewrite” as both a private citizen and as part of the Anchorage Citizens Coalition. The Coalition’s website states that their goal is to make Anchorage “the most livable city in America… [through] broad-based public involvement and implementation of Anchorage 2020….”
Weddleton appeared at last month’s “State of Our City” forum at Romig Middle School, and expressed concern over new things emerging in the rewrite which run counter to the 2001 plan. Some small aesthetic differences – for instance requiring that the architecture of new box stores blend in with the neighborhoods around them – can noticeably alter how a part of town feels. Conversely, it’s hard to get people excited about moving in next to giant cement shoe boxes. Seemingly small and uncontroversial protections put in to the “2020” plan via community input have legitimate multiplier effects, and can affect property values over extended periods of time. They were painstakingly put in the comprehensive plan for a reason. And many are being taken out, without the same clarity in reasoning.
“You need to ask yourself: What makes you happy to live in Anchorage?” Weddleton challenged the audience in West Anchorage in late November. “Where do you want to end up here?”
Well, how did any of us end up here? Title 21 has quite the timeline.
In 2011, Mayor Sullivan hired former Assemblyman Dan Coffey to a $30,000 contract as a consultant to make recommendations on a rewrite. Coffey’s history and knowledge of Title 21 is not lacking: he described himself to the Anchorage Press that year as a “land use and government regulatory attorney for over thirty years.” He served on the Planning and Zoning Commission during the Wuerch administration, when the Anchorage 2020 plan was adopted, and went on to join the assembly where he served two terms. Part of that job entailed him serving on the Title 21 committee.
But there is also a healthy dose of controversy, given Coffey’s prevalent ties to the Anchorage business community. Do Coffey’s business dealings and professional relationships represent a conflict of interest?
In June of last year, political strategist and pollster Ivan Moore coined an editorial for the Press that alleged Coffey had “only been allowing input from developer interests.”
Current Assemblywomen Elvi Gray Jackson narrowly lost to Dan Coffey in the 2007 municipal election before picking up the seat the following year. During that first run, her campaign published a website that aimed to raise questions as to who Coffey worked for as an elected official: special interests or the constituents who vote for him to represent them.
The anti-Coffey website, still online as of this writing, pointed out that between April 2004 and January 2007, assembly members had to either recuse themselves, were ordered to abstain from voting on 141 occasions, due to some sort of conflict of interest. Of the 141 total incidents, Coffey was the subject on 128 occasions (though on 8 accounts, he was still permitted to vote). These cases included his dealings with liquor stores, restaurants, hotels, clubs, quickie marts, car rental services, restaurants, and a singles’ club.
Coffey’s heavy entanglements with business ventures could constitute a conflict of interest as a consultant hired to make recommendations on the future land use code for the city. It certainly did on over a hundred occasions during his tenure on the Assembly.
But the former assemblyman countered, in a published response to Moore, that: “the emphasis should be on the words ‘make recommendations.’ Like me, the Commission has no authority to create or impose laws. It makes recommendations on land use law to the assembly. Our Charter gave the assembly, and no one else, the authority to adopt our laws.”
The assembly, however, is not a static body. And 2010 was a drastically different political landscape than today. At that time, the mayor faced a slim 6-5 margin that often opposed him. Two years later, Adam Trombley has replaced Mike Gutierrez in East Anchorage and Harriet Drummond has been elected to the state house. The assembly will appoint her replacement, who we can fairly safely assume will an ally of the mayor. Ernie Hall, since assuming the chairmanship, has generally supported the administration’s positions. The body’s current makeup (after Drummond’s appointment is seated) could rubber stamp any changes made by Coffey to the tune of an 8-3 split.
This shouldn’t come as much a surprise. Coffey used his involvement in the Title 21 rewrite in a 2011 campaign letter he sent out to the Anchorage Home Builders Association. In the letter, he stated that the coming municipal election offered “another clear choice between those who want to see our city grow and develop economically and those who want to impose costly and unnecessary government regulations on development.” He specifically endorsed candidates who would vote for his “re-work” of the legislation. One of the three, Adam Trombley, won.
Dianne Holmes, also a member of the Anchorage Citizens Coalition, testified before the Assembly two weeks after Coffey’s letter surfaced and objected. She felt that efforts for public involvement were “barely given lip service,” and elaborated: “The process has been stalled with sole source contracts…. Moreover, how can the public trust that their input is worth anything when the same contractor writes a political campaign letter saying that Title 21 is anti-development and that it is being reworked, not merely edited?”
There has been no public outcry. But Holmes’ assertion that this was by design doesn’t seem conspiratorial. Not when acknowledging that the assembly was expected to pass, in its entirety, the 2020 plan – which was already passed over ten years ago – two years ago.
Either way, the assembly will once more take up the issue on January 15. It will be under-reported. It won’t be understood with the necessity it demands. And its effects will change Anchorage over generations.
[John Aronno serves as staff to Patrick Flynn on the Assembly. His views are irreparably his own.]
http://www.alaskacommons.com/2012/12/06/redefining-anchorage-a-title-21-primer/
an interesting somewhat related article:
Focus on Agenda 21 Should Not Divert Attention from Homegrown Anti-Growth Policies
By Wendell Cox , Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D. and Brett D. Schaefer December 1, 2011
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/focus-on-agenda-21-should-not-divert-attention-from-homegrown-anti-growth-policies
Putting together some new research for the local resistance to Agenda 21. This is the first draft.
The future "vision" for Anchorage was written by a private Denver Real Estate firm and the Anchorage Citizen's Coalition. The planners insist this vision is what the residents of Anchorage want. The ACC claims everyone in the "community" agreed on the plan. The 2020 plan itself says the community wants the plan.
"Anchorage's comprehensive plan, "Anchorage 2020," was adopted in 2001. As part of the groundwork for "Anchorage 2020," a survey of 1,500 residents was conducted, asking about the most important attributes of their city. Three of the highest ranked attributes related to the natural setting of the city: trails/parks/greenbelts/open space, outdoor and recreational opportunities, and accessibility to the wilderness. Clearly, Anchorage residents highly value the scenic assets of the region. Reflecting these values, the "Anchorage 2020 Community Vision" states that Anchorage is a "northern community built in harmony with our natural resources and majestic setting." The plan directs a shift toward more concentrated land-use patterns with clusters of higher density employment centers." Integrating Context Sensitive Solutions in Transportation Planning, Anchorage Bowl 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/csstp/cssanch.htmThe truth is, most Anchorage residents have never heard of their 2020 plan, or the laws that will enforce it.
As the Alaska Commons recently wrote: "If you haven’t heard of Title 21, you are in good company."
So what is Title 21?
"Title 21 is the city’s land use code; the legal framework we use to figure out how to build our city for the foreseeable future. The code that we end up with has very real consequences when it comes to our property value, our quality of life, as well as how both of those transfer to future generations." http://www.alaskacommons.com/2012/11/26/title-21-a-presentation-on-the-future-of-anchorage-by-john-weddleton/Leading the efforts to create a new legal framework for everyone living in Anchorage are city planners and attorneys with decades of experience, who understand the complexity of global communitarian law:
Don Elliott, FAICP Senior Consultant, is a director in Clarion's Denver office. Mr. Elliott is a land use lawyer and city planner with 28 years of related experience. He has worked on a diverse array of projects in his career at Clarion, including:•Complex development codes, •Hybrid and unified development codes •Sustainability
implementation strategies. •Transferable development rights systems, •Affordable/fair housing
analyses •Design standards and guidelines, •Urban redevelopment evaluations, and
•International land use and governance systems.
Mr. Elliott has served as project director for major zoning and development code revisions in Detroit, Philadelphia, Winnipeg, Duluth, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, Bainbridge Island, Lake Oswego, and Cedar Rapids, as well as numerous other cities and counties throughout the country. He has drafted award-winning land use regulations for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Denver and Aurora, Colorado, Routt County, Colorado, and Pima County, Arizona, and has spoken and written extensively on a wide variety of land use and legal topics. Mr. Elliott has served as the Democracy and Governance Advisor for USAID/Uganda for two years, and has completed land use reform consultancies in India, Russia, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Liberia. He is the author of A Better Way to Zone (Island Press 2008), co-author of The Rules that Shape Urban Form (APA 2012) and The Citizen’s Guide to Planning (APA 2009), and the editor of Colorado Land Planning and Development Law. Prior to joining Clarion Associates, Mr. Elliott served as Project Director for the Denver Planning and Community Development Office and was responsible for the Gateway Zoning and Downtown Zoning Projects. He began his career practicing real estate law for the Denver law firm of Davis, Graham & Stubbs. Mr. Elliott holds a master's degree in city and regional planning from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, a law degree from Harvard Law School, and a Bachelor of Science degree in urban and regional planning from Yale University. He is a Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners, a past president of the Colorado Chapter of the American Planning Association, a past national chairman of the Planning and Law Division of APA, and a member of the American, Colorado, and Denver Bar Associations. http://www.clarionassociates.com/about/team/elliott.phpThe Anchorage Citizen's Coalition promotes smart transportation alongside the main Regional Organizations in the Northwest, including 1,000 Friends of Oregon, Alaska Center for Public Policy, Anchorage Citizens Coalition (AK), Bicycle Commuters of Anchorage (AK), City of Portland (OR), Trimet (OR)
http://www.ewg.org/transportation/letter/EWG-joins-allies-in-promoting-smart-transportation-planning
The ACC Expert Speaker Series features facilitators from two of the first communitarian pilot test cities in the United States, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington. Two of the three "experts" have direct affiliation with the environmental law firm 1000 Friends of Oregon, whose affiliates in Washington were the lawyers seeking to abolish the WA state right to bring an initiative before the voters.
Lynn Peterson
Safe Walking - the foundation of healthy communities”
PAST: February 5, Noon - 1:30pm, 5TH Floor Conference Room, City Hall
Anchorage Citizens Coalition brought Lynn Peterson to Anchorage to speak about the health effects of balanced transportation systems. Lynn is a highway designer and urban planner who chairs the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners. She lives in Lake Oswego and has worked with 1000 Friends of Oregon (environmental legal firm co-founded in 1973 by Tom McCall, former Republican Governor). Fregonese and Calthorpe, as well as Portland's TriMet transit system. Her March 2009 presentation can be found at http://www.clackamas.us/bcc/peterson/alaska.htm
Robert Liberty
Beyond Freeways - How to Link Land Use and Transportation”
PAST: June 26, 2009, noon to 1pm, City Hall, 8th Floor Conference Room.
Robert Liberty, elected councilor for Metro, Portland Oregon’s regional elected government, wrote the original proposal for 1000 Friends of Oregon to conduct Portland’s groundbreaking “Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality Study”in the late 1980’s. Mr. Liberty presented “Beyond Freeways – How to Link Land Use and Transportation” in June 2009 at City Hall. The heart of Robert’s message? Look for public and private investments that build Anchorage for easier walking and more frequent, more convenient public transportation. Look towards more compact and sustainable development to achieve mobility rather than relying on expensive high-speed freeways that promote sprawl.
Anchorage 2020 calls for a diverse, northern community with a thriving, sustainable, broad-based economy, a safe, healthy, active learning community.Federal policies are moving strongly in this direction. Housing, environmental and transportation agencies are working together to build “sustainable communities.” Transit officials will consider “livability” and the environment when financing public transportation projects. Proposed transportation law sets goals for reducing climate change and other air pollutants, increasing walking and biking and promoting infill and redevelopment.
Grace Crunican
Building a Sustainable Transportation System"
PAST: October 2008, Featured Speaker Annual Meeting, Loussac Library
Grace Crunican In October 2008, the Anchorage Citizens Coalition celebrated its 10th Anniversary with a presentation by Grace Crunican, expert in building sustainable transportation systems and currently director of Seattle's Department of Transportation. Ms. Crunican spoke to coalition members about "Building a Sustainable Transportation System." ("Mayor Nickels charged the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) with making Seattle the most walkable city in the nation. The Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan lays out the path to get us there." http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/pedestrian_masterplan/letter_grace.htm) Grace has had a distinguished career, including five years as Oregon's Director of Transportation and three years with the Federal Transit Administration. http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/about.htm
Connecting the Global to the Local
ACC member John Weddleton laughed and assured his audience on Nov 26, 2012, that Title 21 is not Agenda 21. Was he being honest? Does Anchorage 2020 advocate the same changes to our government structure based on recommendations inside UN Agenda 21? In the Future We Want - Outcome document, we easily find the answer.
Here's the UN Agenda 21 plan update:
The General Assembly, Recalling its resolution 64/236 of 24 December 2009, in which it decided to organize the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development at the highest possible level in 2012, as well as its resolution 66/197 of 22 December 2011, http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/futurewewant.htmlThe Anchorage Citizens Coalition is a nonprofit membership organization that works for:
{with direct quotes from Future We Want in RED}:
Affordable homes near jobs
{134. we recognize the need for a holistic approach to urban development and human settlements that provides for affordable housing and infrastructure and prioritizes slum upgrading and urban regeneration}
Plentiful parks and open spaces
{135. protection and restoration of safe and green urban spaces}
Safe, balanced, economical transportation .. for all users
{136. We recognize the important role of municipal governments in setting a vision for sustainable cities, from the initiation of city planning through to revitalization of older cities and neighbourhoods, including by adopting energy efficiency programmes in building management and developing sustainable, locally appropriate transport systems}
Healthy, attractive neighborhoods
{135. a safe and healthy living environment for all}
A strong, sustainable economy
(199. We acknowledge the role of access and benefit-sharing arising from the utilization of genetic resources in contributing to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, poverty eradication and environmental sustainability. }
Clean, healthful air and water
{135. safe and clean drinking water and sanitation; healthy air quality; generation of decent jobs; and improved urban planning and slum upgrading}
Meaningful public participation in government
{43. We underscore that broad public participation and access to information and judicial and administrative proceedings are essential to the promotion of sustainable development.}
We actively participate in comprehensive plan implementation, promote local and regional land use and transportation planning, publish a newsletter for members and sponsor events.
{22. We recognize examples of progress in sustainable development at the regional, national, subnational and local levels. We note that efforts to achieve sustainable development have been reflected in regional, national and subnational policies and plans, and that Governments have strengthened their commitment to sustainable development since the adoption of Agenda 21 through legislation and institutions, and the development and implementation of international, regional and subregional agreements and commitments. }
MembershipAnchorage Citizens Coalition works for Anchorage to become "the most livable city in the nation."
Supporting our causes is largely a volunteer effort of the Board and other members.
It's a huge task and we rely on contributions by individuals as well larger organizations.
Click here to make a contribution. For more information about the Anchorage Citizens Coalition, email anchoragecitizenscoalition@gmail.com. http://www.accalaska.org/about.html
Compare ACC's mission and accomplishments and Anchorage 2020 goals to 1000 Friends of Oregon. There are many other documents that say basically the same things about what Anchorage needs to do. Some go so far as to claim that Anchorage is "ground zero for climate change". Other amazing scientific observations are in the University of Alaska, Anchorage Climate Change Report 2010.In its first twelve years, ACC
Helped shape the development and adoption of Anchorage 2020, the city's comprehensive plan.
Facilitated public review of Title 21, Anchorage's land use laws, and continued monitoring and advising Title 21 revisions.
Sponsored the advocacy group "Transit Works for Anchorage."
Worked with government and school officials to document pedestrian safety needs and build projects such as school crossing zones for Hanshew Middle and Springhill Elementary Schools.
Watch-dogged major road construction projects such as the Highway to Highway freeway proposal.
Enlisted the expertise of numerous land development and transportation experts to advise local government.
Advocated for meaningful citizen participation in government decision-making.
Coalition president Michael Howard says:
In the ten years since Anchorage Citizens Coalition was organized at an old-fashioned town meeting, our volunteers have made Anchorage a better place. ACC informs citizens about the decisions that affect our homes, businesses and neighborhoods. Our volunteers were vigilant when Anchorage 2020 was developed and adopted, for the re-write of Title 21 our land use code, and for changes that balance our highway, trail, transit and pedestrian systems.
Creating Healthier Communities
Cool Communities can provide significant health benefits to Oregonians by creating better opportunities to safely walk, bike or take transit. More active transportation options translate to increased physical activity and better health for residents, as well as less air pollution and fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
Making it easier to walk and bike
Land use policies, development patterns and our transportation systems affect how we commute to work, run errands and other activities. Oregonians want to live in communities where people of all ages have many options to get where they need to go, without having to get in a car, including walking, biking, or using public transit. Increasing evidence is showing that this is a particular priority for younger Millennials and aging Baby Boomers, two generations that will drive real estate trendsfor decades to come.
Changes to our neighborhoods that make it easier to not rely on the automobile will have positive health benefits: increased physical activity, decreased air pollution, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Reducing greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming
Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our time. It will take action at every level (local, state, national) to effectively meet that challenge.
In 2007, the state of Oregon adopted greenhouse gas reduction goals to help reduce global warming. In 2009, the state Legislature directed the Portland Metro region to begin planning to reduce climate impacts, and encouraged the state's other metropolitan regions to do so as well.
Better coordination of transportation and land use planning in Oregon's largest cities will help meet the challenge, particularly when over one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation sector. Fortunately, Oregon has begun to take steps to make this coordination happen.
Click here to find out more about Oregon's efforts to reduce grenhouse gas emissions from transportation, a process in which we are actively participating to ensure successful results for Oregon communities.
Making our air cleaner
We can reduce air pollution by making it easier for Oregonians to walk or bike rather than relying on the car for every trip. Less driving equals less air pollution. Even short auto trips that involve a 'cold start' (where the engine has cooled for an hour) can generate as much air pollution as a longer trip.
Ultimately, creating healthier neighborhoods starts with good street connectivity, a diversity of land uses, and creating jobs closer to where people live. 1000 Friends is dedicated to encouraging such patterns throughout Oregon. http://www.friends.org/vibrant/healthy
Title 21: A Presentation on the Future of Anchorage
by John Weddleton
November 26, 2012
Alaska, Anchorage, Class & Economics, Issues, VideoAmong the speakers at this year’s State of Our City Forum, put on by Anchorage’s Community Councils and Community Patrols, was John Weddleton – a businessman and a Title 21 advocate.
If you haven’t heard of Title 21, you are in good company. However, your ranks will soon be dwindling.
Title 21 is the city’s land use code; the legal framework we use to figure out how to build our city for the foreseeable future. The code that we end up with has very real consequences when it comes to our property value, our quality of life, as well as how both of those transfer to future generations.
Weddleton delivered a ten minute primer to bring the forum’s attendees up to speed on one of the most important issues immediately facing the Anchorage community. The full video of the presentation is below the following transcription of his introduction. More information can be found at the Anchorage Citizens Coalition and the muni website.
The state of the city is remarkable. It’s very good. That’s now, but change is coming. The city has grown since I’ve been here and it will continue to grow. And our Comprehensive Plan was written in 2001 and thought we’d have twenty or thirty thousand more people in twenty years, and that won’t happen. But we just did another housing market study earlier this year, and it figured around the next twenty or thirty years, we’ll have twenty or thirty thousand people show up. And the interesting part of that is that if we develop like we’ve been developing in that time, we will be nine thousand housing units short of what we need to house these people.
So, things are going to change. We’re going to get a little more crowded. And something that is going to be very different from the previous change is [in the past] we could kind of spread out and just go to the next empty lot. But that’s not going to happen so much because we’ve kind of bumped into the boundaries.
The change will be coming to your neighborhood. And what we’ll be doing is tearing down the old building and building in the vacant lots and it will be a very different kind of growth than we’ve seen in the last many decades. So how are we going to handle it?
http://www.alaskacommons.com/2012/11/26/title-21-a-presentation-on-the-future-of-anchorage-by-john-weddleton/
Redefining Anchorage: A Title 21 Primer
by John AronnoDecember 6, 2012 Alaska, Anchorage, Class & Economics, Editorials, Issues
At the turn of the century, residents of the largest city in the 49th state recognized that the city was changing around them. The population had tripled since statehood. In the final decade of the twentieth century alone, the municipality added over thirty-thousand residents. Thus, in 2001, Anchorage residents turned to the pioneer spirit that built a city from tents spread over a couple city blocks on 4th Avenue, and sought to devise a strategy for the future of their city on the move.
The municipal assembly, the mayor, and an engaged citizenry, developed that strategy into a plan for development going into the future. It was called “Anchorage 2020: Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan.”
Then-Mayor George Wuerch touted the process that led to it’s passage through the assembly: “The plan was produced over a five-year period through the collective efforts of many individuals and groups throughout the community,” he said in an introduction, also adding that the community process had produced “a better understanding of the many factors that contribute to the quality of life we enjoy in Anchorage.” He viewed the effort as something that should serve as a “guide for elected and appointed officials as they deliberate community development issues.”
The effort won a Public Education award from the American Planning Association, because of how the process that culminated in its existence “enlisted hundreds of citizens, published numerous clip-and-send surveys in local newspapers, and held well-publicized focus groups, workshops, organized task forces and community meetings” which clearly outlined the “future goals for the municipality as prescribed by the desires of its residents, who made educated decisions and selected preferences from clearly illustrated scenarios.”
A decade and change later, however, a new administration lead by Mayor Dan Sullivan – who voted for the plan as a member of the assembly in 2001 – has scheduled “Anchorage 2020” for a face-lift.
Some people aren’t too happy about that.
One of them is John Weddleton. Weddleton is a 25-year Anchorage resident, a businessman, and a self-described “Title 21 advocate.” Over the past handful of months, Weddleton has been on a tour around the city, addressing community councils and forums, giving voice to concerns regarding the “Title 21 Rewrite” as both a private citizen and as part of the Anchorage Citizens Coalition. The Coalition’s website states that their goal is to make Anchorage “the most livable city in America… [through] broad-based public involvement and implementation of Anchorage 2020….”
Weddleton appeared at last month’s “State of Our City” forum at Romig Middle School, and expressed concern over new things emerging in the rewrite which run counter to the 2001 plan. Some small aesthetic differences – for instance requiring that the architecture of new box stores blend in with the neighborhoods around them – can noticeably alter how a part of town feels. Conversely, it’s hard to get people excited about moving in next to giant cement shoe boxes. Seemingly small and uncontroversial protections put in to the “2020” plan via community input have legitimate multiplier effects, and can affect property values over extended periods of time. They were painstakingly put in the comprehensive plan for a reason. And many are being taken out, without the same clarity in reasoning.
“You need to ask yourself: What makes you happy to live in Anchorage?” Weddleton challenged the audience in West Anchorage in late November. “Where do you want to end up here?”
Well, how did any of us end up here? Title 21 has quite the timeline.
In 2011, Mayor Sullivan hired former Assemblyman Dan Coffey to a $30,000 contract as a consultant to make recommendations on a rewrite. Coffey’s history and knowledge of Title 21 is not lacking: he described himself to the Anchorage Press that year as a “land use and government regulatory attorney for over thirty years.” He served on the Planning and Zoning Commission during the Wuerch administration, when the Anchorage 2020 plan was adopted, and went on to join the assembly where he served two terms. Part of that job entailed him serving on the Title 21 committee.
But there is also a healthy dose of controversy, given Coffey’s prevalent ties to the Anchorage business community. Do Coffey’s business dealings and professional relationships represent a conflict of interest?
In June of last year, political strategist and pollster Ivan Moore coined an editorial for the Press that alleged Coffey had “only been allowing input from developer interests.”
Current Assemblywomen Elvi Gray Jackson narrowly lost to Dan Coffey in the 2007 municipal election before picking up the seat the following year. During that first run, her campaign published a website that aimed to raise questions as to who Coffey worked for as an elected official: special interests or the constituents who vote for him to represent them.
The anti-Coffey website, still online as of this writing, pointed out that between April 2004 and January 2007, assembly members had to either recuse themselves, were ordered to abstain from voting on 141 occasions, due to some sort of conflict of interest. Of the 141 total incidents, Coffey was the subject on 128 occasions (though on 8 accounts, he was still permitted to vote). These cases included his dealings with liquor stores, restaurants, hotels, clubs, quickie marts, car rental services, restaurants, and a singles’ club.
Coffey’s heavy entanglements with business ventures could constitute a conflict of interest as a consultant hired to make recommendations on the future land use code for the city. It certainly did on over a hundred occasions during his tenure on the Assembly.
But the former assemblyman countered, in a published response to Moore, that: “the emphasis should be on the words ‘make recommendations.’ Like me, the Commission has no authority to create or impose laws. It makes recommendations on land use law to the assembly. Our Charter gave the assembly, and no one else, the authority to adopt our laws.”
The assembly, however, is not a static body. And 2010 was a drastically different political landscape than today. At that time, the mayor faced a slim 6-5 margin that often opposed him. Two years later, Adam Trombley has replaced Mike Gutierrez in East Anchorage and Harriet Drummond has been elected to the state house. The assembly will appoint her replacement, who we can fairly safely assume will an ally of the mayor. Ernie Hall, since assuming the chairmanship, has generally supported the administration’s positions. The body’s current makeup (after Drummond’s appointment is seated) could rubber stamp any changes made by Coffey to the tune of an 8-3 split.
This shouldn’t come as much a surprise. Coffey used his involvement in the Title 21 rewrite in a 2011 campaign letter he sent out to the Anchorage Home Builders Association. In the letter, he stated that the coming municipal election offered “another clear choice between those who want to see our city grow and develop economically and those who want to impose costly and unnecessary government regulations on development.” He specifically endorsed candidates who would vote for his “re-work” of the legislation. One of the three, Adam Trombley, won.
Dianne Holmes, also a member of the Anchorage Citizens Coalition, testified before the Assembly two weeks after Coffey’s letter surfaced and objected. She felt that efforts for public involvement were “barely given lip service,” and elaborated: “The process has been stalled with sole source contracts…. Moreover, how can the public trust that their input is worth anything when the same contractor writes a political campaign letter saying that Title 21 is anti-development and that it is being reworked, not merely edited?”
There has been no public outcry. But Holmes’ assertion that this was by design doesn’t seem conspiratorial. Not when acknowledging that the assembly was expected to pass, in its entirety, the 2020 plan – which was already passed over ten years ago – two years ago.
Either way, the assembly will once more take up the issue on January 15. It will be under-reported. It won’t be understood with the necessity it demands. And its effects will change Anchorage over generations.
[John Aronno serves as staff to Patrick Flynn on the Assembly. His views are irreparably his own.]
http://www.alaskacommons.com/2012/12/06/redefining-anchorage-a-title-21-primer/
an interesting somewhat related article:
Focus on Agenda 21 Should Not Divert Attention from Homegrown Anti-Growth Policies
By Wendell Cox , Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D. and Brett D. Schaefer December 1, 2011
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/focus-on-agenda-21-should-not-divert-attention-from-homegrown-anti-growth-policies
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The US version of Common Purpose UK in Millerton, NY
While the majority of people waking up to the real threat of Agenda 21 are allowing themselves to be manipulated into the right v left dialectic, there is a tiny percentage of people who are not.
{begin letter}
Hi Niki:I have been following your writing for quite a while and have much respect for your integrity and the invaluable work you have done.
I live in Millerton NY about 2 1/2 hours north of NYC in northern Dutchess County. There are less than 400 people in the Village of Millerton and I think a little less than 3,000 in the Town, which is called North East. Two and a half years ago I picked up the local newspaper and read an article that made bells go off. A lawyer for an affordable housing developer was quoted telling a resident at a local hearing that it was costing the applicant too much time and money to educate her. I don't even know specifically what I had read to that point to tell me this but I thought, "This is Agenda 21."
I have been fighting ever since and have had some good success at holding them off. Whenever someone's rights are threatened by the sustainable juggernaut I'm there, usually with just the few people who are directly affected. But we've held off the housing, and the unneccesary expensive sewers for the housing, and a few other things.
The reason I am writing now, is because something is happening here and I feel out of my depth. I think it could be a national story with legs, especially on alternative sites on the internet, but I don't know who to talk to. I believe if we don't get help from outside, Millerton and North East, may lose this one.
Of course, it's a story that will not be easily understood by those stuck in the left/right paradigm, so even though I considered some right wing sites/people, I'm not comfortable with that.
Brooke Lehman, daughter of Wendy Vanderbilt Lehman and Orin Lehman, former NY Parks Commissioner, grandaughter of the founder of Lehman Brothers, is before the North East ZBA and Planning Boards with a request for a Special Use Permit for an educational center she claims will teach sustainable farming and living and leadership skills, etc. The families who live near it are fighting this because thay know that Lehman is an anti-capitalist, anti-US sovereignty, Marxist, black bloc anarchist revolutionary active in Occupy Wall Street. We now know her non-profit Watershed Center is already supporting Occupy training programs through an entity called Occupy Manifest. If you read the story on RT/Russia Today website recently that talked about the Ntrepid Co.'s Tartan Metrics program (anarchist tracking) she fits the profile. I oppose illegal surveillance of the lawful, but she is one of those who should be tracked in my opinion. We also know Occupy is deliberately moving into rural areas like ours.
I am fighting her for all of those reasons and because the Institute for Social Ecology she taught at is Communitarian, her Watershed Center (www.thewatershedcenter.org/) lists as a main activity Capacity Building on its non-profit profile and our local community council is fighting like hell to get her in. http://www.taxexemptworld.com/
The Agenda 21 supporters have stacked the ZBA. Lehman is being treated like a prom queen, and no one seems to know about her radical/dirty bookstore, Bluestockings. Meanwhile, today my latest letter to the editor of the local paper was censored. They said they would cut "most of it" because they have suddenly decided not to print things that have already been gone over and are redundant in their opinion (it wasn't). So I said don't print at all. This, three days after a letter from Lehman appeared, asking the paper to stop the "personal attacks" against her (formerly known as "the truth.") Both boards swear there is no legal way to stop her, but it's clear that at least the ZBA which was conveniently given lead agency, doesn't want to. They dismiss the public and then reconvene after her opponents leave. The Planning Board dismissed the public and then called for public comment in a near empty room (myself and parther and Lehman were the only ones left.)
If you have any guidance I'd appreciate it. Feel free to post this on your site, if you feel it will get the ball rolling.
Pam from Millerton
{end letter}
From the Watershed site: "The Watershed is pleased to announce that after a five-year land search, we have found the land and farming partner of our dreams. We have partnered with the illustrious and industrious Andy Szymanowicz of Sol Flower Farm (Ancramdale, NY) and together we are preparing our move to Mt Riga Farm in Millerton NY.
As part of this preparation, Brooke Lehman, who will own the land that we will be leasing is applying for a special permit from the local zoning board, and then applying for site plan approval, followed by board of health certification (etc…). It is quite an involved process, and yet it has also been a real pleasure to get to participate in a healthy local democratic process. The Watershed Center has received so much support from the community that it has made us even more excited about the prospect of settling in Millerton."
As part of this preparation, Brooke Lehman, who will own the land that we will be leasing is applying for a special permit from the local zoning board, and then applying for site plan approval, followed by board of health certification (etc…). It is quite an involved process, and yet it has also been a real pleasure to get to participate in a healthy local democratic process. The Watershed Center has received so much support from the community that it has made us even more excited about the prospect of settling in Millerton."
As our Canadian contributor to 2020, Paul Barnes commented on the last blog post I made, the definition of "community" is critical to understanding how the game works. I'm gathering research that focuses on the term, how it's used and how it's abused. EVERY plan I've ever read claims to have broad "community" support for the plan, and what that actually means is the Communitarians support it, not the people who actually live where the plan is being implemented. This Watershed Center uses the same language we've seen in Anchorage 2020 and the Seattle plans, and makes the same claims. Since it's a training center, it means the students will also become proficient at making it appear the residents support their programs for change, when the truth is most residents rarely know anything about the programs ot how they'll change the lives of everyone living in the "community."
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Presentation on Agenda 21/Anchorage 2020 - Feb 7
Here's the flyer for the event:
Q: What should Alaskans know about
Q: What should Alaskans know about
Agenda 21, Sustainable Development,
Anchorage 2020, the Anchorage
Bowl Comprehensive Plan, and the
upcoming Title 21 Rewrites?
A. That they are part of a massive system of
International Environmental Law
under which humanity is merely a resource.
Agenda 21 will drastically change the Way
Alaskans do everything,
Alaskans do everything,
from Where We live and what We drive,
to how We Work, play & think.
to how We Work, play & think.
Learn how to protect your people from
these invasive plans and secure economic
freedom for future generations of Alaskans.
Spend an evening with local authors Niki Raapana and
Nordica Friedrich, internationally acclaimed critics
of Agenda 21,
Nordica Friedrich, internationally acclaimed critics
of Agenda 21,
Cornrnunitarian Law, and Sustainable Development.
When:
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
6:30pm - 8:30pm
Where:
Marston Theatre in Z.J. Loussac Library
at 36th & Denali, Anchorage, Alaska
This free event is sponsored by
The Libertarian Party of Anchorage
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
SMART GROWTH CENTRALIZING WEALTH IN THE NEW EARTH AGE
10' Gertee Travelers ~ home ~ winter 2011I submitted one of the new chapters in 2020/TACM to newswithviews. The book revisions are underway and it won't be much longer before everyone who pre ordered will have their copies. I know some people are very upset with us because of the long delays and I don't blame them one bit. It has been over a year since some people ordered theirs.
There are several reasons it's so overdue, all of them are of a personal nature and partly health related, so I am extremely grateful to the majority of our customers who have shown us such patience. I am humbled by the people who became so concerned that we were unable to fulfil our obligations that they wrote not to ask for a refund but to ask where to send donations and how else they can help us to finish it. Some people know (from following my blog) how little we have and how we live. There have always been people who respected the way we didn't try to make money off our research, they appreciated the fact that we had no advertisements and flashing banners saying "Buy now!" I always wanted to maintain that kind of presentation, in spite of the reality that sites without ads usually have funding coming from someplace else.
For years I avoided the whole marketing scene because I really believed that this was such essential information that it had to be free. I managed to survive on part time jobs for many years so that I could keep studying and writing continuously. And then my body just gave out after years of sporadic eating, the stress of the topic and constant studying in primitive conditions. I started this work when I was 43 and still felt young enough to go winter camping to research and write ACL articles in a tent. I'm 55 now, and sleeping in a tent on the ground in the rain about killed me this past summer. Anyone who's ever had pneumonia will understand why I almost wished I would die. But somehow a brush with death also brings on a new sense of purpose and determination. Now I feel inspired to put these books out for sale and put the free research back online in the new format. One last time I'll forget about eating and spend the winter writing in a wood heated unplumbed Gertee. But this has to be the last time I do this.
CENTRALIZING WEALTH IN THE NEW EARTH AGE
http://www.newswithviews.com/Raapana/niki121.htm
Monday, April 11, 2011
Mini Gertee featured in my new youtube video
Gearing up for another summer of promoting Gertee. It's a challenge getting myself re inspired to work on projects I've put away, especially after a losing endeavor. I am getting used to it now though, must be because almost everything I've done could be filed under losses. heh. But some projects have a way of jumping back up to the top of my list, namely the ACL and Gertee.
What's okay is each time I return to writing for the ACL, my style improves. During the rewrite for 2020 I found so much good new source material it was almost as exciting writing as it was when I first found the theory in 2000. But the legal research is a brain drain, and I decided to take an extended break from the ACL. Now, I am suddenly engaged in a discussion about Communitarian Law with Peter Myers. Regular readers are familiar with my reposts of his elists. Myers is a highly educated national socialist from Australia (as opposed to the international socialists) whose research website called Neither Aryan nor Jew was tremendously helpful to my early and continued ACL education. I've been reposting his research for eight years now, and he's never shown much interest in discussing globalized communitarianism, let alone global communitarian law. This means I will, by default, be working on the ACL again! I will be revising the ACL Communitarian Law pages, using my back and forth with Peter to form my presentation. It's perfect that the first page back up at the ACL will be the law.
Last fall Nordica and Fred helped me finish the 20" interior. My 3 yr old grandson sat and looked into it for several minutes before he stated simply, "Gramma, I want to live in there."
What's okay is each time I return to writing for the ACL, my style improves. During the rewrite for 2020 I found so much good new source material it was almost as exciting writing as it was when I first found the theory in 2000. But the legal research is a brain drain, and I decided to take an extended break from the ACL. Now, I am suddenly engaged in a discussion about Communitarian Law with Peter Myers. Regular readers are familiar with my reposts of his elists. Myers is a highly educated national socialist from Australia (as opposed to the international socialists) whose research website called Neither Aryan nor Jew was tremendously helpful to my early and continued ACL education. I've been reposting his research for eight years now, and he's never shown much interest in discussing globalized communitarianism, let alone global communitarian law. This means I will, by default, be working on the ACL again! I will be revising the ACL Communitarian Law pages, using my back and forth with Peter to form my presentation. It's perfect that the first page back up at the ACL will be the law.
Last fall Nordica and Fred helped me finish the 20" interior. My 3 yr old grandson sat and looked into it for several minutes before he stated simply, "Gramma, I want to live in there."
My Gertees and I were featured in an article by Lori Leahy in the April 7, 2011 edition of the Copper River Record, under a story line called "True Alaskans."
Monday, February 21, 2011
Who in the world wants UN Local Agenda 21?
The United Nations Local Agenda 21 Programme was adopted by all member nations in 1992. Most citizens in the United States were never told anything about it. To my knowledge, no nation in the entire world was allowed to vote on this sweeping plan to rebuild the world.
Over the past twenty years, the UN's communitarian system was implemented in every nation. In some nations it was an open process, because their systems were not established as governments of the people. In the nations where the citizens elect representatives and have veto power over laws passed by their elected representatives, Local Agenda 21 was hidden.
There are numerous first-hand accounts of citizens asking if LA21 was in their home area, and more than one US politician is on the record denying Local Agenda 21 was their local plan. Michael Shaw of Santa Cruz taped his local representative denying it. Seattle City Council members told me during face-to-face interviews there was no such thing in Seattle.
Today Seattle Council members openly advertise they embrace LA21 goals, visions and values. Today every government in the world promotes LA21 sustainable development principles.
For 100 years the very idea of a global government was relegated to conspiracy theory land. What life must have been like for the researchers and investigators who uncovered the plan in it's earliest stages. Some people have been studying and watching it come down since the 40s. Of course, few people took their findings seriously and the whole topic became nothing but a joke.
The emerging world governance system is not communist, although communists played a major role in setting things up. The new global system is called communitarianism. Unlike communism, communitarianism is a balance between individual and collective rights.
Under a communitarian system, individuals get their "rights" from the Community. The new Sustainable Community replaces God and any other higher authority in existence. All nations have to bow before the Community, be it the Global Community, the Regional Community or the actual neighborhood Community. Communitarian Community Law is supreme at every level.
This plan for controlling the global economy included an entirely new bureaucracy that replaces legitimate local governments. Every federal agency in the United States changed their mission statements to promote sustainable development, before anyone in the USA had heard the term. New agencies were established with names like Department of Neighborhoods, Community & Economic Development, Strategic Planning Office, Community Policing Services and Office of Sustainability. Strict new land use regulations were passed. Entire older neighborhoods were torn down and replaced with new sustainable "model" neighborhoods.
Now there are places in the U.S. where property owners cannot cut their own trees for firewood without getting permission first. Property owners can lose their property in all kinds of new ways if they do not adhere to the new regulations. New Smart Grids and Smart Meters (that cost mega bucks to install) are popping up all across broke America. Go Green has swept the world like a flu virus without anyone really questioning what exactly a "green economy" means. Smart businesses promote themselves as "green" because that's where the money is, not because they think they're saving the planet. Anyone deemed "unsustainable" is doomed.
A "green economy" doesn't mean earth friendly living. It has zero to do with saving the environment or anything else, except to the grass roots activists who believe the big lie. Green stands for money, not grass. It means the only people who make money are the people who know the green grant game. The stakeholders who pass these plans at the local level aren't called stakeholders for no reason. They hold the stakes over Americas' heart.
Over the past twenty years, the UN's communitarian system was implemented in every nation. In some nations it was an open process, because their systems were not established as governments of the people. In the nations where the citizens elect representatives and have veto power over laws passed by their elected representatives, Local Agenda 21 was hidden.
There are numerous first-hand accounts of citizens asking if LA21 was in their home area, and more than one US politician is on the record denying Local Agenda 21 was their local plan. Michael Shaw of Santa Cruz taped his local representative denying it. Seattle City Council members told me during face-to-face interviews there was no such thing in Seattle.
Today Seattle Council members openly advertise they embrace LA21 goals, visions and values. Today every government in the world promotes LA21 sustainable development principles.
For 100 years the very idea of a global government was relegated to conspiracy theory land. What life must have been like for the researchers and investigators who uncovered the plan in it's earliest stages. Some people have been studying and watching it come down since the 40s. Of course, few people took their findings seriously and the whole topic became nothing but a joke.
The emerging world governance system is not communist, although communists played a major role in setting things up. The new global system is called communitarianism. Unlike communism, communitarianism is a balance between individual and collective rights.
Under a communitarian system, individuals get their "rights" from the Community. The new Sustainable Community replaces God and any other higher authority in existence. All nations have to bow before the Community, be it the Global Community, the Regional Community or the actual neighborhood Community. Communitarian Community Law is supreme at every level.
This plan for controlling the global economy included an entirely new bureaucracy that replaces legitimate local governments. Every federal agency in the United States changed their mission statements to promote sustainable development, before anyone in the USA had heard the term. New agencies were established with names like Department of Neighborhoods, Community & Economic Development, Strategic Planning Office, Community Policing Services and Office of Sustainability. Strict new land use regulations were passed. Entire older neighborhoods were torn down and replaced with new sustainable "model" neighborhoods.
Now there are places in the U.S. where property owners cannot cut their own trees for firewood without getting permission first. Property owners can lose their property in all kinds of new ways if they do not adhere to the new regulations. New Smart Grids and Smart Meters (that cost mega bucks to install) are popping up all across broke America. Go Green has swept the world like a flu virus without anyone really questioning what exactly a "green economy" means. Smart businesses promote themselves as "green" because that's where the money is, not because they think they're saving the planet. Anyone deemed "unsustainable" is doomed.
"There is as yet no agreed definition of what constitutes a green economy. Whilst it is recognised that to a great extent a green economy will be tailored to the national context, there are a number of 'strands' that can be identified.' Earth Summit 2012In the U.S. businesses keep moving to escape LA21 inspired regulations that kill their profits. Jobs keep disappearing. Taxes are diverted into new black hole programs that line the pockets of the sustainable developers, while more and more Americans lose everything they have. Even the Obama Stimulus Package was designed to line the pockets of LA21 sustainable developers. Construction money was for modifying homes to be more "sustainable."
A "green economy" doesn't mean earth friendly living. It has zero to do with saving the environment or anything else, except to the grass roots activists who believe the big lie. Green stands for money, not grass. It means the only people who make money are the people who know the green grant game. The stakeholders who pass these plans at the local level aren't called stakeholders for no reason. They hold the stakes over Americas' heart.
"Though it is notoriously difficult to reach agreed definitions of a green economy, it may be easier to achieve consensus on the principles that should ideally underpin a green economy in any context. This involves more of a focus on desired outcomes that a green economy should be striving to achieve. This may include an agreement that any transition to a green economy should have the principle of equity at its heart. This could also include the recognition of the environment and ecosystems as 'stakeholders' in our economic system." http://www.earthsummit2012.org/index.php/green-economy-landing/237-principles-green-economyIn one year the planners will meet again in the same spot they met when they adopted the LA21 plan. Maybe this time, national citizens around the world will have the opportunity to vote on any Rio+20 resolution adopted by their government representatives. Maybe this time around LA21 will make the nightly news in America. Maybe we'll be told about the communitarian philosophy and law that supports LA21. And, maybe we won't be told anything at all.
Earth Summit
http://www.earthsummit2012.org/
http://www.earthsummit2012.org/
On 14th - 16th May 2012, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) or 'Rio+20' will take place in Rio de Janeiro. Also referred to as the Rio+20 Earth Summit, due to the initial conference held in Rio in 1992, the objectives of the Summit are: to secure renewed political commitment to sustainable development; to assess progress towards internationally agreed goals on sustainable development and to address new and emerging challenges. The Summit will also focus on two specific themes: a green economy in the context of poverty eradication and sustainable development, and an institutional framework for sustainable development. The full text of Resolution A/RES/64/236, which endorsed the Summit is available here.Several years ago we added this poll to the ACL website's Agenda 21 page. This may be the only global "vote" ever held over this issue in the entire world. The results show why that is.
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13%
66%
2%
6%
1%
1%
2%
7%
1%
1%
Thursday, November 25, 2010
The communitarian's "Tea Party" paranoia
The communitarians are freaking out because Americans are finally challenging Agenda 21. I didn't realize how many people were going to their local agenda 21 meetings and asking direct questions about the plans. The LAST thing LA21 planners want or need is a room full of Americans asking them for definitions of legal terms, authority of law, grant sources for pilot tests and developments and other such "nonsense."
This is fantastic news and gives me a reason to give thanks today! For the first time in almost eleven years I have hope that the communitarian agenda for reinventing American government will go public, be debated (legitimately) and finally go before ALL the voters who pay for it.
Why are communitarians so quick to sling mud in the faces of Americans who want to know more about Local Agenda 21? Because American voters were never told anything about it. Our people were never supposed to have any voice in the decision to implement it. And, up until now, we didn't. The irrefutable FACT of this whole matter is the same as it's been since I first uncovered it in Seattle in 1999: most Americans have never heard anything about it, not even the ones who participate in passing the plans! LA21 changes our entire legal system and anyone who asks where the authority for doing that comes from is a nutcase? Yeah right.
Here's the communitarian's idea of damage control: Insult your opponent and hope that deters others from thinking they have any right to answers. Slander them, mock their education, ridicule their lifestyle, dis their culture.. whatever is easiest to identify. Show zero respect for their nation, their laws or their customs. Violate their space, threaten their livelihood, bribe, steal, trick, deceive, lie, cheat, sneer, yawn, disrupt, stalk, terrorize... it's all okay because the ends justifies the means.
This is fantastic news and gives me a reason to give thanks today! For the first time in almost eleven years I have hope that the communitarian agenda for reinventing American government will go public, be debated (legitimately) and finally go before ALL the voters who pay for it.
Why are communitarians so quick to sling mud in the faces of Americans who want to know more about Local Agenda 21? Because American voters were never told anything about it. Our people were never supposed to have any voice in the decision to implement it. And, up until now, we didn't. The irrefutable FACT of this whole matter is the same as it's been since I first uncovered it in Seattle in 1999: most Americans have never heard anything about it, not even the ones who participate in passing the plans! LA21 changes our entire legal system and anyone who asks where the authority for doing that comes from is a nutcase? Yeah right.
Here's the communitarian's idea of damage control: Insult your opponent and hope that deters others from thinking they have any right to answers. Slander them, mock their education, ridicule their lifestyle, dis their culture.. whatever is easiest to identify. Show zero respect for their nation, their laws or their customs. Violate their space, threaten their livelihood, bribe, steal, trick, deceive, lie, cheat, sneer, yawn, disrupt, stalk, terrorize... it's all okay because the ends justifies the means.
The Tea Party Targets... Sustainable Development? If you believe conservative activists, smart growth is really a global conspiracy to herd Americans into "human habitation zones." By Stephanie Mencimer http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/11/tea-party-agenda-21-un-sustainable-development?page=2
"The scene in Maine is repeating itself across the country. Only sometimes the activists are less polite. One planning consultant I spoke with, who requested anonymity, recalled a recent meeting where he was on the receiving end of tea party rage. "I got called a communist," he says. Someone in another tea party-heavy area recently told him, "We don't need none of that smart growth communism." The people he's been encountering are new to the process, short on solid facts, and many are "spitting mad." Combined with what they see as an "elitist" bent in planning consultants, he says, it makes for a toxic and intimidating mix for local officials who aren't used to being accosted by conspiracy theory wielding activists."
For the past ten years I've heard the claim that UN Local Agenda 21 is a conspiracy theory. It never seemed to matter that the document exists and that America is being modified to adopt its principles. The term conspiracy theorist is thrown out EVERY TIME an average American citizen asks a legitimate question about the plan to rebuild America into communities. And no matter who responds, the questions are never answered honestly, and insults are all we hear.
Isn't it amazing how many different ways communitarians can skirt direct questions? It must be part of their academic training because they all use the same meaningless insults no matter what kind of people they're confronted by. Anyone outside the "development loop" who shows even the slightest interest in questioning the validity of UN sustainable development is a: tin foil hat, conspiracy theorist, paranoid obstructionist, credulous fool, ignorant back woods hick, mad hatter, wing nut, terminally moronic, white racist, Nazi thug, 2oth century Neanderthal, etc, etc.
The Tea Party's "livability" paranoia, by Jonathan Hiskes, 23 Nov 2010 5:23 PM
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-23-the-tea-partys-livability-paranoia
I am not a right wing conservative, I am not a Libertarian and I didn't vote for Ron Paul, but I did send out a letter to the Tea Party asking them to consider making communitarian community development one of their issues. While my "open letter" may have only reached a very small percentage of those members, it's entirely possible I had something to do with putting LA21 on the Tea Party's agenda. Maybe that's why one of my readers told me I've reached millions of people through my work. Nordica and I laughed at that... we just did a count of how many books we've sold and joked about putting "Over 400 copies sold!" on the new cover. I am going to work my butt off to get the new books ready asap... we can certainly fill in those "short on solid facts" areas for some people. This is why understanding the communitarian philosophy and system of LAW is so necessary to seeing the truth about SD.... otherwise objecting to it makes no sense. We have to decide on whether to adopt the principles as well as the plans.
Happy Thanksgiving from our house to yours. We're fortunate enough to have a ham and some fixin's, and we hope you are too. Might just turn on the piano and pretend we're at my moms too. Our family always started rehearsing for Christmas after Thanksgiving dinner. Been many years since we were all together for the holidays... the last time I sang Christmas carols with my sisters and my brother was during a family reunion in 1998.. in August. Ever since I began researching LA21 I stopped enjoying a full life. I'm thinking of happier times today.
Happy Thanksgiving from our house to yours. We're fortunate enough to have a ham and some fixin's, and we hope you are too. Might just turn on the piano and pretend we're at my moms too. Our family always started rehearsing for Christmas after Thanksgiving dinner. Been many years since we were all together for the holidays... the last time I sang Christmas carols with my sisters and my brother was during a family reunion in 1998.. in August. Ever since I began researching LA21 I stopped enjoying a full life. I'm thinking of happier times today.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Literature relating to the linkages between adaptation and sustainable development
How does the proposed Climate Change Convention relate to sustainable development? Would the treaty place the United States under international communitarian regulations? Yes, it will.
http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/document_lists/items/3179.php
What is adaptation?
http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/capacity_building/items/1033.php
How many countries have adapted?
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/inventory_review_reports/items/4715.php
What role does the US play in the upcoming convention of climate change? Here's the US report on gas emmisions (pretty boring, I know, but it means something):
http://maindb.unfccc.int/library/view_pdf.pl?url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/asr/usa.pdf
Is there a Climate Change "Enforcement Branch" of the United Nations?
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/compliance/enforcement_branch/items/3785.php
http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/document_lists/items/3179.php
What is adaptation?
"Adaptation to climate change is vital in order to reduce the impacts of climate change that are happening now and increase resilience to future impacts. The UNFCCC webpages on adaptation highlight the negotiations and action being carried out on adaptation by governments and stakeholders as guided by the Convention (particularly Article 2 and Article 4)."How do the Kyoto Protocols relate to Capacity Building?
http://unfccc.int/adaptation/items/4159.php
http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/capacity_building/items/1033.php
How many countries have adapted?
http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/inventory_review_reports/items/4715.php
What role does the US play in the upcoming convention of climate change? Here's the US report on gas emmisions (pretty boring, I know, but it means something):
http://maindb.unfccc.int/library/view_pdf.pl?url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/asr/usa.pdf
Is there a Climate Change "Enforcement Branch" of the United Nations?
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/compliance/enforcement_branch/items/3785.php
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Let us all open our mouths and pray together to the Fish God
One planet, many people, and how many gods?
draft notes for new article
I originally contacted the local mapmakers to ensure Camp Redington and the Merc were included on their map. But then I read their notes that expressly stated that NO businesses would be on their tourist map. After perusing the "local" websites involved in mapping the entire Copper River Country as one unit, and seeing their having as a goal the objective of teaching everyone, visitors and local residents alike, about how we should honor and care for our land and waterways, I went off on a rant against them that I published here last spring. The thing was, I easily spotted all the same language used in Local Agenda 21 in their plans.
Here's the chapter of LA-21 being implemented in Kenny Lake, Alaska; it explains the reason our area deserves their "immediate attention."
www.trollart.com
http://www.bible-history.com/past/dagon.html
Copper River Ecotrust Contacts
(for those of you doing your own investigations and interviews):
So what do you think? "Fish Worship, is it Wrong?
Do they already worship the Fish God in China? And how can NASA keep LA21 records on China while many Americans still lable UN LA21 a "conspiracy theory?" Improving neighborhoods in China can't possibly be the same as improving neighborhoods in the USA, can it?
draft notes for new article
Anyone familiar with the ACL knows my introduction to communitarian programs and policies came in the form of mapping and land use planning. My work was never religious based. In 1999 I was used in a Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) pilot test. City action teams were gathering and inputting our personal data into a GIS database. The pilot mapping program was created at the National Institute of Justice and it was called COMPASS. I spent several years studying the global mapping plans; this was one of the routes I took that led me to the UN:
A network of scientists is poised to start the ambitious project of mapping the geology of the entire planet. Called the “OneGeology Project“, the team is made up of a consortium of international bodies, organizations and surveys from around the globe. Participants come from around the world with sciences from representatives from more that 55 countries involved. The project web site points to the UN General Assembly of 1997 (Agenda 21) as the motivating factor for this project. OneGeology Project: Mapping the Planet, Sunday March 11th 2007, http://gislounge.com/onegeology-project-mapping-the-planet/Wanting to avoid religious topics altogether (especially after the vicious personal attacks and accusations of antsemitism by the mad Zionists at Constance Cumbey's blog), I started a new fact based article to explore the relationship between global community policing and LA21 mapping programs, sort of a follow up to Quiet Revolution. I figured this was a good, safe topic that keeps my writing within my area of "expertise." I started revisiting places where I learned about the expanded use of GIS technology back in 2000, like the friendly GIS Lounge:
For months I've been on our local mapping groups' elist. They send so many I almost started deleting them, but skimming all the emails coming from the Copper River Country Mapping group ended up being worth my time after all. As a result of my interest in their new local "stories" map, I'm learning quite a bit about the level of UN LA-21 infiltration into my current neck of the woods. I'm seeing some heavy players coming here from the UN, US Forest Service, BLM and NPS, and they have the full cooperation of local Alaskan Tribal elders. What I wasn't expecting to find is our new world leaders have decided we need a new fish nation now too.
In celebration of World Environment Day on June 3, 2005 the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in cooperation with NASA, United States Geological Survey (USGS) and University of Maryland launched One Planet, Many People: Atlas of our Changing Environment–a publication that provides visual evidence of environmental change using satellite images, graphics and text. The focus is on the status and trends over several decades, both in physical and human geography. You may access the Atlas on line at www.na.unep.net or you may purchase a hard copy from www.earthprint.com. One Planet, Many People: Atlas of Our Changing Environment, Sunday July 31st 2005 http://gislounge.com/one-planet-many-people-atlas-of-our-changing-environment/
I originally contacted the local mapmakers to ensure Camp Redington and the Merc were included on their map. But then I read their notes that expressly stated that NO businesses would be on their tourist map. After perusing the "local" websites involved in mapping the entire Copper River Country as one unit, and seeing their having as a goal the objective of teaching everyone, visitors and local residents alike, about how we should honor and care for our land and waterways, I went off on a rant against them that I published here last spring. The thing was, I easily spotted all the same language used in Local Agenda 21 in their plans.
Here's the chapter of LA-21 being implemented in Kenny Lake, Alaska; it explains the reason our area deserves their "immediate attention."
Agenda 21, Chapter 13:
MANAGING FRAGILE ECOSYSTEMS: SUSTAINABLE MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
MANAGING FRAGILE ECOSYSTEMS: SUSTAINABLE MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
13.1. Mountains are an important source of water, energy and biological diversity. Furthermore, they are a source of such key resources as minerals, forest products and agricultural products and of recreation. As a major ecosystem representing the complex and interrelated ecology of our planet, mountain environments are essential to the survival of the global ecosystem. Mountain ecosystems are, however, rapidly changing. They are susceptible to accelerated soil erosion, landslides and rapid loss of habitat and genetic diversity. On the human side, there is widespread poverty among mountain inhabitants and loss of indigenous knowledge. As a result, most global mountain areas are experiencing environmental degradation. Hence, the proper management of mountain resources and socio-economic development of the people deserves immediate action. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter13.htm
So, what does the Fish God have to do with LA21 and GIS mapping? Last summer I found the artwork below and put it on my miniature Chitina dipnetting scene. The art I copied was from a summer seminar at UAF. I thought it was art and nothing more. I didn't research it then, and actually I think I made jokes about it. But when I found the connection between the Copper River Map and the Salmon Nation, I remembered the Fish Worship poster and started to see it in a slightly different light (from a 1000 different points).
www.trollart.comSo tonight I go look up the Fish God on google, and the first site I come to is this:
http://www.bible-history.com/past/dagon.htmlThe primary international connection to our local plan comes from the group called EcoTrust. Ecotrust is partners with the Copper River Watershed Project. http://www.copperriver.org/. Ecotrust is experienced in drafting UN proposals to create UN biosphere reserves:
Many people and organizations assisted First Nations and local leaders to find solutions to the bitter conflict. Ecotrust drafted a proposal to create a United Nations biosphere reserve, which now enjoys a $12 million endowment for research and education. In 1995, we created Ecotrust Canada, which now operates independently with a 30-person staff, an annual budget of $3 million and a $5 million revolving loan fund for small business development. We have a proud record of innovative leadership and investments along British Columbia’s rain forest coast.The designated Copper River Watershed appears to claim more land than the Wrangell St. Elias National UN Heritage Park, the largest park in the former USA. (My guess is the Fish God is a pretty powerful god in the eyes of our saviors at the UN.)
http://www.ecotrust.org/publications/Ecotrust_fresh_thinking_broch.pdf.
(for those of you doing your own investigations and interviews):
Erica McCall Valentine
Director of Copper River Program
PO Box 868
Talkeetna, AK 99676
tel: 907.733.2625
cell: 907.230.1169
Allison Bidlack, Ph.D.
Science Coordinator,
Copper River Program
PO Box 626
Cordova, AK 99574
tel: 907.424.3541
Edward Backus
Vice President,
Fisheries
PO Box 2330
Newport, OR 97365
tel: 541.265.8508
cell: 503.939.5500
It came as quite a suprise to find out that because I live near salmon spawning grounds I have been redesignated as a member of the Salmon Nation. I wonder if my new global citizenship comes with any new global responsibilities to my new tribe. Is there a cermenony where I get inducted into the clan, maybe a renaming ceremony like Amitai Etzioni got in his kibbutz?
One of the reasons salmon might be super important to the global communitarians at ecotrust:
One of the reasons salmon might be super important to the global communitarians at ecotrust:
Within the Copper River ecosystem, salmon are the sustainable "natural capital" that is the key to local economies. http://www.ecotrust.org/copperriver/http://www.ecotrust.org/publications/renewing_SN_foodtraditions.htmlAll of us former free and independent Alaskan living inside our former constitutional "arbitrary boundaries" were bridged; the whole lot of us are a "community of caretakers" now:
"Welcome to Salmon Nation, a community of caretakers and citizens that stretches across arbitrary boundaries and bridges urban-rural divides. We bring new meaning to the word cooperative — with unusual alliances of tribes, fishermen, farmers, ranchers, loggers, and urban-dwellers working together to improve our neighborhoods and watersheds. "http://www.salmonnation.com/Does the Salmon Nation have a state religion?
So what do you think? "Fish Worship, is it Wrong?
Do they already worship the Fish God in China? And how can NASA keep LA21 records on China while many Americans still lable UN LA21 a "conspiracy theory?" Improving neighborhoods in China can't possibly be the same as improving neighborhoods in the USA, can it?
And, yes, there's still the Fusion Center-GIS connection that needs to be more fully explained:
China Dimensions Data Collection: Priority Programme for China's Agenda 21
Entry ID: CIESIN_SEDAC_CD_AGENDA21
Summary
Priority Programme for China's Agenda 21 consists of full-text program descriptions supporting China's economic and social development. The descriptions represent 69 programs covering legislation, policy, education, agriculture, environment, energy, transportation, regional development, population, health, and global change research. Each description includes project scope, background, http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records /GCMD_CIESIN_SEDAC_CD_AGENDA21.html
11-14 July: 2009 ESRI Homeland Security GIS Summit
Location: San Diego, CA
Dates: July 11-14, 2009
Web Page: http://www.esri.com/hssummit
Description: Attend the only geospatial conference dedicated to homeland security, now a convenient concurrent event with the 2009 ESRI International User Conference.
2009 ESRI Homeland Security GIS Summit - San Diego - July 11-14, 2009
I don't know how to fit this in and it probably doesn't belong in a condensed 1000 word piece, but here's a very long, detailed World Bank plan to strengthen NGO influence in Palestine, published 3 years ago. Unlike papers written on sustainable community development for the USA, the Palestine plan emphasizes National Sovereignty as one WB-CDD civil society goal (using consensus and community development to achieve it): Palestine NGO Project
What is "social equity" (the goal of every UN plan) and what does it have to do with Climate Change? Social Equity and Climate Change, www.planning sustainable communities.com
Sometimes it helps to go back and read the UN's 1992 Rio Report, just to put current mapping projects, datagathering operations and youth training seminars into their proper perspective:
What is "social equity" (the goal of every UN plan) and what does it have to do with Climate Change? Social Equity and Climate Change, www.planning sustainable communities.com
Sometimes it helps to go back and read the UN's 1992 Rio Report, just to put current mapping projects, datagathering operations and youth training seminars into their proper perspective:
REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT*
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm
(Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992)
Annex I
RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,
Having met at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992,
Reaffirming the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972, a/ and seeking to build upon
it,
With the goal of establishing a new and equitable global partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among States, key sectors of societies and people,
Working towards international agreements which respect the interests of all and protect the integrity of the global environmental and developmental system,
Recognizing the integral and interdependent nature of the Earth, our home,
Proclaims that:
Principle 1
Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.
Principle 2
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
Principle 3
The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.
Principle 4
In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.
Principle 5
All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.
Principle 6
The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority. International actions in the field of environment and development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.
Principle 7
States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.
Principle 8
To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.
Principle 9
States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and innovative technologies.
Principle 10
Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and
encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.
Principle 11
States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environmental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect the environmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standards applied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.
Principle 12
States should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. Unilateral actions to deal with environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided. Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus.
Principle 13
States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage. States shall also cooperate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop further international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control to areas beyond their jurisdiction.
Principle 14
States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health.
Principle 15
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Principle 16
National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment.
Principle 17
Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.
Principle 18
States shall immediately notify other States of any natural disasters or other emergencies that are likely to produce sudden harmful effects on the environment of those States. Every effort shall be made by the international community to help States so afflicted.
Principle 19
States shall provide prior and timely notification and relevant information to potentially affected States on activities that may have a significant adverse transboundary environmental effect and shall consult with those States at an early stage and in good faith.
Principle 20
Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development.
Principle 21
The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all.
Principle 22
Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.
Principle 23
The environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation shall be protected.
Principle 24
Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.
Principle 25
Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.
Principle 26
States shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefully and by appropriate means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Principle 27
States and people shall cooperate in good faith and in a spirit of partnership in the fulfilment of the principles embodied in this Declaration and in the further development of international law in the field of sustainable development.
* * * * *
a/ Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 5-16 June 1972 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.73.II.A.14 and corrigendum), chap. I.
This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Reproduction and dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United Nations in making it available.
Date last updated: 12 January, 2000 by DESA/DSD
Copyright © 1999 United Nations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
