UN Agenda 21 goal: Abolish Private Property

Part of the United Nations’ Agenda 21 is the abolition of private property. Confiscation of private property will be done under the guise of “sustainability.” They’ll argue that having a large plot of land is an inefficient use of the land, and that your land would be better used if it were developed into something else.

Perhaps they’d prefer that a mass transit rail run right through your property. So they’d take your property over through eminent domain, forcing your out of your own house and off your property to somewhere else where they have much more dense housing, and use the land that was previously yours as they saw fit.

These types of tyrannical gestures are being implemented around our country at the local level. In California, there is a law that’s awaiting Governor Brown’s signature that would institute an agency at the county level that could seize private property basically on a whim and using “sustainability” as the excuse.

Writing for the San Rafael Patch, Richard Hall sums up SB 1 here:

  • A city mayor or county supervisor forms a new joint powers authority called a “Sustainable Communities Investment Authority” (SCIA), they appoint elected officials to serve on the SCIAs board.
  • If you live within 1/2 mile of a bus that runs every 15 minutes during peak commutes, or the SMART train or Caltrain in a single family home neighborhood your neighborhood can be targeted by the SCIA as inefficient land use and “blighted” as it is not high density multi-family housing. Almost everyone reading this in Marin (apart from some Steve Kinsey constituents in Western Marin) is therefore affected – I have seen the map with these 1/2 mile radiuses and it covers almost all Marinites.
  • The SCIA can then wield the power of eminent domain to purchase unused, for sale or even occupied land in order to build high-density multi-family housing – that it deems to be efficient land use.
  • The SCIA can then impose local taxes on us to pay not just for the eminent domain purchases but to help the land developer build by subsidizing the building of high density housing.
  • In order to meet criteria in SB1 allowing imposition of local taxes the SCIA must impose “a sustainable parking standards ordinance that restricts parking in transit priority project areas to encourage transit use to the greatest extent feasible.” Yes you read that right, “to the greatest extent feasible.” This could mean anything from reducing available parking, to introducing parking permits and parking meters.

This is, of course, nothing less than communism. They just don’t call it communism. They call it “social justice.”
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4390/agenda-21-california-law-abolish-private-property/#6vSAHfMLlQqK39jb.99

Agenda 21: California Law Would Abolish Private Property
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/4390/agenda-21-california-law-abolish-private-property/#6vSAHfMLlQqK39jb.99

       8b29525r

        Private property rights are under attack all across this nation and across the globe.  The abolition of private property is one of the tenets of UN Agenda 21.  Why? They deem private property ownership ( except for them) “unjust”.

The U.N. Conference on Human Settlements states:

“Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice…The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.”

    The Western World has thrived because we had laws which protected our property rights. (1)      Most nations around the globe lack those protections which is one of the reasons why they’ve never been able to raise themselves out of squalor.  They lack laws which protects their property rights.

“Property rights initiate the rule of law… what makes people interested in the rule of law, the first thing that they understand… is that everybody on this earth lives on a plot of land.” – Hernando De Soto, Economist (Peru)

         Our prosperity must be equalized with and redistributed to third world nations. The people pushing UN Agenda 21 have no interest in raising the standard of living for all nations; their goal is to abolish all “first” world standards (except for them, of course) and to create a sea of serfs scrounging around for a grain of rice.

Agenda 21: California Law Would Abolish Private Property
The Last Resistance 1-15-14

“Part of the United Nations’ Agenda 21 is the abolition of private property. Confiscation of private property will be done under the guise of “sustainability.” They’ll argue that having a large plot of land is an inefficient use of the land, and that your land would be better used if it were developed into something else. [ Or not developed at all.]

Perhaps they’d prefer that a mass transit [light] rail run right through your property. So they’d take your property over through eminent domain, forcing your out of your own house and off your property to somewhere else where they have much more dense housing, and use the land that was previously yours as they saw fit. [Here are some of the lies being told to to Floridians about “light rail”.]

These types of tyrannical gestures are being implemented around our country at the local level. In California, there is a law that’s awaiting Governor Brown’s signature that would institute an agency at the county level that could seize private property basically on a whim and using “sustainability” as the excuse.

Writing for the San Rafael Patch, Richard Hall sums up SB 1 here:

  • A city mayor or county supervisor forms a new joint powers authority called a “Sustainable Communities Investment Authority” (SCIA), they appoint elected officials to serve on the SCIAs board.

  • If you live within 1/2 mile of a bus that runs every 15 minutes during peak commutes, or the SMART train or Caltrain in a single family home neighborhood your neighborhood can be targeted by the SCIA as inefficient land use and “blighted” as it is not high density multi-family housing. Almost everyone reading this in Marin (apart from some Steve Kinsey constituents in Western Marin) is therefore affected – I have seen the map with these 1/2 mile radiuses and it covers almost all Marinites.

  • The SCIA can then wield the power of eminent domain to purchase unused, for sale or even occupied land in order to build high-density multi-family housing – that it deems to be efficient land use.

  • The SCIA can then impose local taxes on us to pay not just for the eminent domain purchases but to help the land developer build by subsidizing the building of high density housing.

  • In order to meet criteria in SB1 allowing imposition of local taxes the SCIA must impose “a sustainable parking standards ordinance that restricts parking in transit priority project areas to encourage transit use to the greatest extent feasible.” Yes you read that right, “to the greatest extent feasible.” This could mean anything from reducing available parking, to introducing parking permits and parking meters.

This is, of course, nothing less than communism. They just don’t call it communism.  They disguise what they are doing by calling it “social justice.”

       The following short video is an excerpt of a visioning meeting (visioning meetings are happening in your area too) held in the San Francisco Bay area.  They pretend they want public input regarding the pending “One Bay Area” Regional Plan. Each area in the nation has a regional plan. You will also find contained within your regional plan the exact concepts as the ones discussed in the video. Take particular note around the 4:50 mark where the speaker makes the following claim:  “the more we constrain development the lower property values get propagated”.  Wrong!  This is moron speak. The idiot claims if less property is available to be developed, this will decrease the cost of property which is exactly the opposite of what happens under the law of supply and demand: The less you have of something – the more it costs. Period.

      If you  would like to see this in action look no further than Portland, Oregon’s cost of housing. They have placed an arbitrary “urban growth boundary” around their city which limits development only to within this boundary and development only as they deem appropriate.  As a direct consequence of this, the property within the boundary costs about $100,000 an acre and outside the boundary about $5000, however you are not allowed to develop your property outside the boundary. They want  your property to be left as open space. In other words, they have denied you the right to use your property to generate wealth. Look here.

        I interviewed a man from the organization Oregonians in Action who explained how this works in the real world. Listen here.  This IS happening where you live too.

 

1. For more information on property and wealth generation read,  The Mystery of Capital Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else
By HERNANDO DE SOTO




Wednesday September 19th Dave Kopacz Smile you’re on Community Access TV!

Wednesday September 19th  This podcast is available on www.oriontalkradio.com under the archive section. I will be posting the podcast on my site shortly. I am temporarily unable to post podcasts due to computer issues.

Dave Kopacz joined me to offer ideas about getting information out to people in your community using Community Access TV aka your local public access station. Listen in, Dave offered some good ideas on that and the “consensus” lies your “stakeholders” tell you.

www.masslpa.org

www.davekopacz.com

 




Monday April 23rd Henry Lamb & Maria Rutenburg “Public servants” who serve ONLY themselves…

Monday April 23rd

Hr 1 Henry Lamb joined me to discuss visioning meetings.  Here is his latest newsletter. http://www.freedom21.org/Newsletters/NL-2012/nl-042112.pdf

Hr 2 Maria Rutenburg joined me to discuss her fight for property rights in San Mateo Calif. Feel free to contact her if you so desire  mrutenburg@gmail.com

Below is an email she sent exposing the criminality of our so called public servants. Most serve only themselves.

Fellow homeowners and tenants,

So, building dept tells us they are here to protect our “life, health and safety”? Look at the actual cases. You can find these and other similar cases in San Mateo County Building and Planning Database, click on each case # to go directly into the county’s info for that case.
County says: “Building Code Enforcement Officers may only come onto private property with the permission of the property owner or with a legally obtained Right-of-Entry warrant issued by a court,” “Planning and Building staff do not go onto property without permission.”

Actual case #1
In 2011 San Mateo County building inspector walked onto an unincorporated Menlo Park property without permission, without warrant, and without anyone present.  “ Before exiting the property’s rear yard, one of the main house’s rear doors was unlocked; and so I  (the inspector) went into ..the main house,.” proceeding to issue violation notice. ( inspector’s report, case SWN2011-00026)

 County says: “Planning and Building Department only requires the documentation that is necessary to resolve identified permit violations.”

Actual case  #2
An owner of a historic tavern in Montara was changing pendant lights and ceiling fans without permit. She received a code a violation notice for these items. The county did not stop at that, they demanded a full review of legality of her house where “building dept WILL need to do a thorough review for all units compliance with applicable building electrical and fire codes”  (inspector’s report, case # SWN2011-00005)

Actual case #3
An owner re-roofed without first applying for a building permit.  After receiving a notice, she applied for re-roofing permit in 2004. The county’s “condition is that applicant needs to arrange for an inspection or arrange with inspector time he will be allowed to inspect the rest of the property.”  (SWN2004-00081)The owner refused inspector to access the inside. Owner had to pay  investigation fee of $1960. (BLD2004-00997). The case remains open, roof inspection never signed off and the owner keeps accruing fees every year.

Actual case #3:
A homeowner in unincorporated San Mateo county obtained a permit to replace a water-heater. During the water-heater inspection, the building inspector went into the kitchen and issued a violation notice for what looked like an updated kitchen. (SWN2008-00025). Over the counter kitchen permit and one 10 min inspection totaled  additional $1,416 to the county.  (BLD2008-00259).

Actual case #4:
In 2001,  a North Fair Oaks homeowner received a violation notice for unpermitted siding, window and porch railing replacement (SWN2001-00042). In 2011, county sent a  stop work notice to the new owner of the house (purchased in 2009).  Even though the violation notice alleged nothing but exterior work, Building and Planning  requested  full building plans for the house inside and out and permission  for a full house inspection. The counter person said that if certain information is not readily apparent, “(the owner) might have to open up walls” to see how it was done some 10 years ago to reflect it accurately on the plans.  When the owner asked for a more common sense approach, the counter person called into question the legality of the house even though she had affirmative proof in file in front of her.  (BLD2011-01399).

County says:  “The cost of permits and the documentation required depend on the scope of the work that was done without a permit.” “The fees cannot exceed the actual cost of providing these services and at the current rates are less than the actual cost of the service.”

Actual case #5:

County alleged illegal bathroom remodel and owner refused the inspector to come inside and investigate (SWN2009-00135). Eventually, the owner complied with the building permit requirement but was imposed a total of $16,930.45 of building permit fees, which included a penal investigation fees of $8,764.00 in excess of the $8,170.45 in building permit fees. (BLD2009-01421)

Actual case #6:

A North Fair Oaks owner of a 900 sq.feet house had a bathroom and kitchen remodeled without a permit and changed the windows from single pane to double pane within the existing window frame size and received a violation notice. The total cost of a building permit was  $4,061, which included an investigation fee of $ 2,134, in excess of the $1,927 in permit fees. ( BLD2012-00257) The county collected a design review exemption fee of about $500 and made the Property Owner go through an exemption process. After publication of the case in my previous post, the exemption fee was refunded to the Property Owner  (PLN2012-00055).
Actual case #7:
Homeowner in unincorporated San Mateo wants the fence in the back of his property to be 8 feet, 2 feet higher than the 6 feet allowed. He went through the planning process; costing him $1,805, which does NOT include the building permit fee.  (PLN2012-00085)

County says: Building and Planning “requirements designed to protect the health and safety of State residents and the value of their property.”

Actual case #8:
An unincorporated Menlo Park homeowner put a trellis at entry in front yard and received code violation notice  SWN2010-00033 .

Actual case #9:
A property in North Fair Oaks, a neighbor to the SWN2001-00042 case described above, had a shed built without permit in the backyard and violating setback requirement. A proper complaint was made to the Building and Planning Department  in 2009. No action taken. In 2011 a shed caught on a fire, burning the shed and the neighboring property fence and destroyed her landscaping and patio furniture. Fire dept put out the fire and a second complaint was made. As of today, no violation notices were issued to the shed owner.

County says: “The violation fees are designed to recoup the significant additional cost of conducting building inspections on houses that have already been completed where drywall, concrete and siding are already in place. “

Actual case #10:

A Homeowner in North Fair Oaks had a tree house built without permit and received a violation notice  SWN2009-00102 . The tree house had to be demolished and the Homeowner had to  pay a fee of $1,879. 85 which included a $1,000  penal investigation fee (BLD2009-01218).

Do you know that:
Current fee to just replace one bathroom ceiling fan connected to a duct system is  $160+$29+ 5% legal +4% It=$206.011. With the pending fees increase proposal this permit is going to be  $215+40+4%ITt and 5% legal+$1+$5=  $283.95

Part  costs about $40, installation about $100

With the Building department struggling not to lay-off a single employee, the cost of permits has gone up tremendously in the last 7 years.  We are at the point when it is frequently cheaper to do the work than to get a permit. The permit fees went up 160% in 2005 from the 2001 fee levels.  In 2005 a Building and Planning task force specifically recommended NOT to increase fees.  The homeowner’s price tag for permits went up in 2009 (Board’s resolution 070409)  and again in 2011 (Board’s Resolution 071529).

None of the neighboring cities have as much managers and supervisors as San Mateo County’s Planning and Building Department.  Deputy Director of  Community Development along with an Executive Aide and Executive Secretary cost the Property Owners of Unincorporated San Mateo $ 461,426.00 as of 2010 year end.
With new  construction levels in a declining trend during the past 5+ years, the Building and Planning department is determined to raise revenues through aggressive code enforcement and exorbitant permit fees that hurt all of us and stand in a way of the region’s recovery.

Please do not give up your rights! Spread the word, get people involved. Keep the pressure on, write to Supervisors and let them know that this cannot continue and major policy changes need to be made.

Horsley, dhorsley@co.sanmateo.ca.us
Tissier atissier@co.sanmateo.ca.us
Gibson rosejg@co.sanmateo.ca.us
Groom cgroom@co.sanmateo.ca.us
Pine dpine@co.sanmateo.ca.us

Please also contact our Congresswoman Jackie Speier:
https://forms.house.gov/speier/webforms/email_jackie.shtml




Thursday January 12th Dr. Paugh & Heather Gass What are “Efficient Human Settlements”?

 January 12th Dr.Ileana Johnson Paugh & Heather Gass

Hr 1

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh joins me to discuss “efficient human settlements”. What are they? Who decides?  Find her articles here: www.ileanajohnson.com

http://www.un-documents.net/ha-4c.htm Here’s a link to the UN document The Habitat Agenda: Chapter IV: C. Sustainable human settlements development in an urbanizing world.

Here is an excerpt from it:

102 The municipal level of government can be an effective partner in making human settlements viable, equitable and sustainable, since its level of administration is closest to the people. Governments must recognize the essential role of local authorities in providing services and empowering people to secure economic development, social welfare and environmental protection for their communities, and the role of international cooperation among local authorities. Local authorities can construct, operate and maintain economic, social and environmental infrastructure, oversee planning processes, establish local environmental policies and assist in implementing national and subnational environmental policies. They play a vital role in educating and mobilizing people and in responding to public demands to promote sustainable development.

103. At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the international community agreed on a set of objectives and actions aimed at promoting sustainable human settlements development. In chapter 7 of Agenda 21, the concept of an “enabling approach” in the human settlements sector was developed, whereby a partnership among the public, private and community sectors sought to improve the social, economic and environmental quality of human settlements and the living and working environments of all people, in particular people living in poverty in urban and rural areas. Particular emphasis was given to participation in the decision-making process by community groups, women, indigenous people, the elderly and people with disabilities. The local Agenda 21 framework emphasizes the need for local authorities to work in cooperation with all interested parties, including individuals, social groups and the private sector, to promote and implement effective strategies for sustainable development.

104. In the process of urbanization, policies and programmes for the sustainable development of human settlements in both rural and urban areas require strong subnational governmental institutions working in partnership with all interested parties. Such institutions are still weak in many countries, and their effectiveness is threatened by increasing problems of political regionalism and ethnic strife. All these concerns and demands require a regional and cross-sectoral approach to human settlements planning, which places emphasis on rural/urban linkages and treats villages and cities as two ends of a human settlements continuum in a common ecosystem.

105. Increasingly, cities have a network of linkages that extends far beyond their boundaries. Sustainable urban development requires consideration of the carrying capacity of the entire ecosystem supporting such development, including the prevention and mitigation of adverse environmental impacts occurring outside urban areas. The unsafe disposal of waste leads to the degradation of the natural environment: aquifers, coastal zones, ocean resources, wetlands, natural habitats, forests and other fragile ecosystems are affected, as are the homelands of indigenous people. All transboundary movements of hazardous waste and substances should be carried out in accordance with relevant international agreements by parties to those agreements. Rapid urbanization in coastal areas is causing the rapid deterioration of coastal and marine ecosystems.

106. The diversity of types of human settlements is a key component to creating just and sustainable societies. The living and working conditions in all human settlements, including regional urban centres, rural service centres, rural hamlets, rural communities, market towns and villages, must be improved, with particular emphasis on shelter, social and physical infrastructure, and services. The maintenance and the development of rural settlements require sustainable agriculture and forestry activities and improved agricultural technologies, economic diversification, and expanded employment opportunities created by encouraging appropriate and environmentally sustainable investment in industry and related economic production and service activities.

107. In order to mitigate the unbalanced geographical development of human settlements, and to effectively reinforce the creation of a dynamic economy, Governments at the appropriate levels should create partnerships with relevant interested parties to encourage the sustainable development and management of cities of all sizes and should create conditions that ensure that these different cities provide employment opportunities and services in the process of securing economic development, social welfare and environmental protection. They should devise strategies and support measures that address the issues relating to the movement of population which leads to extreme population concentration in some areas, pressure on fragile ecosystems such as coastal areas, and loss of population in other areas.

108. International cooperation, including city-to-city cooperation, is both necessary and mutually beneficial in promoting sustainable human settlements development. Depending on the context and the needs of the cities, towns and villages in each country and region, special attention should be paid to the most critical issues, such as changing production and consumption patterns; energy efficiency; sustainable resource and land-use management; poverty eradication; population and health; water supply, sanitation and waste management; disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and management; cultural, natural and historical heritage; environmental protection; industry; infrastructure; and basic services such as health and education facilities and services. Habitat II provides an opportunity to focus on the effect that current patterns of human settlements development will have on the ability to achieve the objectives established at recent United Nations conferences. Close attention to trends in urban development is essential to the viability of sustainable human settlements development in rural and urban areas alike.

Hr 2

Heather Gass from the East Bay Area Tea Party

http://www.theeastbayteaparty.com  joins me to discuss the “Plan Bay Area” visioning meeting she and her fellow freedom fighters attended and what happened. Learn how to fight back before it’s too late. A planet plantation is what is in our future.

Watch the videos here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA4GKUUxkhA

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8IJIO_pT40&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1akJb-dpF4&feature=related

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=8502182

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/6630371-activists-mobilize-for-dublin-transportation-meeting/

Calif Wildlands Map

 
 
 



Friday Rosa Koire Behind the Green Mask UN Agenda 21

September 23rd Rosa Koire

www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com

www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org

My guest today was Rosa Koire founder of The Post Sustainability Institute and Democrats Against UN Agenda 21. She has written a book entitled, Behind the Green Mask UN Agenda 21 which you can purchase right on her website. Great info on her sites and in her book so go there!!!




Henry Lamb “Comprehensive Plans” and you…

August 25th Henry Lamb

www.sovereignty.net

www.freedom21.org

 Henry joins me again to discuss “global governance”, White House Rural Council, visioning, consensus, NGO’s,  comprehensive land use plans and the list goes on of the many ways they seek to enslave us.

One of the callers commented stating, “words mean things”; yes, they do.

 

 

 




Friday July 1st Don Casey www.keepourights.org

July 1st Don Casey

http://www.keepourights.org

Don Casey joins me again to discuss food, food sheds, urban growth boundaries, comprehensive planning and various other aspects of UN Agenda 21 sustainable development that are enchroaching on our liberties minute by minute. Be alert America…there IS something very wrong afoot.  Something evil this way comes…




Wednesday June 22nd Janna Legg www.weekendmorningbuzz.blogspot.com

June 22nd Janna Legg

http://www.weekendmorningbuzz.blogspot.com

http://www.agenda21library.co.cc

 Janna Legg joins me to discuss UN Agenda 21 and her fight against it.  What boulders and jagged edges line our path to “sustainability”? Are their cliffs ahead and blind curves? Of course, UN Agenda 21 is the route you will be forced to take to your new plantation. Green really is the new red.




Thursday June 9 Fred Kelly Grant JD www.trademarkamerica.org

June 9 Fred Kelly Grant JD

http://www.trademarkamerica.org/1.html

Fred Kelly Grant JD joins me to discuss property rights and “coordination”. The “coordination process” as directed by Congress is simply that: a process by which local government and federal agencies are to meet in a government to government dialogue in order to attempt to reach consistency between federal plans and actions and local plans and policies.

Congress has directed every federal agency to engage in that government to government process with local governments.
Find out how this can work to your benefit. Listen in.




Tuesday May 31st Clarice Ryan Montanans for Multiple Use

May 31st Clarice Ryan

http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/

Clarice  Ryan joins me to discuss her multiple year battle to stop the assault on property rights in her great state of Montana.  George Washington said, property rights and liberty go hand in hand, you  can NOT have one without the other. She recently sent me an email about a horse that was attacked and eaten alive by a pack of wolves, which are being reintroduced in many areas around the country. Why are they really being reintroduced where they have not roamed for decades? The answer is to drive people off their land. Who is the predator of wolves? No animal is their predator, just like the lion, the wolf reigns supreme. But who is the predator of liberty—man.




REDISTRIBUTING THE TRUTH ONE WORD AT A TIME…™




Wednesday May 25th Don Casey www.keepourrights.org

May 25th Don Casey

www.keepourrights.org

Don Casey joins me again to discuss food sheds, vehicle miles traveled tax and land patents. What are these  you ask? Never heard of them you say? Well, in the famous words of Betty Davis, buckle up everybody you’re in for a bumpy ride.

Here are the articles  mentioned in today’s show. http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/sustainable_agriculture_-_a_relatively_new_globalization_process_20091215387/

http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/pdf/2002/UnderConstruction.pdf