America has more natural resources than any other country in the world. Americans are the only people who are able to own both intellectual property (the fruits of their labor) and real property (land) and what resources are below the surface. This represents wealth and wealth is considered not sustainable…basically because you have it and the Elite want it. So why are Americans so willing to give up their country. As American history is erased from school, people never learn that in this great country, they are the true owners. What you don’t know, you won’t miss, is the theory.
Learn about jurisdiction. Public Lands are not federal lands.
What are conservation easements?
Brochure Conservation easements trap (1310)
Bills and plans used to confiscate private land:
- Conservation easements
- ESA: the Endangered Species Act
- EAJA: the Equal Access to Justice Act
- Regionalism eliminates Local Government (956)
- Implemented by Regionalism
Protect your land
Maurice Strong former UN Secretary General –Oil Billionaire –stated: “Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.”
The concept of sustainable development arose after the 1974 United Nations adoption of a Declaration for the establishment of a “New International Economic Order” .
The document was written by developing countries and called for:
• The regulation of multi-national Corporations
• Authority to nationalize foreign property
• Authority to establish commodity monopolies
• The transfer of technology and technical assistance
The document showed clearly that the delegates to the U.N. General Assembly accepted the idea that governments should virtually control the economy. That equity was the primary objective. This document was largely ignored by developed nations. But many of these U.N. Delegates took these ideas to other U.N. conferences.
For example, the 1976 U.N. conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I).
Here is an excerpt from the Preamble:
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also the principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and therefore, contributes to social injustice…”
This preamble sets the stage for 65 pages of very specific land use recommendations. Among the many recommendations are:
• A-1. Redistribute population in accord with resources
• D-1. Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources
• D-2. Control land use through zoning & land-use planning
• D-3. Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government
• D-4. Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform
• D-5. Owner rights should be separated from development rights which should be held by a public authority.
This established the direction of the U.N.’s recommendation.
Among the signers on behalf of the United States were Carla Hills, Secretary of HUD and William Reilly, Conservation Foundation and later the Administrator for the EPA. Also in attendance were:
• Nine agencies of the federal government
• Sierra Club
• National Audubon Society
• Friends of the Earth
• Conservation Foundation
• League of Women Voters
The term “sustainable development” entered the vocabulary during the 1990’s and has virtually permeated every facet of American life. The term was first defined in the United Nations 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment & Development called “Our Common Future”. The Commission was chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland who was also Vice-Chair of the World Socialist Party.
Our Common Future defines sustainable development to be:
“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Sustainable development is illustrated to depict the proper balance between social equity, the environment, and economic development. Note that what is called sustainable is the perfect balance between policies related to these three all-encompassing areas of life.
The United Nations General Assembly asked the World Commission on Environment and Development, also called the Brundtland Commission, to “…propose long term Strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond…”.
Five years later the plan called Agenda 21 was unveiled at the 1992 Conference on Environment & Development. The conference was chaired by Maurice Strong who was also a member of the Brundtland Commission.
In it’s 40 chapters, Agenda 21 addresses virtually every aspect of life. Each chapter presents many policy recommendations that member nations are expected to adopt.
Some of the more important chapters are:
5. Demographics & Sustainability
7. Human Settlements (the foundation for “sustainable communities”)
10. Planning & Management of Land
18. Management of Water
30. The role of Business & Industry
38. International Mechanisms & Institutions (are seen to be the coordinators of worldwide sustainable development)
Agenda 21 calls for the creation of:
“…National strategies, plans, policies, and processes which are crucial in achieving a sustainable world.”
Note: The ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty, Agenda 21, was never voted on by Senate after Dr. Michael Coffman presented this map of the proposed development of the “wildlands” under Agenda 21 in the United States.
Six months after his inauguration, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #12852 which created the President’s Council On Sustainable Development on June 29 1993.
The Council’s Membership included:
• Twelve Cabinet-level Federal Officials
• Jonathan Lash, Pres. World Resources Institute
• John Adams, Ex. Dir. National Resources Defense Council
• Dianne Dillon-Ridgley, Pres. Zero Population
• Michelle Perrault, International V.P., Sierra Club
• John C. Sawhill, Pres. The Nature Conservancy
• Jay D. Hair, Pres. World Conservation Union (IUCN)
• Kenneth L. Lay, CEO, Enon Corporation
• William D. Ruckelshaus, Chm., Browning-Ferris Industries & former EPA Administrator
Their purpose was to translate the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government. They created the American version of Agenda 21 called “Sustainable America – A New Consensus”.
The ideas that came out of the U.N. conferences mentioned above, are emerging in public policy in the United States.
The Consensus Process – The most important dimension to the implementation of sustainable development policies.
Using the consensus process, an initiator carefully selects members of the affected group to participate on a decision making committee. The decision making committee never votes. Consensus is the process by which objections to the proposal are extinguished. This is contrary to the democratic process in which the affected group elects representatives. The representatives debate and then vote. The affected group then abides by the decisions. If the affected group is dissatisfied with the decision, they can elect new representatives to reflect their wishes. Using the consensus process, the affected group has no voice in choosing the decision makers.
Sustainable development was brought to America when President Clinton (initiator) initiated the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. This decision-making committee began with Agenda 21 as its proposal. Its goal was to translate Agenda 21 into public policy.
An early achievement of the council was the development of 16 “We Believe” statements among which is No. 8.
“We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our goals.”
This new collaborative process is the “consensus process”.
The PCSD operated from 1993 – 1999. Their first major publication was “Sustainable America – A New Consensus”. It contained more than 150 policy recommendations taken directly from Agenda 21.
At the eleventh meeting of the council, after the recommendations had been developed, then Secretary of the Dept. Of Commerce, Ron Brown, said that his agency could implement 67% of the recommendations administratively using rule making authority. Other department secretaries reported similar numbers.
The recommendations covered a wide range of public policies. Among the most important are land use policies. Sustainable America says:
“Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological or aesthetic consequences… The key to overcoming it is through public policies…(p.112).”
The 1990’s saw an expansion of government control of land use. In 1997, the federal government already owned about 1/3 of all the land in America. State and local governments owned another 10%. The federal government designated and expanded 21 National Monuments, designated 43 million acres of “roadless” areas, and appropriated millions in grants to states and local governments and land trusts for the purpose of acquiring more private property. These activities were promoted by the land management agencies, all members of the PCSD.
Millions in grants were awarded to the American Planning Association between 1997 – 2000. The EPA and other agencies issued millions more in challenge grants to local governments and organizations for “visioning” projects.
During the 1990’s there emerged a rash of visioning projects in towns and cities across the nation. They were typically called something like “Yourtown 2020”. They were all the result of the PCSD and funded by grants by an agency of the government who was a member of the PCSD.
The EPA, for example, would issue challenge grants for visioning projects to NGO’s (non-government organizations) and to local governments. The grant recipient would designate an initiator who would select the visioning council. Those selected would be politicians, agency bureaucrats, bankers, NGO leaders, and Businessmen. Those selected would be known in advance to support the goals of the initiator and most stand to gain financially from the implementation of the goals.
To spread this process across the country, the EPA coordinated a Smart Growth Network consisting of thousands of non-government organizations which included:
- American Planning Association
- The Conservation Fund
- The Natural Resources Defense Council
- The US Chamber of Commerce
- The Sierra Club
All of these organizations have promoted government control of land use since the 1976 U.N. conference.
In each of the communities where visioning councils were established, their starting proposal was the recommendations of the PCSD. Their objective was to:
• Present PCSD recommendations as local goals for the community
• Through the consensus process, remove any objections that might arise
• Develop specific recommendations to achieve goals
The result became the “Yourtown 2020 Plan of Action”.
This process takes typically 12 – 18 months during which the local initiator begins to issue press releases and to involve local media to introduce the idea of building a sustainable community. The idea is to build so much public support for the sustainable community as defined by the “Yourtown 2020 Plan of Action”, that elected officials will have no choice but to rubber stamp it.
Funding continues to flow from government agencies to local governments and non-government organizations for the purpose of implementing sustainable development. For example, HUD’s Sustainable Community Regional Planning has recently awarded nearly $100 million for innovative regional planning proposals.
Hundreds of NGO’s were funded to launch the “visioning process” in communities across the country. An NGO (initiator) will begin the visioning process by carefully selecting representatives from various stakeholder groups (environment, business, education, agriculture, government) to serve as the visioning committee or council. Those chosen to serve on this council are well-vetted and known to support the goals of sustainable development.
The visioning process consists of series of meetings in which a trained facilitator leads the group of stakeholder representatives, to suggest goals for the community that will create the best possible future. These suggestions are typically written on a chalkboard, then organized into categories.
Since Agenda 21’s 40 chapters and the hundreds of policy recommendations from the PCSD cover virtually every aspect of human existence, the visioning councils’ ideas are easily organized into categories addressed by sustainable development documents.
Once the goals are identified and organized, the next step is to develop consensus. Consensus is NOT agreement. Consensus is the absence of expressed opposition. Testimony by attendees of such a meeting reveals that objections are put off by the facilitator. The questions are never answered and the objections are never made public and all are dismissed, ignored, or discredited.
Agenda 21 is the Bible for Sustainable Development as outlined in its four sections:
Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions (8 Chapters)
Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development (14 Chapters)
Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups (10 Chapters)
Section IV: Means of Implementation (8 Chapters)
The PCSD’s Sustainable America is a revised version of Agenda 21 that focuses directly on transforming domestic policy to implement the recommendations of Agenda 21. To bring about the perfect balance between the environment, the economy, and social equity (redistribution of wealth) in all developments.
Ironically, most of the people involved with the process have never heard of Agenda 21 or Sustainable America. But the sponsoring NGO or agency knows exactly what it is and what his role is in implementing its policies.
That’s why every recommendation in the final land use development plan and the procedure for developing the plan can be traced back to the recommendations in Agenda 21 and Sustainable America.
In 2007, the Virginia state legislature passed HB 3202 mandating that counties with the prescribed growth rate establish high density urban development areas.
To date, 67 counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia are required to implement the very same policies called for in Agenda 21’s biodiversity plan. This requirement by the state forces local governments to compromise your private property through rezoning measures called for in the Smart Growth program for sustainable development.
The comprehensive land use plan is being steered by planning groups under the guise of “protecting the environment” through manipulation by facilitated stakeholder consensus councils. Though their meetings are open to the public, they are void of any public input. The predetermined outcome severely restricts land use and compromises private property ownership in an already distressed market.
The Renaissance Planning Group is currently working with APA and ICMA to implement the policies of Agenda 21 and Sustainable America and to meet the requirements of HB 3202 in Virginia. If successful, this is what Virginia and the surrounding states will look like on the biodiversity map.
The Renaissance Planning Groups’ current project is creating the vision and development of Chesterfield County’s Comprehensive Land-Use Plan. Their local stakeholder representative group is called the “steering committee”. You can find more information on the “visioning process”, comprehensive land use plan, countrywide plan, steering committee, and the process here. Research reveals that this process is typical of the process in every county in Virginia.
Videos of most, but not all, of their “Steering Committee” meetings can be found here. In viewing the videos, one can see that while the facilitator seems genuinely sincere in wanting to address concerns and answer questions that arise, he really never does.
Agenda 21 calls for environment and sustainable development principles to be put at the core of the curriculum K-12. There was a recent survey of the progress of “The Greening Virginia Program K-12” in 12 of the 134 school districts in Virginia.
Greening Programs are at the core of the curriculum at every level of education nationwide as required by the policies set forth by the U.S. Department of Education.
Resources for more Greening Virginia (sustainable development) Projects can be found here.
Despite the Senate’s refusal to ratify the Biodiversity Treaty in 1994, the Agenda 21 policies called for by the convention, are being implemented nationwide. No matter where you live, rest assured Agenda 21 policies are being implemented in your community
Land is lost to Miami families in Federal land grab. Read More
Presidential use of the Antiquities Act is highly controversial because the White House, with the stroke of a pen, can lock up thousands of square miles of federal lands used for timber, ranching, mining and energy development without local input or congressional approval. Read More
Michelle Malkin says that along with this omnibus spending bill is a 300 page omnibus public lands bill that amounts to a massive land grab of hundreds of thousands of acres. She says that this land would be off limits to economic activity and to the border patrol, which she says represents a major threat to national security. Read More
Senator Bill Nelson didn’t think we would notice when he used borrowed money for his pet UN project called the Everglades Restoration Project.
It is a continuation of Nelson’s $100 million Bridge to No Where.
I am sure all of the homeless hungry people thank you Bill.
For a quick summary see Agenda 21 in California Land Use Policy
USDA Announces Recipients of Conservation Innovation Grants in 40 States
Grants support pioneering efforts in conserving and protecting natural resources, enhancing agricultural productivity.
Grants your path to a Federal Land Grab
Perfect example of how the Land Trust fleeces the taxpayer and the county.
Land Grabs in Putnam Co., FloridaA tract of land in the western end of the county of 1,300 acres of mostly swamp and wet lands was purchased by the Board of County Commissioners in August 2011 for the some of $3.3M. This tract connects with two other public lands; the Rice Creek Estuary and another 1,200 acres owned by the St. Johns Water Management District. Through these lands once were two rail beds, running south from the Okefeonkee Swamp in Georgia and the Osceola National Forest in Florida. One rail line turned west at this point towards Tallahassee, the second continued south to the Ocala National Forest.Referred to as the Nine Mile Swamp, as being nine miles west of the county seat in Palatka, FL. This particular tract had been owned by Holland M. Ware of Georgia and the Williams family had ran cattle on a portion of it for many years. In 2006, Mr. Ware sold the acreage to the Putnam Timberline Co. for $4.3M. In 2007, the BOCC (Board of County Commissioners) produced an Intend to Purchase agreement with the Putnam Timberline Co. for an amount to be determined by survey. However, Putnam Timberline Co. sold the tract to Mr. W.W. Gay for $1.87M in June 2009. In April 2010, the BOCC again issues an Intent to Purchase agreement with Mr. Gay for $3.3M. Mr. Gay had bought the property to be used for a private hunting camp, spent in excess of $2M to fence the property with an eight foot fence, erected two Quonset hut buildings and began stocking the property with deer and hogs.The majority of the money for the purchase came from the Florida state program; Florida Communities Trust that is overseen by the Governor of Florida and the Chief Financial Officer. Putnam Co. paid $338K for two appraisals and two land surveys. Florida Communities Trust paid $2.64M, the Florida DOT offered up $60,000 in mitigation fees and Mr. Gay rebated $300,000 to receive certain tax liability credits. Mr. Gay surrendered only the deed and I understand he still has his hunting camp.Beyond the loss of the $2.7M of taxpayers funds, is the yearly loss in revenue this property once brought to county coffers of $16,468. The BOCC has said that it will one day be a public park. However, the BOCC or the state of Florida currently owns over 6200 acres, bought for the same purpose, that currently has NO TRESPASSING signs on it. In addition there are another 47,528 acres in Putnam Co. also designated as park and conservation lands.The purchase of the Nine Mile Swamp was facilitated by the Putnam Land Conservancy, who have an association with The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy has been mandated by the US Congress to promote and build the Rails-to-Trails hiking and bike paths over old rail beds across America. Rails-to-Trails is liken to a cancer, as the paths and trails can not be stopped and The Nature Conservancy has been know to condemn adjacent properties to continue their trails and paths.This purchase brings to a total of 31% of the county now designated as “public lands”. In addition, another 21% has had the developments rights purchased and as a condition, those land holders no longer pay property taxes. The BOCC is now looking for another 1,200 acres in the south end of the county to purchase. I might also mention, when looking at the Wildlands map, the large red blob just west of St. Augustine is Putnam County.The Eminent Domain Trick.Here is a story from TNEminent Domain was never intended to take people’s land for bike paths. This is a story of a man in TN having his property taken for bike paths. This is a plan to build 1200 miles of bike paths for a cost of $800 million. And we all know at the end of the day it will probably end up costing 3 times the original estimate. Then what about the future cost to maintain these bike paths and to keep them free of snow etc. 1200 miles of bike paths in a 5 county region is not recreation it is transportation. Read Story___________________________________________________Parks
International Biosphere Reserves
What do natural areas as diverse as Big Bend National Park in Texas, Everglades National Park in Florida, and Gates of the Arctic National Park in Alaska all have in common? Apart from all being units of the National Park System, they are part of a select group of internationally recognized sites that have been designated International Biosphere Reserves. Biosphere Reserves are designed to meet one of the most difficult challenges the world is facing as it move towards the 21st century: How to maintain and conserve the diversity of plants, animals and micro-organisms which make up our living “biosphere” while at the same time meet the material needs of an increasing population. In other words, how to reconcile conservation of biological resources with their sustainable use.
In 1968, the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) Conference on the Conservation and Rational Use of the Biosphere took a look at this issue, and it gave rise to the launching of the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme within UNESCO. The Biosphere Reserve concept was a key element for achieving MAB’s objective to strike a balance between the apparently conflicting goals of conserving biodiversity, promoting economic and social development and maintaining associated cultural values.
Individual Biosphere Reserves remain under the jurisdiction of the countries in which they are situated. (They may remain under the jurisdiction of the countries their situated in but are following UN mandates to be awarded Biosphere Reserve status) Some countries have enacted legislation specifically to establish Biosphere Reserves, while in other countries they simultaneously include areas protected under other systems (such as national parks or nature reserves) and other internationally recognized sites (such as World Heritage sites). There are presently 393 biosphere reserves in 94 countries. Of these, 47 units are in the United States, of which 29 are managed by the National Park Service.
The 29 Biosphere Reserves that are units of the National Park Service include: http://usparks.about.com/library/weekly/aa032498.htm
More info about UNESCO: