I think we can envision what sustainable development might mean based on the meaning of the words and a little common sense. Probably the first thought that comes to mind is the continued prosperity of something such as a business. Other things that come to mind is common sense development to keep taxes down, a clean environment, good schools, free enterprise. All of these things are the essence of sustainable development to the average citizen.

What sustainable development isn't, is the abolishment of private property rights, a bloated over-reaching government, government sanctioned monopolies, erosion of individual freedom, and the redistribution of wealth which is the essence of Chesterfield County's “new comprehensive plan”.

This form of “Sustainable Development” (capital letters) is a recipe for the destruction of capitalism. If you think I'm kidding, look at what is happening in California. Over the past two decades, regulations incrementally imposed to implement Sustainable Development polices have choked free enterprise out of existence. Businesses are leaving the state in droves. Housing costs have risen to eleven times the annual income of its residents. Even though energy and water consumption is down, the cost to each household is higher and in the absence of any expansion of infrastructure to deliver resources. Unemployment and foreclosure rates are the highest in the nation. The state is essentially bankrupt.

This hardly sounds like what we envision as sustainable development.

The county government is not completely to blame. After all, they are only following the directives of our federal government. The county is rewarded with generous funding for the implementation of the egregious programs that consequently resolve some of the problems of local government, many of which were created by the federal government in the first place.

How convenient!

The Chesterfield County planning staff asserts that they helped the Renaissance Planning Group write the plan and I have no doubt that is true. I also have no doubt that in doing so, they have no idea of the nefarious underpinning of the plan.

The federal government has spared no expense to ensure that their objectives are met. For the past two decades, K – 12 public schools as well as colleges and universities have received generous grants to indoctrinate our unsuspecting youth in the principles of what they define as “Sustainable Development”.

The comprehensive plan is said to be a “blueprint for the future” to serve as a guide to mange future growth, encourage economic growth and jobs, encourage the most efficient use of resources, etc. but does not legally control land use or regulations in the way that a zoning ordinance does. But then it goes on to list 150 specific actions in an action matrix that are intended to carry out the goals. The very first section of the action matrix, then describes in general terms, the ordinances and regulations to achieve the goals.

In truth, it reads like a Marxist Manifesto. The document clearly states that the plan is to establish and maintain the “community well-being”. The glossary in the back of the comprehensive plan defines “community well-being” as:

“An optimal quality of healthy community life, which is the ultimate goal of all the various processes and strategies that endeavor to meet the needs of people living together in communities. It encapsulates the ideals of people living together harmoniously in vibrant and sustainable communities, where community dynamics are clearly underpinned by social justice considerations.”

The words “social justice” certainly raises suspicions? Why would such a term appear in a “guide” to manage growth in our community? What does “social justice” really mean?

The web definitions of “social justice” are:

• The fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society.
• An adherence to the theory that proprietorship and the authority of the means of production, capital, land, etc. should belong to the entire community.
• A redistribution of wealth; Socialism

So what is “socialism”?

Here are just a few of the web definitions of “socialism” but all say the same thing in different ways:

• A political theory advocating state ownership of industry
• An economic system based on state ownership of capital
• The Marxist theory of a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

So then one wonders, what is it in the plan that would lead us to “social justice”?

The following proposals in the plan would certainly lead us down the path to “social justice”:

Land Use Categories: With the stroke of a pen, there will be a transfer of wealth through down-zoning and up-zoning that will significantly reduce the value of ¼ of the land referred to as “countryside” and a sharp increase in the value of land in the low-income areas targeted for high-density development of “urban development areas” (UDAs).

Conservation Easement: Steep down-zoning extinguishes the hope of rural land owners that they may some day retire on the profits of future development of their land. It increases the likelihood that the rural land owner will regain some of the losses by committing most of their land to conservation easements. A redistribution of tax liability occurs when those who agree to conservation easement can reduce their adjusted gross income by 50 – 100% per year for up to 16 years. In doing so, they are essentially transferring the tax burden to the rest of the community.

Conservation easement is a wealthy rural landowner's dream. He could conceivably build a multimillion dollar mansion on hundreds of acres of land and pay only $100 or $200 in property taxes in addition to a 50% reduction in adjusted gross income by putting the majority of the property in conservation easement.

Investment and maintenance in bicycle trails and walkable paths in favor of the 5 – 6% of those who travel by foot and/or bicycle will be added to the tab.

Property Tax exemption is another entitlement for workforce housing.

Public/Private Partnerships: The plan encourages private/public partnerships which translates into monopolies, corporate tax breaks, and higher prices paid by the consumer.

Agriculture: An agricultural strategy calls for more incentives for landowners to conserve property.

Land Conservation Tools: Tools used to encourage conservation of more public and private lands to include land use taxation programs, purchase and transfer of development rights, easement programs. All of these programs serve to redistribute assets and tax liability.

Cultural Resource Funding: The plan calls for funding of “cultural resources”. Public funding for the arts? Really?

Historical Preservation: The plan calls for more preservation of historical areas. Typically what we see is the incremental expansion of land preserved around historical sites over time. Such is the case with the Petersburg Civil War Battlefield which already encompasses 2600 acres of preserved land. Congressman Forbes and Senator Webb are proposing adding another 7200 acres which will nearly quadruple the amount of land of this historical site. Technically, one could argue that all of the land in America is historical in one way or another. The question is, where do we draw the line? As more land is taken off the tax roles, the tax burden increases for the rest of the landowners in the community.

Federal Grants and Funding: The plan encourages taking advantage of the many government funded programs available that would help fund the implementation of the plan. What this means is that taxpayers will foot the bill for countless subsidies and federal grants to the local government and NGOs for the many programs for local community development activities such as affordable housing, anti-poverty programs, and infrastructure development, energy, water etc.. Add to that the many tax breaks awarded to development firms and landowners for LEED certified building materials, Energy Star appliances, and energy efficient construction for the new urbanism design.

Adding insult to injury, there are 150 actions to be taken in the action matrix to regarding food production, forestry, a tiered water rate, energy efficiency and reduction, tree removal, landscape regulations, green building codes, housing design, river access, septic and utility ordinances, grading and clear cutting standards, aesthetics of building fronts, low-income housing, greenways and trails specific plans, etc.. The real question is, what rights can a landowner keep?

If you think this form of Sustainable Development is unique to Chesterfield County, think again. The maps may be different, the words may change, but the policies are all the same for every locality across the nation and around the world. The common goal of every locality is government control of the economy, land, individuals, and the total destruction of Capitalism.

James Madison said, "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." Thomas Jefferson announced that "the defense of private property is the standard by which every provision of law, past and present, shall be judged."

The Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, largely written by George Mason, declared "that all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Arthur Lee of Virginia called private property "the guardian of every other right."

You either have the right to own and control property or you become property!

Richmond, VA - On Friday, Delegate Riley Ingram, Chairman of the House Counties, Cities & Towns Committee, sided with the Home Builders Association to force some typically rural communities into establishing an area of high-density high-rise mixed use urban development in the midst of a countryside setting. 

If Ingram has his way, you'll be forced to forfeit your land for the development of high-density 'urban development areas' also called 'smart growth'.

A 2007 law mandating that every county with a population of 20,000 or more or a growth rate of 15% must zone an area for high-density urban planning. Public funds in the form of grants, subsidies, and tax incentives, will be used to promote the project to include rail, bike lanes, and other public transportation projects, reducing access to roads and without the benefit of alternative transportation to many communities. This will increase the cost of housing within the urban boundaries with a natural consequence of increased property taxes, and will reduce the value of property outside urban boundaries.

This type of one-size-fits-all mentality fails to consider that many of the localities like Goochland, Powhatan, and Louisa County are required to establish zones for urban development but offer no alternative transportation for those communities. How are they expected to promote alternatives to personal automobiles in the absence of any alternative? Yet they will be forced to help fund alternative transportation projects for other communities that they won't benefit from.

But grassroots activists of the tea party movement are fighting back in support of Delegate Bob Marshall's HB1721 that would make UDAs optional rather than mandatory. The measure would allow local communities to decide if urban areas are appropriate for their locality. It further allows for input from the citizens in areas that currently use the predetermination techniques of the "consensus" process that dismisses any public input.

Delegate Pollard argued that without the UDA mandate, localities will continue leap-frogging practices and look to the state for funding of roads to accommodate sprawl. The argument simply doesn't hold water. As a Representative of the Home Builders Association pointed out, the 2007 law does not prohibit development outside the UDAs.

It's only natural that the Home Builders Association supports the UDA mandate. Ingram's appreciation for their sizable contributions to his political campaign enables developers to sidestep the pressures of the market. Instead, certain contractors certified in the green principles of construction will benefit from the profits accruing for a mandate requiring up to twelve homes on a single acre lot as well as receive huge tax breaks for the new urbanism design. Government grants and subsidies offer greater assurance of the completion of the plans on the backs of the taxpayer.

Ultimately, the UDA mandate is nothing more than centralized government planning of private land use. By definition, it substitutes, by fiat, the priorities and values held by anti-sprawl interest groups and corporate developers for the priorities of individual property owners and those who enjoy the amenities of suburban living. In this sense, it is more about the legislating of personal aesthetics than the efficient use of land and resources.

As economists have known for decades, and the collapse of the former Soviet Union has proven, government planning of resource usage cannot be "smart." The issue is not whether land use should be planned or not, but whether land use planning will be done by big government or by those who own the land.

Central planners, who operate outside of a market environment, i.e., who are not attentive to market pressures and are unmotivated by the prospect of profits and the fear of losses, would be utterly unable to obtain the information necessary to determine land use in the general public interest or to arrive at an economically efficient result.

The economic realities of building high-priced urban units in greater numbers than is justified by the demand is not considered in their policies, and their only answer to dealing with these realities is to provide additional public funds to provide incentives and subsidize the costs for lower-income residents.

One immediate consequence of this failure to consider the economic impact is the sharp increase in housing cost as a result of land rationing. Homes are considered affordable when the average home price of an area is no more than three times the average income for that area or what is called a median multiple of three. In states who have for decades participated in the smart growth experiment, housing costs have soared and pushed the median multiple to more than ten. The lesson learned here is that even with tax subsidies for low-cost housing, housing costs will force even much of the middle class out of the urban community. Consequently areas of smart growth also have the highest rate of foreclosures.

Rather than allowing neighborhoods to grow and change over time in the free marketplace, people are forced out of their homes and businesses through abusive regulations to rapidly gentrify the community. The elderly on fixed incomes and low-income families will be the biggest losers as they can no longer afford to live in the area or pay the concomitant costs. What if the property owner is your 80 year-old grandmother who spent a lifetime saving to earn a small parcel of the American Dream? Why do we assume growth only inside the urban boundary must be promoted at any cost? How can "livability" and environmental protection benefit from a "build it and they will come" mentality?

The question that HB1721 brings to the forefront is should the principles of a free market determine the appropriateness of UDAs for a locality or should it be forced by big government on localities using taxpayer funded incentives and disincentives to satisfy the desires of special interest groups?

History has taught us that government manipulation of the housing market results in more debt, higher prices, more foreclosures, more taxes, and fewer jobs.

Will Virginia lawmakers in the House vote for more economic failures of big government or free market solutions to prosperity?

Stay tuned!

Governor Bob McDonnell's omnibus $3.3 billion transportation bill (HB 2527) consists of:

• Virginia Transportation Infrastructure Bank -- $400 million initially with a goal of $1 billion

• Federal GARVEE Bonds -- $1.2 billion

• Acceleration of HB 3202 Bonds -- $1.8 billion ($600 million/year for 3 years)

• Expanded Revenue Sharing -- Lifts current $1 million/project and $50 million program caps

• Establishes Intercity Passenger Rail Operating and Capital Fund

To rely on future federal funds that are totally unpredictable is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous in this unstable economic environment. The Governor is gambling on the flow of federal funding remaining the same when Washington is already looking at making cuts. This irresponsible borrowing will put future generations on the hook for billions. 

It's easy for the Governor to rationalize going into debt when he won't be around to deal with the potential consequences by the time the payments come due. The easiest way to get credit for starting a lot of projects when he has no money is to spend future money that will be the problem of future Governors.

McDonnell should take notes and learn a lesson from Maryland's transportation boondoggle. Maryland got itself into trouble with very aggressive use of GARVEE bonds for the Intercounty Connector. They dedicated future federal money to that project, but then the economy tanked and local tax receipts dropped. Since they'd bonded for the ICC, they couldn't stop that project, and instead had to cut maintenance on most existing local roads.

Virginia is getting into risky territory already with its level of debt. McDonnell argues that low interest rates and the low cost of construction make now a particularly good time to borrow. No matter how low the interest rate and construction is, borrowing on the backs of future generations during this time of economic uncertainty could have dire consequences. Governor McDonnell should take a responsible conservative approach and live within our means.

As Governor McDonnell's plans for sustainable development, referred to as "sustainable communities", continues to gain momentum, it is worthwhile to step back and take a long look at the big picture, painted with a broad brush to reveal what Virginia might look like as his vision for the Commonwealth is more fully implemented over the next 20 years or so.

The picture painted here is based on official documents published by countless government agencies and non-government organizations during the past two decades as public policy for the transformation of our great nation for a "Sustainable America".

These documents were rarely reported in the news, and average working people have no idea what sustainable development really means, and even less knowledge of what is in store for the future. If the vision of sustainable development continues to unfold as it has in the last decade, life in the Commonwealth and the rest of the nation will be quite different in the future.

The Vision

Half the land area of Virginia and the entire United States will be designated "wilderness areas," where only wildlife managers and researchers will be allowed. These areas will be interconnected by "corridors of wilderness" to allow migration of wildlife, without interference by human activity. Wolves will be as plentiful in Virginia as they are now in Idaho and Montana.

Surrounding these wilderness areas and corridors, designated "buffer zones" will be managed for "conservation objectives." The primary objective is "restoration and rehabilitation." Rehabilitation involves the repair of damaged ecosystems, while restoration usually involves the reconstruction of natural or semi-natural ecosystems. As areas are restored and rehabilitated, they are added to the wilderness designation, and the buffer zone is extended outward.

Buffer zones are surrounded by what is called "zones of cooperation." This is where people live - in "sustainable communities." Sustainable communities are defined by strict "urban growth boundaries." Land outside the growth boundaries will be managed by government agencies, which grant permits for activities deemed to be essential and sustainable. Open space, to provide a "viewshed" and sustainable recreation for community residents will abut the urban boundaries. Beyond the viewshed, sustainable agricultural activities will be permitted, to support the food requirements of nearby communities.

Sustainable communities of the future will bear little resemblance to the towns and cities of the 20th century. Single-family homes will be rare. Housing will be provided by public/private partnerships, funded by our state treasury, and managed by non-government "Home Owners Associations." Housing units will be designed to provide most of the infrastructure and amenities required by the residents. Shops and office space will be an integral part of each unit, and housing will be allocated on a priority basis to people who work in the unit - with quotas to achieve ethnic and economic balance. Schools, daycare, and recreation facilities will be provided. Each unit will be designed for bicycle and foot traffic, to reduce, if not eliminate, the need for people to use automobiles.

Transportation between sustainable communities, for people and for commodities, will be primarily by rail systems, designed to bridge wilderness corridors where necessary. The highways that remain will be super transport corridors, such as the "Trans-Texas Corridor" now being designed, which will eventually reach from Mexico to Canada. These transport corridors will also be designed to bridge wilderness corridors, and to minimize the impact on the environment.

Consequences of Sustainable Development

What is perhaps the most serious consequence of sustainable development is the least visible: the transformation of the policy-making process. The idea that government is empowered by the consent of the governed is the idea that set the United States apart from all previous forms of government. It is the principle that unleashed individual creativity and free markets, which launched the spectacular rise of the world's most successful nation. The idea, and the process by which citizens can reject laws they don't want, simply by replacing the officials who enacted them, makes the ballot box the source of power for every citizen, and the point of accountability for every politician.

When public policy is made by elected officials who are accountable to the people who are governed, then government is truly empowered by the consent of the governed. Sustainable development has designed a process through which public policy is designed by professionals and bureaucrats, and implemented administratively, with only symbolic, if any, participation by elected officials and the public. The professionals and bureaucrats who actually make the policies are not accountable to the people who are governed by them.

This is the "new collaborative decisions process," called for by the President's Council on Sustainable Development (President Bill Clinton's Executive Order #12852) and is being used to steer communities to a "consensus" of a predetermined goal. Because the policies are developed at the top, by professionals and bureaucrats, and sent down the administrative chain of command to state and local governments, elected officials have little option but to accept them. Acceptance is further ensured when these policies are accompanied by "economic incentives and disincentives," along with lobbying and public relations campaigns coordinated by government-funded non-government organizations.

Higher housing costs are an immediate, visible consequence of sustainable development. Land within the urban growth boundary jumps in value because supply is limited, and continues to increase disproportionately in value as growth continues to extinguish supply. These costs must be reflected in the price of housing. Add to this price pressure, the regulatory requirements to use "green seal" materials; that is, materials that are certified, either by government or a designated non-government organization, to have been produced by methods deemed to be "sustainable."

Higher taxes are another immediate, visible, and inevitable consequence of sustainable development. Higher land values automatically result in higher tax bills. Sustainable development plans include another element that affects property taxes. Invariably, these plans call for the acquisition of land for open space, for parks, for greenways, for bike-and- hike trails, for historic preservation, and many other purposes. Governor McDonnell includes plans for a trust fund to acquire land for affordable housing and provide financial assistance to low-income residents and those affected by foreclosure and for the homeless.

Every subsidy and piece of property taken out of the private sector by government acquisition, forces the tax burden to be distributed over fewer taxpayers. The inevitable result is a higher rate for each remaining taxpayer.

Another consequence of sustainable development is the gross distortion of justice. Bureaucrats who draw lines on maps create instant wealth for some people, while prohibiting others from realizing any gain on their investments. In communities across the country, people who live outside the downtown area have lived with the expectation that one day, they could fund their retirement by selling their land to new home owners as the nearby city expanded. A line drawn on a map steals this expectation from people who live outside the urban growth boundary. Proponents of sustainable development are forced to argue that the greater good for the community is more important than negative impacts on any individual. There is no equal justice, when government arbitrarily takes value from one person and assigns it to another.

Nowhere is this injustice more visible than when eminent domain, conservation easements, and regulations designed to manipulate the homeowner into surrendering his property in despair, is used to implement sustainable development plans. The Kelo vs. The City of New London case brought the issue to public awareness, but in cities throughout the nation, millions of people are being displaced, with no hope of finding affordable housing, in the new, "sustainable" community.

In Florida, this situation is particularly acute. Retirees have flocked to Florida and settled in mobile home parks to enjoy their remaining days, living on fixed incomes, too old or infirm to think about a new income producing career. Local governments across the state are condemning these parks, and evicting the residents, in order to use the land for development that fits the comprehensive plan, and which produces a higher tax yield. These people are the victims of the "greater good," as envisioned by the proponents of sustainable development.

Housing is considered "affordable" if median home prices in an area are no more than three times the median household income in that area. This ratio is called the "median multiple". By the time sustainable development reached it's peak in California, the median multiple reached 10. Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, and Richmond were the first in Virginia to adopt the policies with the same consequences reaching the median multiple of 4.1 - 5.7.

Less visible, but no less important, is the erosion of individual freedom. Until the emergence of sustainable development, a person's home was considered to be his castle. William Pitt expressed this idea quite powerfully in Parliament in 1763, when he said:

''The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter, the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter - all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.''

No more. Sustainable development allows king-government to intrude into a person's home before it becomes his home, and dictate the manner and style to which the home must conform. Sustainable development forces the owner of an existing home to transform his home into a vision that is acceptable to king-government. Sustainable development is extinguishing individual freedom for the "greater good," as determined by king-government.

Conclusion

The question that must be asked is: will sustainable development really result in economic prosperity, environmental protection, and social equity for the current generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs?

Even in the early days of this century-long transition to sustainability, there is growing evidence that the fundamental flaws in the concept will likely produce the opposite of the desired goals. Forests that have been taken out of productive use in order to conform to the vision of sustainable development have been burned to cinders, annihilating wildlife, including species deemed to be "endangered," resulting in the opposite of "environmental protection."

Government- imposed restrictions on resource use in land that is now designated "wilderness," or "buffer zones" have resulted in shortages, accompanied by rapid price increases that result in the opposite of "economic prosperity." In sustainable communities, it is the poorest of the poor who are cast out of their homes to make way for the planners' visions; these victims would not define the experience as "social equity."

Detailed academic studies show that housing costs rise inevitably as sustainable development is implemented. Traffic congestion is often worsened after sustainable development measures are installed. Just ask those in Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, and Richmond where the principle of sustainable communities was adopted nearly a decade ago. And always, private property rights and individual freedom are diminished or extinguished.

Sustainable development is a concept constructed on the principle that government has the right and the responsibility to regulate the affairs of people to achieve government's vision of the greatest good for all.

The United States is founded on the principle that government has no rights or responsibility not specifically granted to it by the people who are governed. These two concepts cannot long coexist. One principle, or the other, will eventually dominate. For the last 20 years, sustainable development has been on the ascendency, permeating state and local governments across the land. Only in the last few years have ordinary people begun to realize that sustainable development is a global initiative, imposed by the highest levels of government. People are just beginning to get a glimpse of the magnitude of the transformation of America that is underway.

The question that remains unanswered is: will Virginians accept this new sustainable future that has been planned for and imposed upon them? Or, as Virginians have done in the past, will they rise up in defense of their freedom, and demand that their elected officials force the bureaucrats and professionals to return to the role of serving the people who pay their salaries, by administering policies enacted only by elected officials, rather than conspiring to set the policies by which all the people must live?

Gov. Bob McDonnell's senior economic adviser, Bob Sledd was quoted in the Richmond Times Dispatch yesterday saying: "Virginia will seek to promote sustainable communities, provide a range of housing options, and prevent and reduce homelessness in Virginia".

Sledd also announced the administration's plans to create a "state housing trust fund" to finance affordable housing communities in Virginia called for in Bob McDonnell's Executive Order #10 signed in April, 2010.

This is code for government manipulation of the market and the erosion of private property rights.

In other words, this administration is dedicated to promoting the Owellian ideas of the United Nations and socialists like Gro Harlem Brundtland and Maurice Strong to control where and how you live. They'll follow the lead of liberals to provide funding to reduce housing costs for those displaced by their egregious land use policies.

This is nothing short of a "redistribution of the wealth" of Virginians to solve the very problems they help to create.

In an earlier critique of McDonnell's EO, Ron Utt of the Virginia Institute and Heritage Foundation eloquently points out the impact of restrictive land use regulations on the housing market and the economy.

Utt wrote:

"According to the leading housing data firm RealtyTrac, in 2009 Virginia ranked 16th worst among all states in terms of its foreclosure rate..."

"...the state's foreclosure problems stem from the state's exceptionally high home prices in comparison to the incomes of its residents, and these high home prices are due to land shortages caused by abusive zoning. Housing is considered "affordable" if median home prices in an area are no more than three times the median household income in that area. This ratio is called the "median multiple.""

In the 70's, California adopted "sustainable community" policies imposing strict land use regulations to discourage building and growth. As a consequence, in 2006 and 2007 the median multiple in California soared to more than 10 .

Some Virginia communities embraced "sustainable community" policies with similar consequences. For example, in Northern Virginia the median multiple hit 5.6, Richmond went to 4.1, and Hampton Roads to 4.7.

Not surprisingly, RealtyTrac's analysis of regional foreclosure patterns reveals that the state's highest foreclosure rates are concentrated in Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads and the Richmond area, which have the most abusive land use regulations in the state.

Sustainable development, sustainable communities, livable communities, and smart growth are all warm and fuzzy terms used to describe government control over where and how you live, to replace free enterprise with public/private partnerships, and to redistribute wealth.

These are not the principles of a conservative.

Now that you understand what Agenda 21 looks like on a global scale, I’m sure you are wondering if things you have been seeing and reading about in your community are somehow involved. Chances are, if you have questioned it, the groundwork has been laid and the process has begun.

Where do I start?

One of the first things to find out is if your local government is a member of ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). You can visit the link below to see the list of members listed by country. http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=11454

If your locality is a member, send them a Misprision of Treason letter and a copy to the Attorney General and a copy to the Governor of Virginia. You can find the letter for Virginia: http://www.vc4l.com/downloads/N%20O%20T%20I%20C%20E.pdf

My county/city is not on that list. I have nothing to worry about, right?

Quite the contrary. More often than not, the agenda is being put in place by NGO’s (Non Government Organizations). In 71 of Chapter 10 of the United Nations Charter, they set up these groups as ‘consultants’, not being a part of any government or state that is a member of the UN. There is currently a move to replace the terminology with Civil Society Organizations. Their primary goal is to implement Agenda 21.

Dissecting the Comprehensive Plan Process

Visit the website for your county of city and search for your comprehensive plan. Chances are, one is already in place or in the planning phases. If you are lucky, you will still be in the planning phase, and should have access to documents and videos regarding the process. There are several stages to the process. For example, in Chesterfield County the current New Comprehensive Plan began with a Steering Committee. Upon researching, it was discovered that the most members appointed to the Steering Committee are environmental activists in some form and/or planners and developers, not a true representation of the community. Learn about your Steering Committee, and attend the meetings. Most meetings are open to the public, and although you will likely not be allowed to speak, you can gain valuable insight to how the members comments and concerns are dismissed.

Once the Plan makes it out of the Steering Committee, it is on a fast track to approval by the Board Of Supervisors / City Council. Make sure you document everything you witness and learn. Most localities record meetings and have them available via CCTV on their website. Watching old videos can be a long and boring process, but if you are coming in late in the game the information and knowledge of the process could be priceless.

Check for draft land use plans, rezoning and other potential restrictions. Look for clustering and new urbanism plans.

Learn how to recognize and counter the Delphi Technique (manipulation) Visit http://www.etherzone.com/2002/burn092302.shtml for more information.

Call your planning commission. The information should be listed on the county/city website. Find out who has been hired as consultants and how much they have been paid.

Who are the Consultants?

This is where Google becomes your best friend. Once you have identified the Consultants (NGO, most likely) it’s time to find out what they are really up to. Google the name of their organization with the keywords listed at the end of this document. Read old news articles, county plans, land use plans, zoning, codes, conservation plans, and other Comprehensive Plans, even if they are out of state. A pattern will develop, and you’ll have an idea of what they really have in store for you.

Get to know the players, research their resume, work history, areas of study and group affiliations. The process can be painstaking, but your children will thank you.

I have the knowledge. What do I do with it?

Share what you know. At this point, you have the knowledge to educate those who think this process is for the good of our communities and you can shine light on the truth. Create petitions to be signed to deliver to your local board/council. Contact your legislators, and get your community involved.

Write letters to the Editor, contact your local news sources, and never miss a chance to disperse information. There is not only strength in knowledge, but in numbers. Remember, ICLEI and the NGO’s are not elected bodies representing our communities and should not be granted the rights to manipulate our officials and our communities to give up our property rights and our liberties for an agenda being pushed by the United Nations. It is up to each of us to stand up.

Agenda 21 Keywords:

Sustainable Development
Smart Growth
New Urbanism
Wildlands Project
Green Zone
Heritage Site
Comprehensive Plan
Bio-Diversity
Social Justice
Globalism
ICLEI
ICMA
Clustering

The concept of sustainable development arose after the 1974 United Nations adoption of a Declaration for the establishment of a "New International Economic Order" (U.N. A/RES/S-66/3201 - 1974)

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 Councils 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 dozens of non-government organizations which included:

• American Planning Association
• The Conservation Fund
• The Natural Resources Defense Council
• 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.

ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, is an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organizations who have made a commitment to sustainable development.

ICLEI provides technical consulting, training, and information services to build capacity, share knowledge, and support local government in the implementation of sustainable development at the local level. Their basic premise is that locally designed initiatives can provide an effective and cost-efficient way to achieve local, national, and global sustainability objectives.

There are 609 dues-paying members (counties/cities) of ICLEI in the United States. There are 18 members (counties/cities) in Virginia.

ICMA, International City/County Management Association, is an organization of professional local government leaders building sustainable communities worldwide. The ICMA partners and works in concert with ICLEI.

ICMA provides technical and management assistance, training, and information resources in the areas of performance measurement, ethics education and training, community and economic development, environmental management, technology, and other topics to its members and the broader local government community.

The American Planning Association is one of many members of the PCSD. They partner with ICLEI & ICMA in the implementation of sustainable development. The APA published "Managing Growth and Development in Virginia: A Review of the Tools Available to Localities" to provide the tools necessary to implement sustainable development in Virginia.

The Renaissance Planning Group is an urban planning firm. They played a critical role in Florida's "Forever Program". The Forever Program is Florida's premier conservation and recreation lands acquisition program. Florida Forever is the largest public land acquisition program of its kind in the United States. With approximately 9.8 million acres of conservation land in Florida, more than 2.4 million acres were purchased under the Florida Forever and P2000 programs.

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's 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". 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.

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.

Rest assured that Yourtown 2020 Action Plan will have a negative impact on private property rights, economic prosperity, and will result in a regulatory taking of your land. Western states that are further along in the implementation of sustainable development have been negatively impacted by the:

1. Sharp increase in the cost of housing in urban areas - Revitalization plans in the higher density urban areas displaces many through gentrification and always results in sharp increases in the cost of housing.

2. Rationing of water, electricity & fuel - Higher density puts more strain on local resources. To meet the needs of these high density urban areas, regulations to restrict individual use of resources are imposed. These new regulations are also a requirement to receive federal funding made available for sustainable projects. Such restrictions would force the expensive retrofitting of a home in order to meet ones' daily need for water, electricity, and fuel. Many who could not afford such expensive upgrades to their homes were forced to leave their home and the community.  

3. Higher property taxes and additional “unearned enrichment tax” - The new higher density development sharply increases the value of property, increasing the amount you pay in property taxes. You further stand to be assessed an “unjust enrichment tax”. If you choose to stay in your home and it happens to be on one acre of land in an area that is rezoned as an urban development area that calls for 4 units per acre, you will be enriched by the increased value of your property as the direct result of this new zoning. In other western states, it is common practice to charge property owners who realized such enrichment an “unjust enrichment tax” in addition to the higher taxes assessed on their property at whatever rate was decided upon by the state legislature.

4. Decrease or total loss in value of property in rural areas - If you own a parcel of land in a rural area that is not yet developed, you may find that your land loses its entire value. For example, if you purchased a 5 acre parcel of land that has not yet been developed in an area that calls for 25 or more acres to build one home under the new zoning plan, your land would be deemed worthless. Don't be fooled by claims that you are grandfathered in if you purchased your land prior to new zoning requirements. Property owners are commonly denied building permits if they have less than the required acreage.

In short, sustainable development policies can and will ultimately lead to the regulatory taking of land. If you are of the notion that you can successfully challenge these actions in court, think again. Any challenge in the court will prove very costly and will result in a cost that is far greater than you stand to gain even if you are successful, which few ever are.

In a stunning remark made by Senator Richard L. Saslaw in the Commerce and Labor Committee yesterday afternoon, he made it obvious he does not understand the role of state government. It brings into question whether he is qualified to do his job as a legislator of the Commonwealth.

Delegate Robert G. Marshall’s Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act, HB10, which had already passed in the House, was being considered by Chairman Saslaw’s senate committee. The bill states that “No law shall restrict an individual’s natural right and power of contract to choose private health care systems or private plans”. Delegate Marshall argued that “never has Congress mandated that individuals buy anything”. Senator Saslaw stunned members of the tea party movement in attendance in support of the measure with his comment “you’re telling me that we’re going to tell Congress what to do? Congress can do whatever it wants.”

Senator Saslaw demonstrates that he doesn’t know that it was the states that created the federal government, wrote the U.S. Constitution, and insisted on a Bill of Rights to spell out what the government can do.

Senator Saslaw makes it clear that he believes his role as a state legislator is to serve as an arm of the federal government and administer to it rather than defend state’s rights against the overreaching power by the federal government to ensure the sovereignty of the state.

History tells us that the states didn't want to lose the ability to make regional decisions nor to be subject to a greater authority. The Framers wanted to assure that the states would remain largely in charge within their own borders.

They felt so strongly about this principle that they codified it in law as the Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

When legislators of the Commonwealth do not understand the job they were elected to do, it is questionable whether they should keep it. Perhaps Senator Saslaw should take a lesson in history.

To the surprise of supporters of the HB10, Senator Normant first vote "no" effectively killing the bill. Delegate Marshall's appeal to the Senator to move to substitute the language for the language of Senator Vogel's SB417, already passed by the committee, put it up for a second vote and was reported with a vote of 8 - 7.  It will now go to the Senate floor for a vote.

In a recent interview by Washington Post blogger, Rosalind Helderman, Delegate Bob Marshall announced his plan to introduce an amendment to the Virginia Constitution.

Marshall's plan of attack includes introducing a bill to accompany the amendment reaffirming "healthcare freedom" for residents. It would be written purposely to conflict with the federal law, making it easier for Virginians to sue the federal government over the mandate if it is passed.

Read more....

A new campaign called the Virginia 10th Amendment Revolution is sweeping the state of Virginia. This movement is targeting the federal government’s over-reaching powers not delegated to it by the states.

Citizen activist groups are banding together to take this revolution to the 2010 legislative session of the Virginia General Assembly. They are calling on legislators to defend state’s rights under the 10th amendment with the Virginia Firearms Freedom Act (VFFA) and the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act (VHFA).

Delegate Charles (Bill) Carrico will lead the charge in the House on the VFFA, a 10th amendment challenge to the powers of Congress under the commerce clause that prohibits the federal regulation of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained in Virginia.

Delegate Robert (Bob) Marshall will stand up to the feds with a VHFA in the House to challenge the powers of the federal government to mandate the purchase of federally approved healthcare coverage by every citizen under the threat of steep fines and jail time.

This effort to reassert the state’s constitutional authority did not begin with the 10th Amendment Revolution. There had already been widespread opposition to the Real ID Act, dubbed Dangerous ID, in Virginia that resulted in legislation that was passed into law in the 2009 session that would prohibit certain provisions in the law that would compromise the economic privacy, biometric data, or biometric samples of any resident of the Commonwealth.

News of the 10th Amendment Revolution is going viral and is sure to shake things up in the 2010 session of the General Assembly. Members of this movement will not be silent any longer. They aim to make their voices heard at a lobby day/rally to be held on January 18th on capitol grounds in Richmond.