The Post Sustainability Institute strongly objects to the tremendous overreach of Plan Bay Area in the imposition of regional governance over the voters and their elected representatives in the nine county, 101 city San Francisco Bay Area. The elevation of an unelected, unrepresentative body over the people of these municipalities is a violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the US and California constitutions.  We assert that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments have taken SB 375 and used it to impose an aggressive ideology of land use restrictions and regionalization. Regional governance inserts a layer of unelected boards between local government and the federal and state grant makers/funders.  This regional layer (MTC/ABAG), unaccountable to the electorate, sets up de facto mandates for local government--effectively using money as a lure and a bludgeon to cities and counties desperate for funds.   As more and more regions are created and imposed on local and state governments across the nation there will be less local control.  Local government will exist solely to implement regional regulations administratively without meaningful input from the voters.

The necessity for government subsidies or changes to Proposition 13 (California property tax) to implement this Plan is clearly stated in the Plan itself on nearly every page.  Restricting development of both residential and commercial uses primarily to highly urbanized city centers even when the real estate and economic markets do not support it is a recipe for failure and debt.  The entire plan is a house of cards based on a financing scheme that does not exist in California: Redevelopment.  Redevelopment debt has had a crippling impact on California; bonded debt for redevelopment in our state had reached $81 billion by 2007 and was doubling every 10 years. (Redevelopment: The Unknown Government, Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform, 2007).  The reinstatement or reinvention of tax increment financing for private development imposes a generational debt requiring 20-40 years of payments to bond brokers.  Schemes for assembling and acquiring privately owned fully-developed land parcels in the Priority Development Areas will, as stated in the Plan, require eminent domain.  Eminent domain is intended for public use only, and the perversion of the concept of public use to acquire land for private benefit will not be tolerated in California. In any case, at the time that Plan Bay Area is scheduled for adoption (July 18, 2013) none of these potential funding schemes is in effect, therefore the Plan fails the feasibility requirement of SB 375.

Plan Bay Area and SB 375 are predicated on the implementation of Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development was formally defined in the 1987 United Nations publication Our Common Future written by the UN World Commission on Environment and Development (referred to as the Brundtland Commission).  Sustainable Development is defined as:

Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

All that remained was to state that our current activities and means of living were ‘compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ and then decide what to do about it.

After Our Common Future was presented to the UN General Assembly in 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) was tasked with designing strategies for achieving Sustainable Development by the year 2000.  At the Rio Earth Summit in June, 1992, the Brundtland Commission came back with the action plan for implementing Sustainable Development globally: Agenda 21.   Referred to as the Agenda for the 21st Century, this document was agreed to by 179 nations, including President George H.W. Bush. 

William Clinton was elected President in November, 1992, and six months later he issued Executive Order #12852 which created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). It first met in the summer of 1993; and continued until 1999.  The members of the PCSD included Cabinet Secretaries for Transportation, Agriculture, Education, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration, Energy, Interior, and Defense.  Representing business were CEOs for Pacific Gas and Electric, Enron (Ken Lay), BP Amoco, and Dow Chemical, among others.  Environmental organizations rounded out the balance with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, World Resources Institute, the Nature Conservancy, and the Environmental Defense Fund being the most notable.

The PCSD immediately began laying the groundwork for implementing Agenda 21 in the United States. The goal was to change public policy to bring it into alignment with the new agenda for the 21st century.  The PCSD formalized its recommendations in ‘Sustainable America—A New Consensus.’ 

In the PCSD’s list of vital elements to incorporate into their recommendations they included this statement:

‘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.’

A new collaborative decision process.  The new definition for consensus is the neutralization of expressed opposition.

In the old way of doing things, the democratic way, an issue is put before the voters and they vote on it directly, or they have a representative who reviews the issues, debates them publicly, and then votes.  If the voters are not satisfied with the outcome, they can initiate a referendum or vote out the representative.

Sustainable America—A New Consensus’ does not allow for actual dissent.  There can be no opportunity for failure in implementing Agenda 21.  In fact the Cabinet Secretaries reported that they could implement approximately two thirds of the PCSD’s recommendations administratively. However, it is not desirable that citizens notice that they are not being given a choice in the most important issues of their lives, so they are given the illusion that they are making decisions for themselves. The real meaning of consensus is to take away your voice and leave you feeling as if you are the only one who has some problem with the results. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development incorporated the Delphi Technique into its recommendations so that ‘more rapid change’ could be imposed on us through clever manipulation.  The Delphi Technique was used by MTC/ABAG and their consultants in their ‘visioning meetings’ in order to manipulate the outcome.  Although they will say that they have never heard of the Delphi Technique they are in fact using it to direct public opinion, ignore or marginalize dissent, and declare ‘consensus’ on their preferred alternative.

Sustainable Development/UN Agenda 21 is exemplified in the Plan Bay Area documents by the push for high density urban development in city centers by any means necessary while starving the rural and suburban areas for funds and development.  Using tactics better suited to criminal gangs, MTC/ABAG is hoping to slam through the most aggressive regional plan in the United States.  UN Agenda 21 is a global plan implemented locally, and this is the Plan for the SF Bay Area.  Similar plans can be found throughout the United States and the world with names like Envision Utah, Imagine Calgary, Granite State Future, PlaNY, One Valley One Vision, Horizon 2025 (Ontario, Canada), and Hanoi (Viet Nam) Regional Center 2030 Plan.  All of these plans are the same plan with the same goal: move people out of the rural and suburban areas into the city centers where they can be more easily managed, controlled, and surveilled. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact.  No amount of government-sponsored shaming, mocking, marginalizing, or lying about those of us speaking the truth can change this fact.  The people of the United States of America and of the State of California will not be a party to this plan to destroy private property and civil rights.  We intend to fight Plan Bay Area and we intend to win. 

This video exposing former Assemblyman Michael Allen was created by a campaign manager for his opponent, Marc Levine.  Based on our reporting of Michael Allen to the Fair Political Practices Commission for corruption, he was unseated after just one term in office.  There is some justice after all...

Take a look:

Greg Sarris, 61, Graton Rancheria Tribal Chief on 11/3/2013 at meeting of North Bay Organizing Project in Santa Rosa said:

“… last night the tribe opened its casino.  That casino is currently employing 2,500 people all of whom have medical, dental and retirement and wage above the minimum…and I love walking around and seeing all the brown faces and hearing all the Spanish in that building.  We’re also—you hear a lot about the casino—but we also have 250 acres aside from it.  We are planting those 250 acres in organic vegetables and with us we are going to hire low risk prisoners and undocumented workers.  All of that with a living wage with medical, dental, and retirement.”

And he also said:

“So we want to make a difference. And it’s not just in the environment and in jobs but in social justice.  We know that there are public officials here today and that you better listen.  You better start coming over to our side of town over there listening to what we have to say because now I’ve got what you’ve always had…it's called money. Listen carefully each of you. Until you come out and talk to us and listen to us and answer to what happened, I will take my money and run a spotted chihuahua and try to win.  And I mean it.”

This month the 1,300-member Graton Rancheria tribe will open its Graton Resort & Casino, an $800 million development with 3,000 slot machines and 144 gambling tables spread out over 340,000 square feet is expected to generate revenue of more than $530 million a year by 2016. Just beyond the parking lot is 250 acres of undeveloped land.  It is currently being discussed as the site for vegetable farming but the tribe has also said it eventually plans to add a hotel.

Here is the audio file with the introduction of Sarris beginning after approximately three minutes.

North Bay Organizing Project--what is it?
Our Mission: Unite people to build leadership and grassroots power for social, economic, racial and environmental justice.

Once upon a time the Dibs family of Santa Rosa had a small business selling used cars.  They owned the lot and had it paid off, and made a nice living for their family.  In 2009 the City of Santa Rosa targeted them for an eminent domain action.  The City wanted to widen Santa Rosa Avenue right there at the Dibs' property.  First they low-balled the Dibs and then they finally agreed to pay them a fair price---the City said it really needed that land quick--that widening had to happen NOW.  

So the Dibs family moved to a property that they leased, that wasn't as good a location for them.  The City of Santa Rosa then did nothing with their old lot and didn't widen the street.  And it still hasn't.

Now, the Dibs' have come, hat in hand, to beg the City of Santa Rosa to let them buy Bob's RV Center on Santa Rosa Avenue at Highway 12.  Well, the City will let them buy it but they won't let them move their car lot onto a lot that was used for selling RVs because 'it's a different use and we don't want to see car lots on Santa Rosa Avenue anymore.'

What does the City want to see?  Smart Growth. Apartments over shops.  That's the VISION for Santa Rosa Avenue.  The City's General Plan/Comprehensive Plan says that MIXED USE is the preferred development for Santa Rosa Avenue.  They don't care that it has been an historically car-related street, the old Auto Row.  No, that's just not sustainable.  

Now the goal is to narrow the street down to just a couple of lanes and have a median strip and wide sidewalks and the walkable bikeable dreamland of community and joy (as long as you go along to get along). Except that isn't what people can build there because they'd go bankrupt in a minute.  Just like the building owners at 10th and Healdsburg did.  The former owners. They went bankrupt building a 4 story mixed use apartment building where the ground floor retail not only never rented up but never even got completed.  Go look in the windows.  Bare pipes and concrete.

So.  Where does that leave the Dibs and Bob Montgomery, the owner of Bob's RV Center who would like to retire? Yes, you guessed.  Another empty lot on Santa Rosa Avenue coming up.  The City is blighting the Avenue themselves by not allowing businesses, legal businesses, taxpaying businesses to get a use permit.  The City is preparing the Avenue by depressing the land values so that their crony developer can come along later, buy it cheap, and build Smart Growth with subsidies.

When the City held those visioning meetings for the General Plan it didn't matter at all what you had to say.  It was SMART GROWTH and that was it.

And that's the news from Santa Rosa.  

The Post Sustainability Institute based in Santa Rosa has filed a lawsuit against MTC and ABAG to stop the unconstitutional regionalization of the San Francisco Bay Area.  If we lose this suit Plan Bay Area will overlay restrictions for land use over the entire nine county 101 city Bay Area.  The Plan calls for 80% of all future population increase to be housed in just 4% of the land area.  This is just a fraction of the land area within existing Urban Growth Boundaries, and nearly all of this small area is fully developed now.  In addition to residential restrictions, 66% of all new employment/commercial development must be in the same areas.  That means that mixed use high density development in extremely limited locations around the bay will be all that will be approved by planning departments for the next 25-28 years.  Plan Bay Area has been approved by MTC/ABAG and IS NOW CURRENT POLICY--ONLY LEGAL ACTION CAN STOP IT.

The Post Sustainability Institute/Freedom Advocates lawsuit is the ONLY lawsuit against Plan Bay Area that addresses the unconstitutionality of the Plan, and of regionalization.  This lawsuit is the ONLY one that challenges the Plan itself. This is not going to go away if you ignore it.  Your participation is needed to keep this lawsuit active.  DONATE NOW AT 

 Here is the latest column from Dick Spotswood at the IJ.  He's absolutely right, but doesn't see that Plan Bay Area is really not about making's about social engineering and control.   Packing people into dense city centers without adequate transportation options is the goal. Empowering unelected boards. Destroying existing jurisdictional boundaries and replacing them with 'regions'. Amazing, isn't it?  Not if you understand UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.

We appreciate it that Dick Spotswood is the ONLY journalist in the Bay Area who will write the truth about Plan Bay Area.  Thank you, Dick.


A column on government and politics published Sunday, August 4, 2013 #467

© A copyright of The Marin Independent Journal.


NOW that the fractious debate over Plan Bay Area is over, Marinites might want to see what true high-density housing looks like.

All they need to do is drive to Corte Madera. Two minutes off Highway 101, at the corner of Tamal Vista Boulevard and Wornum Drive, the curious can see for themselves.

Once completed in early 2014, the 180-unit four-story apartment complex at 195 Tamal Vista presents a fine opportunity to learn if high-density, supposedly transit-oriented development delivers the environmental and social benefits promised by its advocates.

This San Jose-style massive apartment block on the site of the old WinCup plant has both good and bad aspects.

Built by big-time developer MacFarlane Partners, the looming structure consists of 162 market-rate apartments and only 18 units for lower-income residents. MacFarlane's business plan calls for "high-density, urban-style living."

Plan Bay Area is all about construction of high-density housing near transit corridors. This project, approved before the plan was adopted, provides an example of what's encouraged.

Tamal Vista is immediately adjacent to a transit corridor, Highway 101 and the north-south bikeway.

There's no question that it's high density at 40 units per acre.

Corte Madera, a town inaccurately criticized for dragging its feet when it comes to building housing, delivers big time.

Further, it's in a mostly commercial area where massive construction doesn't degrade single-family home neighborhoods. It replaces a factory that employed a hundred workers who often commuted from out of the county.

The project is privately owned, so it pays property taxes for schools, police and fire.

What's wrong, other than a massive design wholly inappropriate for Central Marin?

The connection to transit is illusory. The seven-minute walk to the scruffy freeway bus pad is useful if potential residents work in San Francisco's Financial District, Golden Gate Transit's destination.

The reality is that the old Financial District isn't the job magnet it was 25 years ago.

It's a 20-minute walk from Tamal Vista to Larkspur's Ferry Terminal. Few daily commuters will make that trek. They could drive, except the ferry's parking lot is jammed.

The 10-minute walk to the Town Center shopping mall hardly makes this "urban style" living. Most residents will drive to Safeway, not walk.

That 195 Tamal Vista has only 18 affordable apartments makes a mockery of what high-density new urbanism is supposedly about. There's little need in Marin for more market-rate housing.

What's wanted are homes for working folks whose jobs are already in Marin.

This project does little to deliver them.

Once finished, 195 Tamal Vista will produce more traffic at an intersection that's already near capacity. Wornum Drive is where the Transportation Authority of Marin plans to locate a new freeway off-ramp, making an already bad situation worse.

Corte Madera had little choice but to approve the high-density project. The town was under pressure from the Association of Bay Area Governments and activists to build more housing.

This was one of the few sites where it made sense to build big.

This construction now makes an ideal test ground for the concept of high-density housing. Corte Madera should monitor what happens once 195 Tamal Vista opens.

Find out where the new residents work. Are their jobs located nearby or far away? How many apartment dwellers either use transit or instead drive to work, shop and play?

What's the project's real-world impact on local streets?

The results should disclose whether suburban high-density urban-style housing provides the environmental benefits that supporters claim or if it's just marketing hype from real estate developers.



OTHER THOUGHTS: "We hang petty thieves and appoint the great thieves to public office."



Write Dick Spotswood at

I’m scheduled to give you an update on what’s happening around
nation and I will, in a minute.

First, I want to talk about
One Bay Area/PLAN BAY AREA and Agenda 21/Sustainable

Keep in mind that globalization is the
standardization of systems. Making systems uniform so that they can be managed
through a computer with the most efficiency and control is the goal. When the
systems are controlled the people are

Efficiency is the mask for this
totalitarian takeover. Regionalization is the interim step to globalization and,
ultimately, to a single central
control.  In order to implement
regionalization local political boundaries must be blurred and erased. 
Although the forms may exist for a period of time, there will be no actual power
in the local governments.  Unelected boards and commissions will dictate
local action for common good.  The common good is identified as that which
fragments and destroys social cohesion.  Individuals will serve
Communitarian ideal.  So this is a circle that is made tighter and tighter
as time progresses. Dissent necessarily becomes a threat to the common good
and individual expression will be restricted to whatever supports the common

The individual who functions well in this
society is insane. 
We’re seeing the results of this pressure now in
our culture.

You know that an integral part of Plan Bay Area
is the identification of Planned Development Areas in specific narrow locations
in existing or proposed transit corridors. When this plan was being
developed as the Compact for a Sustainable Bay Area back in 1997-2003 much of
the funding was expected to come from Redevelopment property tax
diversion.  Conceptually the idea was that areas could be declared blighted
under the Health and Safety Code and then bonded debt could be sold to pay for
high density development---development for which there is little demand so it
needs government subsidies.  Redevelopment areas could be rezoned via
Specific Plans which also made them perfect for smart growth.  Transit
oriented development and infill development could be designed into the
Redevelopment projects and would basically be immune to challenge because of the
Health and Safety Code blight findings.

Redevelopment in
California ended in 2012 and this is an inconvenience for SB 375 and AB32-- the
Sustainable Communities Strategies laws that implement Agenda 21 for land use
here in California.  HUD grants, the Partnership for Sustainable
Communities Grants, the One Bay Area Grant program, and Transportation grants
all step up to fill in the infrastructure financing gap.  We know that even
though CARB has established greenhouse gas reduction targets of 7% below 2005
levels by 2020 and 15% below 2005 levels by 2035 it doesn’t say how to do
that.  Rather than having, say, better CAFÉ standards or increasing bus
service, we’re seeing mass transit fare increases and service reduction all over
the Bay Area. 

Money for high speed rail will bleed us for decades,
and the North Bay SMART train won’t even link to the ferry system to San
Francisco.  If it’s not making sense you can be sure it’s Agenda
The Hegelian Dialectic is at play here: Create a
crisis and then
propose the solution. The so-called compromise is the
plan you would never had considered without the crisis. 

Now I want to talk about action.  Legal

When PDAs were proposed to cities they had no idea that PDAs were
a restriction on development inside of the Urban Growth Boundaries for a
generation. Cities thought this was just a way to get funds for development and
infrastructure in their core transportation areas. The One Bay Area Preferred
Scenario, already passed by MTC and ABAG, states that roughly 80% of all new
housing units are to be built in the Priority Development
Areas. Enforcement appears to be based on whether or not the affected
cities will be receiving transportation grants to support the new
development.  Non-compliance would mean less money for the cities that do
not go along with the plan.

One Bay Area states that 66% of
all new employment is to be within PDA boundaries. Properties with
commercial space, office buildings, factories, and industrial uses could be
worthless under this plan if they are outside the
How would permits be granted and employment
rights be given?  Do the quotas for the PDAs have to be achieved first and
then go to the respective 20% and 34% figures?  What if those numbers are
not achieved?  What criteria will be used to decide who gets development
rights and who doesn't? It is significant that ABAG population projections are
roughly double those of the Department of Finance.  ABAG and MTC project
the Bay Area population to increase by 2 million by 2035, while the Dept of
Finance estimates just 1.7 million by 2060. Over-predictions of population
virtually guarantee that we will not reach the target development thresholds set
by MTC/ABAG.  
Most cities have voter approved urban
growth boundaries. 
The ordinances "encourage residential, commercial
and industrial growth in areas served by urban services'.  Development is
to be encouraged on all property within the UGB.

these boundaries property owners have a reasonable expectation to develop their
property supported by city infrastructure in accordance with local
regulations.  The PDAs ignore these Urban Growth Boundaries and effectively
create new ones; the new non-voter-approved PDAs for 25 years. This is a
violation of local and state law.  
In addition to that,
under the 5th amendment of the US constitution, the takings clause states that
no land shall be taken without just compensation.  Effectively creating an
artificial restricted new Urban Growth Boundary within the existing Urban Growth
Boundary is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of
the US constitution.

Most cities in California have
increased density in all of their zoning—not just on residential zones. The
General Plans have increased development potential at the same time that it will
be restricted by One Bay Area.

Furthermore, state law
permits all single family residences in California to build a second unit if
certain criteria are met.  This law effectively upzoned all single family
properties so that most have development potential.  What the PDAs do is
damage every SFR --single family property-- that does not have a second unit on
it.  That means most of us have legal standing.

I have
agreements with three law firms to independently review
One Bay Area's
Final Draft Plan when it is released next month. 
We want to stop this
plan.  If MTC and ABAG are able to push this through we will lose our
constitutional protections all across the nation.  We're not interested in
a CEQA challenge.  This is a fight to stop the plan itself.  We need
to get ready to get our wallets out because this will be the fight of the
One last thing about this:  When Hitler
marched into Austria he met little resistance.  Why? Because the
dissenters had been rounded up in a single day and arrested.  How were
thousands of people identified in such a short time?  Every gathering, like
this one, had its spy.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were
a spy here in this room.  This is a very serious action we are proposing
and could have far reaching impacts on the entire country.  So with that in
mind I will say that if we lose against the MTC we will sue the cities and
the counties. 

And as far as the
news from the nation goes, the Resistance is growing fast and growing strong.
There are people all across the country who will contribute to this fight. This
year, 2013, will be the year that we reach critical awareness of UN Agenda
21/Sustainable Development.  

This year is the year that we break
CLOSE TO HOME --Submitted to the Santa Rosa Press Democrat

May 6, 2013

Rosa Koire
Executive Director
Post Sustainability Institute

We are suing to stop Plan Bay Area, the nine county land use and transportation plan which is a violation of your constitutional rights and a shocking overreach of the experiment in regional governance. 

Our nation is a constitutional republic with a framework of direct election that rises from local government through county, state, and up to the federal level.   This framework ensures that the peoples’ rights are protected and that our voices are heard.  Plan Bay Area is designed to empower a layer of regional government between state and county, and ultimately between state and federal which renders our voices irrelevant. These regional boards are not elected by the people; the board members are selected out of elected officials who support regional goals.

Regional boards like the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are holding the purse strings for state and federal transportation and grant dollars.  MTC and ABAG have fabricated Plan Bay Area though they claim that it was crafted in response to the needs and desires of Bay Area residents.  Most people have never heard of Plan Bay Area.  Of the seven million residents of the Bay Area approximately three tenths of one percent have participated in the so-called planning sessions. These planning sessions were tailored to elicit responses that favor high density urban development (Smart Growth), the preferred scenario of Plan Bay Area.  Those voicing a dissenting opinion were virtually ignored, labeled as NIMBYs, or as political fringe.  As a liberal Democrat, registered since 1974, I recognize this kind of smear as a way of chilling our civil rights by attempting to intimidate those who reject Plan Bay Area’s blatant violation of property rights.

        PLAN BAY AREA violates the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution by taking property rights without just compensation.  By the creation of Priority Development Areas this Plan restricts 80% of residential development and 66% of commercial development to just a few small areas of your city--until the year 2040.  If your property is outside of the PDA (96% of property is outside) you will likely not be able to build or expand your building--and you won't be paid for this loss.
        PLAN BAY AREA violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution--the Equal Protection Clause.  Owners of properties in the Priority Development Areas will receive development permits at a rate of approximately 80 times more than owners of property outside of the Priority Development Areas.
        PLAN BAY AREA violates voter-approved Urban Growth Boundary ordinances.  Because the Priority Development Areas are within the UGBs but are much smaller restricted areas they are in violation of ordinances that clearly state that development must be encouraged out to the limits of city services: Urban Growth Boundaries. These ordinances are found throughout the Bay Area and cannot be changed without voter approval.

        PLAN BAY AREA permanently strips all development rights from rural properties in the nine county Bay Area.  Plan Bay Area is effectively taking conservation easements on all rural lands without paying for them. 

        PLAN BAY AREA restricts development rights of property within the Priority Development Areas, too.  Construction will be limited to mixed-use high density Smart Growth development.  Existing buildings are likely to be out of compliance with your city's General Plan (legal non-conforming) and permits to make additions or changes will likely not be granted.

This Plan is dependent on tax subsidies and handouts and will devastate the Bay Area for more than a generation.  Property rights are a foundation of our freedom and are non-partisan.  Join us now in stopping Plan Bay Area.



A power legal challenge is being launched against this new regime of restricted property rights.  Please click here for more information and to donate.