RECENT SPEECH ON PLAN BAY AREA
ROSA KOIRE
I’m scheduled to give you an update on what’s happening around the nation and I will, in a minute.
First, I want to talk about One Bay Area/PLAN BAY AREA and Agenda 21/Sustainable
Development.
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 controlled.
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
the 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
good.
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 21.
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 action.
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 PDAs.
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.
Within 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. (NOTE: This has been completed and we have filed our objections)
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 century.
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 MTC/ABAG 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
through.
DONATE TO STOP THIS PLAN.
First, I want to talk about One Bay Area/PLAN BAY AREA and Agenda 21/Sustainable
Development.
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 controlled.
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
the 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
good.
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 21.
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 action.
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 PDAs.
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.
Within 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. (NOTE: This has been completed and we have filed our objections)
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 century.
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 MTC/ABAG 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
through.
DONATE TO STOP THIS PLAN.
