Category: Communitarianism

MONEY AND POWER AT THE CASINO

11/4/2013

REPORTED TO US:

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.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pKAcmsTRI5TFJYbHlMQ00tLVk/edit?usp=sharing

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

3 Comments

Recent Plan Bay Area speech

5/18/2013

0 Comments

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.
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 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
through.
DONATE TO STOP THIS PLAN.

0 Comments

MAINSTREAM PRESS LIES ABOUT AGENDA 21. WHY?

2/24/2013

1 Comment

If you're new to learning about UN Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development you'd be understandably confused about what it is and how it impacts you and your area. You may be wondering how something that affects every aspect of your life including education, health care, law enforcement, energy, land use, and economic development could have eluded your attention for more than 20 years.

How could this have happened?

This is a public relations campaign--the biggest. Your government knows that if you knew what the plan was about in 1992 you would have objected to living under a dictatorship. You would have objected to having your educational system converted to a social indoctrination camp. You would have been distressed to learn that representative government was to be transitioned to non-representational government by appointed boards and commissions that you have no control over. So the propaganda campaign was in full force to hide the source and goals of 'Sustainable Development.'

It's only recently that the press even admits that UN Agenda 21 exists. Did the United Nations chose to call it the 'Agenda for the 21st Century' purposely in order to block further investigation? It sounds crazy. Up until very recently anyone who referred to UN Agenda 21 was labeled a 'conspiracy theorist' or a nut. Now the press acknowledges its existence but says it is a non-binding, twenty year old plan that has no impacts on local government. The United Nations, you are told, is ineffectual and the US just ignores proclamations and agreements it doesn't like.

The rallying cry of Communitarianism pervades your newspaper, television, workplace, and school room as you are encouraged to 'give back,' to volunteer and to think about the common good. If you question you are considered selfish and you won't be invited to the communal bike rides and neighborhood parties.

If you're like us you were a young progressive Democrat in November 1992 and thought Clinton was doing fine (well, a bit later we thought Don't Ask Don't Tell was rotten, and the war in Kosovo looked like a battle to control the heroin trade into Europe, and we thought it was nuts to give loans to people who couldn't afford them). Yes, you thought Clinton was doing fine now that Bush was out of office. You were excited to be part of a movement to encourage recycling and creative reuse. You felt good about yourself and thought Republicans were a bunch of flag-waving rednecks who ate raw meat and slept with their spurs on. You didn't know any Republicans personally, and you didn't want to. Your magazines--Earth Island Journal, Mother Jones, The Nation--were full of the degradation of the planet and the destruction of biodiversity. You were disgusted with developers, oil men, and big corporations and you blamed all of this on Republicans. After the Clinton impeachment trials you were even more convinced of the viciousness of the Republicans. You joined MoveOn.org and hosted political parties in your home. Later, 8 years of Bush Jr cemented your outlook even further. Hanging chads, yellow cake uranium, Jessica Lynch, Shock and Awe, Valerie Plame, Karl Rove, mailing anthrax to the Democrats, all of this and more drove a huge wedge in between the parties. As a Democrat you wouldn't even consider hanging a flag up on July 4th--people might think you were a Republican.

Meanwhile, all of this time, the Sustainable Development machine moved forward. Both parties (feeding on corporate dollars) supported it, furthered it with legislation, strengthened the Environmental Protection Agency, and brought UN Agenda 21 principles into every federal agency--without your knowledge. When you did hear about it from the corporate owned mainstream press it was in glowing terms about saving the planet.

You watched and suffered as your school systems were subjected to Goals 2000 and No Child Left Behind and Outcomes Based Education and Common Core never knowing that no matter how much money was thrown into these experiments in teaching and testing that your children would come out less able to live independent creative lives. Those who were diagnosed with learning disabilities were doused with drugs and warehoused for a dozen years--the silent illiterates. The kids who did well were overloaded with homework and staggering schedules that made office work seem like a relief.

Right around 2002 the planning revolution exploded across America as Growing Smart: Legislative Guidebook with Model Statues for Planning and the Management of Change was brought into every planning department, university and college in the nation. Written by the American Planning Association and funded by a partnership between the federal government, Siemens Corporation, and wealthy foundations, this is the blueprint for the new laws and regulations being trotted out by your local city council and county supervisors. This planning revolution was sponsored by the President's Council on Sustainable Development (1993-1999) as the first major step in bringing UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development into the US. Every federal agency changed their policies to adhere to it. Those federal agencies are giving grants to local governments to implement it.

The tracks of UN A21/SD are everywhere but the corporate press has lied about it for 20 years. When the press isn't pretending that it doesn't exist it does the next best thing: mocks anyone who questions or calls out Sustainable Development as a corporate takeover plot to eliminate pesky national boundaries and representative government.

Using the lie of 'consensus' the corporation-funded non-profits go into neighborhoods and propagandize for programs and plans that give the illusion of strengthening the voice of the people. Instead that so-called consensus crafts public opinion and blocks anyone from dissenting. Yes, if you disagree with governance by unelected boards and commissions you'll be shamed and cut out of the herd.

Money talks, baby. Left, right, center--money talks. Now that the Democrats are on top the rhetoric has changed but the big money corporations are still calling the shots. BP is Green! Siemens (the Nazi corporation) makes high speed trains and light rail and owns water rights and solar and wind and makes huge amounts of money from GREEN. Siemens also funded Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook. IBM (Nazi collaborator) makes biometrics technology and smart grid and retinal scans and systems for water agencies to monitor you.

If you're a Democrat and you start saying the Emperor has no clothes you'll be rejected, mocked, shamed, and smeared. Not many people will be brave enough to QUESTION AUTHORITY if it means rejection from the tribe. Most Democrats will ignore objections to Sustainable Development as a right wing Republican attempt to sway hapless followers. It's easier than standing up and recognizing that the 1% is using green to manipulate the left.

And the press? The corporate press is tasked with selling this to you and using the hard sell. The threat is that you'll be destroying the planet if you don't go along. They make it sound so good that you won't ask the question: If this is so good why has it been a secret for the last 20 years? If this is so good why was the economy pumped and dumped? If this is so good why are my kids struggling to read? If this is so good why did I lose my house? If this is so good why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan? If this is so good why is every single land use plan in the United States identical? If this is so good why are corporations persons? If this is so good why can't Democrats and Republicans work together? If this is so good why was the National Defense Authorization Act passed? If this is so good why are we subject to domestic surveillance? If this is so good why are we on Prozac, Wellbutrin, and every other drug prescribed to make us not care?

If you're identifying yourself as a Progressive Democrat you'll be inclined to think UN Agenda 21 is some fantasy of the right wing and laugh it off. Do you have the guts to admit that you've been wrong? Or will you listen to the corporate press and be duped? What does it take for you to realize that the left and right are fighting the same fight? It's the banks and big corporations buying off the government and non-profits. Global governance. New World Order behind the green mask.

AWARENESS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE RESISTANCE.

1 Comment

PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS IN SMALL TOWNS

1/27/2013

2 Comments

Looks like some kind of epidemic around here. A small one, but just big enough to remark on. A serious epidemic of pseudo-princes in this little Machiavellian wonderland we call home.

Three cities lying in a crooked row found themselves without the full contingent of council members just after election time. Rather than honor the citizens who voted and move the next competitor on the ballot into the seat, the cities have decided to take the low road.

Three cities in adjacent counties all SELECTING a council member. Yep, just after the election, too. Now, like it or not, it seems as if the next highest vote getter should drop into the slot left vacant a scant three weeks or so after seating the current councils. But the towns of Cotati, Calisotga, and Santa Rosa are all SELECTING a city council member. Selecting. As in the-council-on-the-dais sits in judgement and with a featherweight majority will pick a new council member off of a list...regardless of the fact that thousands of voters have chosen the next runner-up.

The unjustified and unjustifiable 'reasoning' by these nascent councils is that the runner up is a loser. Yes, that person lost, didn't they? And doesn't that mean that it's now completely irrelevant that this runner up campaigned, raised funds, spoke to groups, shook hands, kissed babies, debated, and--did I mention?-- garnered thousands (in some cases) of votes? Yes, that means absolutely nothing if the council doesn't like the idea of that next person dropping into the seat. Because that person doesn't fit in with the council's idea of consensus. Or maybe there are political shenanigans going on and someone wants to retain the majority or be the swing voter on the council. And of course the council wants to save the cost of holding another election--after all the voters would only vote the way they want to and that wouldn't be good.

In one case at least (Santa Rosa) everyone knew that a sitting council person was running for another office (Susan Gorin) and if she won she'd be vacating her seat. Well she did win. Here's the idiotic, insulting logic that this group of slimy rascals is shoving down the throats of citizens in this town: Because Susan Gorin sat in her seat for the first two or three meetings of the 'new' council instead of cleaning out her desk and getting out, her replacement has to be 'chosen' because it's MID SESSION. Oh for crying out loud. The cronies running this inwardly rotting Peyton Place wanted to select her successor and planned it in advance.

Tomorrow they'll be sitting in a special session where 17 hopefuls will parade themselves in front of the dais even though the successor has already been chosen. And that's how you pick winners and losers in a small American town.

2 Comments

IT'S THE WATER

11/28/2012

1 Comment

FLOOD OF WATER RESTRICTIONS

Buried deep in the bottom of an article about Water Agency funding in a small town newspaper in California we find the wave of the future---Do-It-Yourself Cap and Trade.

Really, you must brace yourself for the full implications of this program. First, allow yourself to contemplate a system in which a government agency, Sonoma County Water Agency, providing 352,000 people with water, will accept a grant from a non-profit organization. The California Water Foundation which 'supports investment in sustainable management of the state's water supply' is in the process of finalizing a $255,000 grant, some of which would go towards this:

Launching a pilot program that would allow the sale of efficiency credits between customers who come in below their normal water usage and those who exceed their threshold.

Should we say that again? Customers who come in below their normal water usage will sell their 'efficiency credits' to those who exceed their 'threshold.'

Did you get that? Those customers who exceed their allotment of water will have to buy credits from those who do not. Cap and trade for the average user of water. Will you buy water through an exchange. Will you bid on credits through a third party? Will you go to an auction where you struggle to acquire enough credits to water your garden, or take a shower every day? This is not an exaggeration. Just as Cap and Trade is being developed at the state-wide level in California to establish a market for carbon-based emissions, this program will establish a 'local cap and trade for water.' Penalties and credits for water usage. Yes, Sonoma County, known for 100% membership of cities and the county in ICLEI, known for having a County Supervisor (Valerie Brown) on the National Board of ICLEI, will now be known for creating a pilot program in individual cap and trade for a substance fundamental to sustaining life.

WATERSHED REGULATIONS

The Sonoma County Water Agency has put out a publication in which they say that every part of the county is in a watershed. This concept of expanding the idea of watersheds until it includes every property in the United States and beyond is catching hold.

Right now 40% of the United States is considered to be in a watershed, and that percentage is growing. Water run-off, drainage, in urban areas is being regulated and is giving Planning Departments the justification for denying building permits based on 'streamside thresholds.' The translation for this term encompasses any property, fully developed in an urban area or not, that stands in the way of rainwater moving toward some collector stream or body of water.

In Marin County, CA, any property owner who might wish to, for instance, build a garage on her suburban hillside property, will find that the local planning department will not allow that until it has mapped the direction of run-off on that hill. These maps are created when the property owner applies for a building permit and are paid for by the property owner at that time. In other words the property owner has no way of knowing whether she'll be able to build that garage until she pays for the study. The study establishes streams in fully developed urban areas where the 'stream' is the way that the rainwater finds its way through your property. Because these rules only affect one property owner at a time and only when he or she tries to get a development permit most people are unaware that the rules have changed.

Whether you're watering your yard, or taking a bath, or building a shed you will find UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development flooding into your life and drowning you in regulations, fees, and penalties. This is how you are driven out of rural and suburban areas. This is how you are priced out of your single family home. This is how you end up in Smart Growth. This is how you lose your business. This is Agenda 21.

1 Comment

OPT OUT OF METERS

10/31/2012

0 Comments

This video lays out why and how you are being manipulated. Who is making the money from the Smart Grid? What does this mean? Canadian presentation directly impacts us in California.

0 Comments

California's Prop 31 IS UN Agenda 21

10/9/2012

1 Comment

I gave a speech at the Wake UP America rally in West Los Angeles on why people should vote NO on Proposition 31. I thought I'd share my speech with you.

Yes, I'm a liberal Democrat, and probably the only one here in the crowd, but I think you'll like what I have to say.

I’m here to urge you to vote NO on Prop 31 and to tell you why.

Because we’re nearing Halloween I thought you’d appreciate this analogy.

Prop 31 is like the razor-blade in the candy apple. You aren’t expecting to find something dangerous wrapped in a nice package, and your inattention can hurt you badly.

Prop 31 is a Trojan horse proposition.

Called the Government Performance and Accountability Act, this new law will amend the California Constitution.   The ‘candy apple’ part, the Trojan Horse, is that it restricts the Legislature’s authority to enact any law that increases state costs or decreases state revenues by more than $25 million dollars a year.

That seems like a good thing. But there’s more to this law.

It also expands the Governor’s authority to implement reductions to appropriations in the State budget. You might like that too.    Or the shift to a 2 year budget. Sounds good.

But now we’re getting to the razor blade.

This new law, this amendment to the California Constitution, will shift state funds to local governments for the purpose of implementing new ‘Community Strategic Action Plans.’ What does that mean?

For the purposes of quote ‘a prosperous economy, quality environment, and community equity’ unquote state revenue will be shared in supra-governmental, unelected regional entities. Those who are paying attention will recognize the 3 E’s of United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development in this deceptive proposition. Economy, Environment, Equity. This is not just some happy coincidence. This is the legal and funding mechanism for a regional layer of government. You don’t vote for regional representation, as you know. You vote in city, county, state, and federal elections. Agenda 21 is a global plan implemented locally and you see it as regional plans.

Far from being a black helicopter paranoiac fantasy UN Agenda 21 is real and Prop 31 is what it looks like. It is a plan to take state money and allow local entities-- counties and cities--to determine how that money gets allocated as long as it goes for Smart Growth, the preferred development style of UN Agenda 21. The Agenda for the 21st century was signed onto by George HW Bush in 1992. President Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development for the sole purpose of implementing Agenda 21 in the US.

All federal agencies changed their policies to conform to Sustainable Development principles, and it then moved into the states and local municipalities via General Plans and regional boards.

This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact. Regionalization is the stepping stone to global governance by creating a parallel government and then funding it. These regions already exist and are administered now by Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Councils of Government like the Southern California Association of Governments.

New urbanism is the goal and you’ll see this as these new Community Strategic Action Plans dictate that your tax dollars go for shifting funds to high density cities. That’s what they mean by ‘a prosperous economy, quality environment, and community equity’. It’s code for redistributing money to cities that agree to the blurring or erasure of jurisdictional boundaries.

The Democrats and Unions are against Prop 31 because they fear a loss of funding. Seeing that in the voter guide might make you Conservatives vote yes.

Here’s your chance to agree with Democrats for once! Finally, something you and your relatives can agree on!

When you see Prop 31 on the ballot remember that ‘razor blade’ in the apple and vote NO.

1 Comment

Just in case you think it doesn't matter who you vote for...

9/22/2012

2 Comments

From the Santa Rosa Press Democrat Watch Sonoma webpage: Comments on this story: http://www.watchsonomacounty.com/2012/09/cities/compromise-reached-on-coddingtown-zoning-plan/

Eric Newman
September 19, 2012 at 3:15 pm
The vote on the North Santa Rosa plan by the city council is good evidence of why we need a progressive majority on the council. The Chamber pawns on the council voted to throw the public good under the bus by catering to the demands of one large commercial property owner. The public be damned if even one demand be made on the sacred personhood of a national corporate operator.

This the root dysfunction in modern America: government does not operate in the interests of the entire community, but on behalf of an arrogant ownership class who think that they above the law and the social contract.

Through the sycophantic service of their political enablers, their word is the law!

We can turn back this tide of the corporate overlords, starting right here with our city council. Vote for Julie Combs, Caroline Banuelos, and Erin Carlstrom if you want a city government that is responsive to real people, not the bogus and inflated corporate “persons” who have bent us to their will.

4 thumbs up 23 thumbs down

Kay Tokerud

September 20, 2012 at 8:42 am
“Arrogant ownership class”? Wow, Eric, your class warfare attitude is showing. According to you, people shouldn’t be allowed to own property at all but rather the government should feed, clothe, and house everyone. I think that has been tried before and it didn’t work out too well.

They re-zoned 1,390 properties that are all non-conforming now. I wonder how many property owners really understand what has happened to them. As bad as the plan is, it would have been a lot worse had the progressives been in the majority on the City Council. The progressives don’t care one wit about the property rights of the people although property owners pay the majority of taxes which go to support all the public welfare programs. Without private property ownership there would be little money for schools,infrastructure, etc.

The re-zonings have crippled development rights for the current property owners but once these properties are sold to big developers they will make out because there will be huge subsidies for smart growth style development coming from federal transportation funds, via One Bay Area. Other subsidies include low income housing tax credits, HUD grants, infrastructure financing district subsidies, and New Development subsides through the IRS.

I hope the current property owners hold out for a big price for their land because the new zoning allows for a large number of housing units to be built. The unsavvy owners may sell for bargain basement prices because they don’t know about their new zoning. The upzoning has actually increased property values. However, the current use of the properties may be disallowed resulting in losses for current owners and businesses.

The big problem is that we are in a major recession that could become far worse soon. We certainly don’t need more housing to exacerbate the oversupply we have now. All of the Specific Plans being developed will have the effect of crowding out any free market development which could have occurred and instead we will only have subsidized government controlled development. This plan paves the way for One Bay Area which seeks to cram all new housing development into these small transit villages for years to come.

The private property rights of Americans are being systematically eliminated through these Specific area plans which of course is by design. I’m afraid some of our elected officials don’t even know exactly what they are doing but rather are being pressured by Planning Departments that tell them that they must make these plans. Where are these plans really coming from? From the highest levels of the Federal Government and from International policies from the United Nations, World Bank and the IMF among others.

The Deciders, the Controllers, whatever you want to call them have decided that Americans have too much space, use up too many resources, have too much money, etc. and it’s time to shrink us down to a level more consistent with the rest of the world. Sounds good to them, how about you?

11 thumbs up 1 thumb down

DID YOU GET THAT EXCHANGE? JUST IN CASE YOU THINK IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO GETS ON CITY COUNCIL THIS TIME...THINK ABOUT IT.
We do NOT support Combs, Banuelos, Wysocky, or Carlstrom.

2 Comments

CRYSTAL BALL: The dangers of 'progressives' on Council

9/15/2012

4 Comments

Thank God we’ve had a two year reprieve from the extremist progressives on Santa Rosa’s City Council. The oppressive, anti-property rights former majority put in place our current land- use regulations which now must be undone. Wysocky and Gorin have completely sold out to the regional smartgrowth ideology that seeks to mandate that only taxpayer subsidized high-density development will take place, aka One Bay Area. By this time next year City Councils all over the Bay Area will have signed onto what our unelected MTC and ABAG boards have cooked up in consultation with ICLEI. If the progressives get the council majority back Santa Rosa will sign onto One Bay Area rescinding the development rights of most property owners in Santa Rosa.

How does it work? ABAG sets the housing numbers and the One Bay Area twenty-five year Plan requires 80% of all new housing to be built in PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS, which are pre-designated small land areas next to trains or buses, only about 4% of all land in the Bay Area is identified for this. The other 96% of land will only be allowed to accomodate the other 20% of housing over the 25 year period. If you are holding undeveloped or partially developed land in the 9 county bay area, get out now unless your land is in a PDA. Otherwise you could end up with a worthless property yet still be paying property taxes and other expenses. On top of the housing mandates, One Bay Area calls for 70% of new employment to be located within the small PDAs.

I support the loosening of regulations that continue to block the efforts of entrepreneurs who could be having a positive effect on our stuggling economy. If you stifle private development and instead impose government controlled development the economy will fail. ICLEI is promoting an international agenda which is not in the best interests of Americans. In fact, having America fail is necessary before an international government can take hold. Once you realize what the true problem is, then everything will begin to make sense. We need people in elected positions who are not afraid to look at the true picture and use whatever power they might have to preserve and protect our nation from the influence of outside forces. Vote wisely. WE DO NOT SUPPORT WYSOCKY, CARLSTROM, COMBS, OR BANUELOS.

Kay Tokerud
Steering Committee

4 Comments

Stranger than fiction: Socially correct mental illness diagnosis

9/15/2012

0 Comments

If you read that headline and guessed that you knew what this post was going to be about---you're wrong. In the 'Stranger Than Fiction' category of UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development manipulation, the Santa Rosa, California City Schools are getting a look behind the mask. Here's the beginning of the article in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat:

'Santa Rosa City Schools has run afoul of California Department of Education regulations because of an imbalance in the racial and ethnic makeup of the students in a particular special education category.

Of the 5,244 white students in the district's general education middle and high school enrollment in 2010-11, 1.4 percent were classified as emotionally disturbed. In the same year, just .4 percent of Latino students — 16 out of 4,418 — were in the same category.'

Yes, you read that right. Not enough students of color have been identified as emotionally disturbed, so the Santa Rosa School District has to pay out of general funds to 'remedy the problem.'

Social equity. Gotta love it.
Read the rest of the article here.

0 Comments

<<Previous

MONEY AND POWER AT THE CASINO

Recent Plan Bay Area speech

MAINSTREAM PRESS LIES ABOUT AGENDA 21. WHY?

PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS IN SMALL TOWNS

IT'S THE WATER

OPT OUT OF METERS

California's Prop 31 IS UN Agenda 21

Just in case you think it doesn't matter who you vote for...

CRYSTAL BALL: The dangers of 'progressives' on Council

Stranger than fiction: Socially correct mental illness diagnosis

Eyes on Santa Rosa

Archives

Categories