SANTA  ROSA  NEIGHBORHOOD  COALITION
  • HOME
    • Contact Us!
  • LAWSUIT AGAINST PLAN BAY AREA
    • PLAN BAY AREA
  • Watch SR Blog
  • VIDEO AND SMEAR
  • SRNC: Success
  • READ NOW
  • HUMBOLDT BIKE BLVD--FINAL
    • HUMBOLDT BIKE BLVD >
      • HUMBOLDT BIKE BLVD LETTERS
  • Green Building
    • Updates for Green Bldg Retrofit Plan
  • Sonoma County Energy Independence Boondoggle
  • Michael Allen & FPPC
    • DOCUMENTATION FOR FPPC COMPLAINT
    • Michael Allen and SCWA
    • Michael Allen: Comments
    • MICHAEL ALLEN: PLAGIARISM CHARGE
  • DELPHI
    • Delphi: What you can do
    • Santa Rosa Visions
  • Senator Wiggins Scandal
  • Juilliard Park
  • Rosa Koire & Kay Tokerud
    • Simon says Build Me A Parking Garage

OUR FIGHT AGAINST PLAN BAY AREA

3/18/2014

0 Comments

 
FROM OUR LAWSUIT PENDING AGAINST MTC/ABAG:
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. 

0 Comments

HISTORIC LAWSUIT TO STOP ONEBAYAREA

4/11/2013

0 Comments

 
GOT PROPERTY RIGHTS?  NOT UNDER PLAN BAY AREA/ONE 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.
0 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

TOWNS ARE FIGHTING BACK

6/6/2012

0 Comments

 
Hi Rosa:

Here in Great Falls, MT last night we defeated a proposal to adopt the "Complete Streets" idiocy package. I feel that your website was instrumental in giving us the ammunition that we needed to do the job. Thanks!!!

Mike Lewis

PS:
I graduated from Santa Rosa High so I know that town pretty good. 

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/
0 Comments

Got Gas?

6/3/2012

0 Comments

 
Take a look at the Climate Action Plan about to be passed by the Santa Rosa City Council on Tuesday, June 5.

We dare you.

One thing you'll find is that you'll be 'incentivized' to get rid of your gas appliances and 'switch' to electric.  Here's what Kay Tokerud had to say about it in the Santa Rosa PD blog:
I read through Santa Rosa’s Climate Action Plan that goes before the city council at their next meeting. What jumped out at me was a recommendation and/or mandate that all gas appliances be changed to electrical appliances. That would include cook stoves, furnaces, dryers and water heaters. This one piece of their plan could run households or businesses thousands of dollars to make this change including the necessary electrical service changes which would be required whenever anything electrical is added to an existing system. This could easily add up to over ten thousand dollars.
This plan has Electrical Unions written all over it. Electricians would get a lot of work. Only in Sonoma County/Santa Rosa would the government try to force people to do very expensive changes to switch to a much more costly fuel to power their homes. Michael Allen received the maximum amount allowable from every electrical union in California in his last race for Assembly. This requirement has Michael Allen written all over it.  He ought to make this a campaign disclosure now that he's running again... he should keep running over the state line.

And to top things off, this recommendation is coming at the same time that Sonoma County wants to set up their own green power company. Natural gas is very plentiful, cheap and clean burning. It’s unbelievable the amount of contempt that our elected officials appear to have for their constituents when they would try to make us switch to a much more expensive power source for our homes and businesses.

Michael Allen has been lobbying for mandates for a few years now, first it was mandatory inspections and retrofits for Santa Rosa  (our group successfully pushed back on this), then he was involved in another bill, SB730 when he worked for State Senator Pat Wiggins that failed that would have essentially forced every building owner to put in solar hot water, and now he’s very likely involved in this climate action plan in some way.

Michael Allen is a union rep and will represent his unions over the general public every time. Maybe it’s time to investigate his activities again. The last time he ended up paying a fine to the Fair Political Practices Commission for serious conflicts of interest. Why would anyone want to vote for him?  Will you?

VOICE YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE Climate Action Plan -- GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.  TUESDAY JUNE 5.  4 PM.  BE THERE.  SPEAK OUT.

0 Comments

Who cares what it costs?

5/1/2012

0 Comments

 
On April 10 the Sonoma County Water Agency voted unanimously to take the next steps toward Sonoma Clean Power, a local program that buys and generates electricity for business and residents. The Board voted to pursue the creation of a Joint Powers Authority that would govern the program, and to produce the program’s Implementation Plan laying out the details of how Sonoma Clean Power will work. Once complete, the Implementation Plan will be submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission to establish Sonoma Clean Power as a local electricity provider. 


Yes, that's right.  Sonoma County Water Agency, the same agency that has raised your water bills through the roof over the last 3 years, will be in the business of 'buying and generating power.'    No limit to what they can charge you.

This is UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.
0 Comments

It's everywhere. Alaska to Florida, Maine to Hawaii

4/24/2012

1 Comment

 

A letter we just received:
I am president of the Eastside Pioneers Neighborhood Association in Rochester MN. I have been reading over your website regarding your struggles with Agenda 21 driven initiatives. We are having the same problems. We have been at the receiving end of the Delphi technique and are also experiencing their current efforts to deal with an upstart organization objecting to their agenda. Right now Agenda 21 proponents are trying to pass some crazy and confusing parking and zoning restrictions that would coincide with their downtown master plan. The city and county plans are riddled with plans to increase the densities in the downtown area, including downtown neighborhoods, which we are one. They also want to restrict car use, narrow the roads, increase dependence on mass transit and create more livable walkable communities. They are placing a heavy emphasis on bicycling and pouring money into bicycle trails and bridges. Social engineering to the max. We are in Minnesota. Usually we are covered with snow and ice late October through March. These Agenda 21 people are idiots. Anyway your website has a lot of good information. I appreciate it Thank you very much. We could use all the help we can get. I will stay in touch if it is okay 
1 Comment

ONE BAY AREA: BAY OF TRICKS

2/15/2012

0 Comments

 
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS ATTEMPTS TO MEET SECRETLY WITH ACTIVISTS
If you've been following our actions at the ONE BAY AREA meetings with other groups, including East Bay Tea Party, 9-12 groups, property rights groups, and other Tea Parties, you know that we have deeply upset the game the Government (Association of Bay Area Governments--ABAG, and Metropolitan Transportation Commission--MTC in league with their public/private partners, Silicon Valley Partnership and Greenbelt Alliance) is playing.  The Delphi game is to pretend, and get you to believe, that your input is solicited to craft the plan when in fact it is already set up before you show up.  This is a Regional Plan, a stepping stone to Mega Regions and then to Global Government.  We haven't been going along to get along.


So out of the hundreds of people who attended their 'workshops,' in the 9 county Bay Area, out of the 7.5 million people in the Bay Area who would have questions about this plan if they knew about it, just four of us have been invited to a private meeting with ABAG-MTC.

Who are we?  Heather Gass, East Bay Tea Party Leader; Mimi Steel, 9-12 Leader; Carol Tomlinson, Tea Party Leader; and me.

Here's the email they sent:
Ms. Koire:
 
The Executive Directors of MTC and ABAG are extending an invitation to meet with them at the MetroCenter to discuss issues and matters brought up at the Winter 2012 PlanBayArea workshops. There are three possible meeting times - one will be selected based on availability of invitees. Please reply to accept the invitation and indicate your preferred meeting date.
 
Thursday, Feb 16, between 1:00 pm and 2:00 pm
Friday, Feb 17, between 3:00 pm and 5:00 pm
Friday, 3/2/12, between 9:00 am 11:00 am
 
regards,
JoAnna Bullock
Senior Grant Administrator, Urban Planner
 
JoAnna Bullock JoAnnaB@abag.ca.gov 
 
Association of Bay Area Governments
MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA  94607
       
  
I had been checking into the American Planning Association propaganda and saw that they have now put out a seminar on how to handle us.  That's you and me. So this is what I sent back:
 
You must have gotten this guide from the APA.

"Preparation
Second, be proactive
 Reach out to groups likely to oppose
 Request a meeting with them to listen to 
concerns and ideas
 Do not try to change their minds –collect 
their input
 Encourage them to provide you with 
materials (books, websites, etc.)

 Research local activist networks"


But Heather wanted to get more information.  I'm glad she did.  Here's her exchange:
Ms. Bullock,

I have several questions about this invitation that need to be cleared up before I consider attending.  Will this be a publicly noticed meeting subject the Brown Act and open to the public, Executive Session or an informal (private) meeting not subject to the Brown Act?  Who are the invitees? Is this open to the public or to just a handful of people? Which MTC/ABAG Executive Directors will be in attendance? Also, I am unclear as to the purpose of this meeting? What “Issues and Matters” will be discussed. I would like an agenda for the meeting.

Heather Gass

 -------------
Ms. Gass,
 
This is a invitation to meet informally with the executive director of MTC, Steve Hemminger and the executive director of ABAG, Ezra Rapport. The invitation was extended to the following attendees of the PBA public workshops:
Carol Thomlison
Rosa Koire
Mimi Steele
This will be an informal meeting, not a public meeting - no elected officials will be present so it is not subject to the Brown Act. The purpose of the meeting is to provide an opportunity to those that expressed issues and dissent at the PBA workshops to speak directly with the executive directors. The executive directors prefer no agenda - this is opportunity for open dialogue.
 
regards,
JoAnna Bullock
Senior Grant Administrator, Urban Planner



How bout that, folks?  Now they want an 'open dialogue' outside of the eyes and ears of the public and for the sole purpose of finding out about us.
      FORGET ABOUT IT.  
      NO GOOD GERMANS.
0 Comments

ONE BAY AREA, ONE REGION, ONE GLOBAL DICTATORSHIP?

1/24/2012

1 Comment

 
PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO YOUR EMAIL LISTS--It's important.

THIS IS WHAT A REVOLUTION LOOKS LIKE

You are witnessing a plan that is being implemented all across the United States NOW.  It has many names but it's the same plan. UN AGENDA 21/SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: Sustainable  Cities Strategy. It is a regional plan that creates unelected boards of elected officials who are engaged in erasing the boundaries between cities, counties, and states.  You are losing your ability to influence your government policies at the same time that you are being solicited for your opinion. It's a tactic to silence you. This is the Delphi method of manipulating groups and controlling populations that may protest. By 2050, or sooner, there will be 11 Mega-Regions in the United States that include parts of Mexico and Canada.  This is not a delusional rant.  This is a fact.  Go to www.America2050.org 

What are these plans called?  Your government is using similar names for all of these plans and they are all the same: Regional.  They are being rolled out NOW.  The adoption date is MID-2013.  ALL OVER THE US.  Most of us are unaware that the plan we are fighting is the same plan, with minor variations, being imposed in the name of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, expanding public transportation, and funding low-income housing.  All plans include Smart Growth--high density housing with restrictions on personal space and car usage.  All plans support high speed trains--the building block of Mega-Regions.  All plans give power to regional transportation and planning boards (MPOs and COGs) through federal and state fund disbursements.  In all plans housing and transportation are now linked.  In all plans population projections are hugely inflated.  All plans will go forward as planned regardless of your input.  This is a planning revolution.

Here are just a few places around the country using the word "VISION" a UN Agenda 21 buzz word.  There are many others with similar names using the sustainability jargon. These are just a few of the thousands in the US and around the world (for example, the Hanoi Center Regional Plan is exactly the same)
  • One Valley One Vision (you'll find this in Santa Clarita Valley, CA; Montana; and Dona Ana County/Las Cruces New Mexico
  • Nine Counties, One Vision (Tennessee)
  • One Region One Vision (New York, Indiana)
  • Our Florida Our Vision
  • One Bay Area (SF Bay Area--9 counties)
  • Six Towns One Vision (Lycoming County)
  • Five Counties One Vision (Minnesota)
  • Four States One Vision (Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas)
We need to use civil disobedience.  Refuse to accept these plans.  They are not YOUR plan.  They are destroying your cities.  This is UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.  Educate yourself and others.  This is war.  Join us at Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 in fighting for our freedom. 

Not on our watch.  
Awareness is the first step in the Resistance.  
Action is the second step.


  • DEMAND THAT SANTA ROSA TERMINATE ITS MEMBERSHIP IN ICLEI--International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
1 Comment

NEAR RIOT AT DELPHI MEETING IN SANTA ROSA

1/11/2012

2 Comments

 
Please refer to my following post (1/09/12) for the set up on this story.  VIDEO UP ON OUR VIDEO PAGE.

Two nights ago about 50 citizen activists turned a ONE BAY AREA public Delphi meeting in Santa Rosa, CA upside down.  WE REFUSED TO BE GOOD GERMANS.
 
What happened?  We spoke out, video'd (video is on our 'Videos' page), entered the meeting without signing in, refused to be railroaded, continually corrected the government/consultant lies and called them out, did not participate in the phony 'voting', did not give our names to the establishment press, brought in cameras and signs, flyered warning the organizers not to violate the open meeting laws, and did not get arrested although police were called. We exercised our rights as Americans. 

BUT, we can learn from this video---we need to do more civil disobedience than was exhibited by this brave group.  If you sit passively the facilitators will assume you agree with the plan.  If you show up, SPEAK UP: Do Not Sit Passively.  Hold Up Signs.  Get out of your comfort zone.  This is no time to go along to get along, or to sit quietly. 

Who are we?  A coalition of independent citizens from all over the SF Bay Area, Democrats, Property Rights Advocates, Tea Party members, Republicans, Libertarians, non-affiliated Independents---brave Americans standing together to resist tyranny.

What is ONE BAY AREA?  A regional plan to direct federal and state transportation dollars over the next 25 years to specific cities that have agreed to ONLY approve smart growth and ONLY approve it in limited pre-designated areas of just a few towns in the entire San Francisco Bay Area. Using ridiculously inflated population projections, ONE BAY AREA states that future housing must designed in one of their 'approved' smart growth models and developed in a Priority Development Area.  What is that?  A Priority Development Area (PDA) is a so-called transportation corridor---usually a busy street with a bus line or near a proposed train station.  This PDA can be as small as a half-block or as large as a square mile.  All of the projected new population for the next 25 years will be accommodated by housing within this designated area.  No other housing developments will be approved for the next 25 years---or the city will not get their piece of the transportation funding.  We're talking about 200 Billion dollars of federal and state transportation dollars for the SF Bay Area over the 25 year term. 

Do you see what this will do to property values outside of the specific PDA's?  It will destroy them.  Do you see what this does to individual cities?  It destroys their sovereignty.  ONE BAY AREA is a regional plan that breaks down boundaries and pushes UN Agenda 21.  Northern California is one of 11 Mega Regions in the US.  It includes 31 counties, 48,000 square miles, 15 million people, and part of TWO STATES--California and NEVADA.  Do you see how this happens?  We thought we had 50 states, but now we have ELEVEN MEGA REGIONS.  Using transportation dollars, grants, legislation (SB 375 & AB 32 in California), and pressure, your government is destroying your ability to be self-determining.

Video is up now on our  site (video page) and on YouTube. Watch it and USE IT.  We guarantee you that you'll have a chance real soon.
2 Comments
<<Previous

    Eyes on Santa Rosa

    Calling it as we see it

    Archives

    May 2016
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2014
    May 2014
    March 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    August 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010

    Categories

    All
    Accountable Development Coalition
    Communitarianism
    Iclei
    Michael Allen
    Neighborhood Associations
    Neighborhood Information
    One Bay Area
    Redevelopment
    Smart Growth
    Smart Train
    Unions

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.