San Francisco Libertarian Discussion
Over the past few years I and many others in the Bay Area have been
fighting against a plan that will socially reengineer our lives referred to
as the One Bay Area Plan. It will transform the lives of over 9 million
people and towns in 9 counties over the next 25 to 30 years into high
density stack and pack housing next to mass transit all in the name of
saving the planet and reducing GHGs (Green House Gases). Private property
outside of city and county urban limit lines will be highly restricted
and/or off limits as part of the first ever statewide re-wilding and
corridor system in California is created. The crazy thing is no one seems
to know about it. Bay Area residents and taxpayers have been kept out of
the process. Most have never heard of the regional unelected bodies pushing
these plans or the legislation we are now being asked to follow, but all
will be affected by it in some way in the near future.
Although I will be focusing on the regional plan in the Bay Area this is
happening all over the state and country under different names so don’t
feel left out. I have done thousands of hours of research over the past few
years and discovered the genesis of these plans and who is behind it. I am
hoping that by providing the historical timeline and links to back up my
findings that it will be clear that these plans are were not being pushed
by the people of the Bay Area, the local municipalities or by state level
mandates. These plans were hatched long before the state legislation was
enacted by a small group of NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations),
stakeholders, foundations and regional unelected bodies funded with tax
payer money.
There are three main pieces of legislation that are being followed in
California to complete the transformation and socially re-engineer our
lives; SB375 <http://tinyurl.com/a5uztc> (2008 Sustainable Communities
Strategy), AB32<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf>(2006
Global Warming Act) and AB2785
(2010 California Essential Habitat Connectivity
Map)<http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/connectivity>
. All of these bills were signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger. The
global warming bill calls for a reduction in GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020.
The SB375 bill links land use to transportation and specifies the majority
of future construction be compact, high density, low income housing next to
mass transit in order to force Californians out of their cars and single
family homes to ostensibly reduce GHGs. AB2785 identifies (maps) an animal
and vegetation corridor system throughout California, connecting large
blocks of government regulated land through private property that must be
taken in some way to complete the California Wildlands corridors. This
map<http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/connectivity/>is most egregious in
that it
casually illustrates (with a sliding scale of less to more cost) how much
it would cost our government (in terms of dollars, conservation easements,
eminent domain, zoning to open space, etc) to take the land from private
individuals in order to complete this map. California planning
organizations are expected to use it in their planning for land use and
transportation process. What people don’t realize is that this map is NOT
about preserving land (Open Space) for the animals and plants. These land
masses that are being set aside are being incorporated into giant land
trusts for the purpose of selling carbon credits in the trillion dollar Cap
n’ Trade scheme <http://www.kerntaxpayers.org/ab-32/post/1962142> that
recently started in this state. A few large land trusts and foundations
will be the beneficiaries of this giant piggy bank. Here’s a list of land
banks (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/conplan/mitbank/catalogue/). The CARB
board will be giving many of the credits away to preferred corporations and
to entice cooperation in the program. This is a fraudulent pay to play
scheme and giant land grab not an environmental initiative.
The few, regular citizens, who have found out about the One Bay Area plan
were horrified and attended workshops and hearings in an attempt to stop
this plan from being adopted. Where did this plan come from? And why are
unelected regional agencies dictating how and where the people of the Bay
Area will live in the future?
Over the years the two main bodies pushing this plan MTC (Metropolitan
Transportation Commission) and ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments)
have pointed the blame at either local jurisdictions or at state
legislators as the responsible parties for this plan. At times they claimed
this was an organic, bottom up plan that the local municipalities want and
were asking them to implement. Then on other occasions they claimed they
were only following state level mandates and that if we had a problem with
this plan we should be taking it up with the legislators who voted for the
bills. The truth is ABAG and MTC were behind this plan way before the
legislation was enacted and have been quietly involved in the forming of
this plan for almost 20 years and if you include international connections
it is even longer (See U.C. Berkeley PhD. Judith Innes White
Paper)<http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/39269/1/513251170.pdf>.
ABAG led the effort and along with other agencies they engaged in backroom
secret meetings, formed international alliances, regional compacts with
stakeholders and NGOs in an effort to reach their goal of transforming our
cities and towns into the United Nations vision of Sustainable Communities
ultimately leading to the passage of AB32 (2006), SB375 (2008) and AB2785
(2010) legislation that codified this agenda in California. The following
timeline will illustrate how this so-called regional plan came about and
who is behind it. You will learn, as I did, that this plan is not a
grassroots effort and was not originated at the state level. It is an
international plan from the United Nations and is referred to globally
as Agenda21
Sustainable Development<http://www.un.org/en/development/progareas/dsd.shtml>.
These regional agencies are unconstitutional and the elected officials
appointed to them have in my opinion violated Article 1, Section 10 of the
U.S. Constitution by joining an international alliance with ICLEI and
should be at the very least investigated and/or abolished.
I have included links throughout so you can check the facts for yourself.
This plan is being duplicated all over the country and the world, but the
Bay Area is one of the four initial pilot programs within the U.S. The
pilot areas were Denver, Atlanta, Chicago and the Bay Area. In my research
I found a white paper about the Bay Area Alliance written by Judith Innes a
PhD from UC Berkeley (white paper “Getting Serious about the Three
E’s”).<http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/39269/1/513251170.pdf>
She followed the alliance process from 2004 to 2007 and validates my
findings. She points out how flawed the process was with virtually no
experts being used to prepare data and reports and how the stakeholder
workshops were misleading and outcomes were controlled and predetermined.
*1987 *– The term “Sustainable Development” was adopted at the
BrundtlandCommission meeting in 1987 as part of the “Our
Common Future” outcome document <http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm>.
The official definition of Sustainable Development is “development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.” The term Sustainable Development
encompasses three main principles; Equity, Environment and Economy. Economy
is the key word used to describe replacing free market principles with PPPs
(Public Private Partnerships). The Environment is used as catalyst for
change and Equity describes the social and environmental justice and the
redistribution of wealth. Not equal justice. Social equity is the driving
factor to alter the function of law to impose social requirements replacing
individual rights.
*1990 *-The United Nations accredited NGO (Non-Governmental
Organization) ICLEI (International Council for Local and Environmental
Initiatives) was founded in order to establish Agenda 21 campaigns
throughout the globe. The ICLEI
Charter/Constitution<http://www.iclei-europe.org/fileadmin/templates/iclei-europe/files/content/Membership/ICLEI_Charter/ICLEI_Charter_2011-Final.pdf>defines
a world congress of mayors and elected officials working together
with ICLEI serving as the international agent representing the members of
the world congress throughout the globe. ICLEI serves as liaison between
local governments and international governments. ICLEI members pay dues and
must explicitly adopt the ICLEI Constitution which follows the 16
principles of the Earth
Charter<http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html>and
a model of global
governance<http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/categories/United%20Nations%20and%20Global%20Governance>.
This international membership by cities and counties violates Article 1,
Section 10 of the United States
Constitution<http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm>“No
State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation… with a
foreign power”. The ICLEI headquarters in North America is in Oakland,
Ca. Assemblywoman
Nancy Skinner founded ICLEI USA <http://keywiki.org/index.php/Nancy_Skinner>.
ICLEI is responsible for injecting international climate, land use and
other policies into local governments. Many cities, counties and regional
bodies across the country are contracting with ICLEI.
*1992 *-UN Agenda21 Earth
Summit<http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html>hosted by Maurice
Strong <http://keywiki.org/index.php/Maurice_Strong> was held in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. At this summit the term sustainable development was
adopted as part of the global Agenda21 campaign. 178 nations pledged their
support for Agenda21. President George Bush, Sr. signed on to this for the
U.S. Although this is technically a non-binding soft law, since Congress
did not ratify it, Agenda21 and Sustainable Development have been
incorporated into every aspect of our government through Executive Orders,
the EPA, ICLEI and other regulatory agencies, bodies, boards and
commissions. (See also video: Nancy Pelosi sponsored H.Con.Res. 353 on
Sustainable Development.)<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUBwIJWH7ew&feature=player_embedded#!>
*1993 * -President Clinton signs Executive Order
12852<http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Charter/>creating the President’s
Council for Sustainable Development affectively
bypassing Congressional approval of Agenda21. This council was tasked with
injecting Sustainable Development and Agenda21 into all levels of our
government nationwide.
*1996 * - Richard Clarke, retired Chairman and CEO of PG&E and Michele
Perrault, International V.P. of the Sierra club (both members of the
President’s Council for Sustainable
Development<http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/Members/index.html>)
present the idea of a regional sustainable development initiative to the
ABAG general assembly and to other NGO’s and stakeholder groups.
*- *David Early, Urban Ecology publishes the Draft *Blueprint for a
Sustainable Bay Area* <http://www.urbanecology.org/blueprint.htm>— The Final
Plan (1999) is the basis for the One Bay Area Plan.
*1997 *– ABAG and several dozen NGOs around the Bay Area sign a Compact
forming the BAASC (Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Communities) (See Compact
for Sustainable Bay Area <http://www.bayareaalliance.org/compact.pdf>).
This document specifically states that MTC and ABAG as well as other groups
joined forces to implement a regional plan for a Sustainable Bay Area. The
document states “It is founded on the principle of the Three Es of
Sustainable Development – prosperous Economy, quality Environment, and
social Equity.” It also states “The Bay Area Alliance adopted the
definition of sustainable development endorsed by the United Nations’ World
Commission on Environment and Development.” And goes on to clearly point
out “The Bay Area Alliance also operates within an international context.
The Earth Charter Initiative (www.earth-charter.org) is an outgrowth of the
1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and has many principles similar to the
visions and commitments contained in this Compact.” Sunne
McPeakrepresented the Business (Economy) side of the Alliance.
Sunne McPeak also served on the ABAG board, Bay Area Council and she
oversaw the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Department of
Housing and Community Development, the California Housing Finance Agency,
the Department of Real Estate and many others. She was a key player in
pushing the SB375 legislation behind the One Bay Area plan.
*1999 *– Five regional agencies MTC, ABAG, BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality
Management District), BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission)
and RWQCD (Regional Water Quality Control Board) were working on Smart
Growth Strategies
- The BAASC (Bay Area Alliance for Sustainability
Communities)<http://www.bayareaalliance.org/members.html>plans
“Regional
Livability Footprint”
<http://www.bayareaalliance.org/smartgrowth.html>Project a preferred
land use pattern that dictated where development could
occur in the Bay Area
- These two groups merged creating the Smart Growth
Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint
Project<http://www.bayareaalliance.org/smartgrowth.html>
- The Bay Area region and the BAASC were selected as one of four
regional pilots in the nation by the Partnership for Regional
Livability<http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/report2knew.pdf>,
a consortium of major foundations and federal agencies dedicated to
advancing sustainable development and smart growth.
– “Final Blueprint for a Sustainable Bay Area” is prepared by
David Early of Urban Ecology (one of the original stakeholders in the
Alliance). David Early also founded DCE Planning, which currently consults
with local cities and counties to ensure the implementation of the plan
locally.
*2000* – Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg launched
SCOR<http://calregions.urbaninsight.com/projects/enews-vIi5.html>(Speaker’s
Commission on Regionalism) to promote regionalism and
collaboration across California. Sunne McPeak representing the Bay Area
Council and many of the BAASC, NGOs and stakeholders were part of this new
group. The main purpose was to push for legislation institutionalizing
regionalism throughout California. Sunne McPeak was also the ABAG
President.
*2001* – First Round of stakeholder workshops (approximately 1000
participants) from all 9 Bay Area counties. These meetings were mostly
attended by ABAG and MTC officials, planners, developers and social /
environmental justice advocates who were stakeholders in the BAASC.
*2002* – Second Round of stakeholder workshops (approx. 1000 participants).
Three Regional Scenarios are proposed (Central Cities, Network of
Neighborhoods and Smarter Suburbs). The preferred scenario was Network of
Neighborhoods. ABAG develops policy-based projections using the Smart
Growth Scenario as a starting point.
- Publication of “Shaping Our Future” was the result of this
coalition.
*2003* –ABAG Executive Board adopts policy-based projections. Abandoning
the trends based projection model used in the past. This approach forces
development to occur based on the preferred land use and transportation
scenario. MTC’s RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) is based on ABAG’s
projections.
*2005*– Governor Schwarzenegger passes Executive Order
S-3-05<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/energy/ExecOrderS-3-05.htm>to reduce
GHGs in California to 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050.