Monday, October 29, 2012

Agenda 21, "So What" You Might Say

Richardson is a member of the U.N. Agenda 21 community. This has gone unnoticed by most people. In the comments section JM reminded me about this. So I figured I would do some reading on it.

As a general rule, if a mandate come from the U.N., it is not good for the U.S. and its citizens. While many of the goals of Agenda 21 are good, the U.N. should have exactly zero control over the U.S. or any of its citizens. The citizens and the government of the citizenry is governed by the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the U.S. which are supposed to be based solely on the U.S. Constitution. No other law should come before the Constitution, even laws or taxes which the U.N. might try and enact and impose upon us.

It seems that through Agenda 21 the U.N. wants to change many things including making the U.S. citizens answerable to something other than the constitution. They seem to want to do this through federal, state and local levels. For some metro areas, they also seem to want regional governments or agencies setup. When reading the text of the Agenda 21 item 7.14 kind of jumps out and gets my attention.  

“7.14. Some metropolitan areas extend over the boundaries of several political and/or administrative entities (counties and municipalities) even though they conform to a continuous urban system. In many cases this political heterogeneity hinders the implementation of comprehensive environmental management programmes.”

That raises a question in my mind about how the U.N. might try using some of the multi-jurisdictional districts to help facilitate implementing their desires.  Some of those districts could include NTCCOG, DART, NTMWD and others. Could that be happening right now and you not even knowing it? Think of some of the code words that would mesh with Agenda 21 rather nicely, like for instance, high density living and mixed use zoning.

Most local government income comes from property taxes and some of the idea contained in Agenda 21 has the potential to reduce the tax base. Years ago, there was little between Dallas, Richardson, Plano Allen and McKinney other than farm land. Now it seems to be mostly urban sprawl. Agenda 21 7.18 makes reference to this.

“7.18. In order to relieve pressure on large urban agglomerations of developing countries, policies and strategies should be implemented towards the development of intermediate cities that create employment opportunities for unemployed labour in the rural areas and support rural-based economic activities, although sound urban management is essential to ensure that urban sprawl does not expand resource degradation over an ever wider land area and increase pressures to convert open space and agricultural/buffer lands for development.

I would bet the local governments would probably not much like the idea of the U.N. trying to limit increasing the taxable value of property and making the most of what they have to work with. But you never know for sure. There are enough nuts around who would prefer to stack and pack people into high density apartments rather than let the land fill up with single family homes. For those who prefer the “stack ‘em and pack ‘em” mentality, there are places like NY City. Section 7.20 is full of nuggets to get the blood pumping.

But, that seems to be exactly what the Agenda 21 is about. Section 7.27 encourages few single family homes.

“7.28. The objective is to provide for the land requirements of human settlement development through environmentally sound physical planning and land use so as to ensure access to land to all households and, where appropriate, the encouragement of communally and collectively owned and managed land. 6/ Particular attention should be paid to the needs of women and indigenous people for economic and cultural reasons.”

Probably the most disturbing thing about Agenda 21 would be how to finance it. No doubt, the countries that have the best economies will be expected to pay the most. Section 33.11 ( ) lays this idea out.

“33.11. The objectives are as follows:
(a) To establish measures concerning financial resources and mechanisms for the implementation of Agenda 21;
(b) To provide new and additional financial resources that are both adequate and predictable;
(c) To seek full use and continuing qualitative improvement of funding mechanisms to be utilized for the implementation of Agenda 21.”

Just in case you missed the point, the U.N. seems to wants to create new taxes to provide the financial support for their desires.

Now if you don’t mind one world government, no private property, taxes until the ends times, stack ‘em and pack ‘em type living conditions, you will probably be a supporter of Agenda 21.

If you value private property rights and taxation with representation, you probably will not like Agenda 21.

So, if the U.N. wants to make suggestions, I might listen and they are free to suggest, but nothing more than that.


No comments:

Post a Comment