Veritas News – Eco-Nazi Agenda, Pt.2 Sustainable Communities

Veritas News Service Report

Contributed By: A.K. Peters & Isaiah Gallagher

06/ 23 /11

Eco-Nazi Agenda, Pt.2

Click here for part 1

Sustainable Communities

The ultimate vision for the globally managed society is what is being termed the “sustainable community”. A sustainable community is a city, town, or even a larger community that has been developed according to the standards set forth by the United Nations in Local Agenda 21. This is considered the wave of the future for development.

For a locality to be considered a sustainable community, one key element is “mixed-use development”, meaning development centered on making amenities available within the immediate area. This includes ensuring that there are available jobs for the number of people that are planned to live in a given community. The goal in mixed-use development is to keep everything a human is expected to need within walking distance. This includes work, entertainment, housing, park areas, and the like. By keeping everything within walking distance, the hope is that a reliable public transportation system will prove more than adequate for whatever travel is necessary above and beyond walking. The theory is; since cars are the primary cause for climate change, we should eliminate their private use.

The strategy for turning America (and indeed, the world) into a sustainable communisty is through the intensive use of taxes, fees, and codes. Sustainable living is considered un-attainable any other way, and major tax measures can be seen anywhere smart growth is being implemented. For example, in Victoria, British Columbia, they have adopted location-based fees as part of their “smart tax policy” to turn Victoria sustainable:

“Location-Based Fees

“The cost of providing public services such as roads, utilities, schools, emergency services tend to be lower for clustered, urban development than for more dispersed, sprawl (Land Use Evaluation). Most property taxes and fees do not reflect these location-related cost differentials, and so overcharges clustered, infill development and undercharges dispersed, exurban development. Location-based taxes and fees tends to be more equitable (it reflects the “user pays” principle) and gives consumers an incentive to choose more cost effective land use patterns.”

“Smart Tax Policies

“Some current tax policies favor suburban development over Smart Growth, by favoring lower-density development, single-family over multi-family, new construction over redevelopment of existing buildings, and development outside of urbanized areas over construction within existing urban areas (England, 2003; Slack, 2002)…

“Smart Growth tax reforms are designed to correct current tax policies that encourage sprawl, and reward more accessible, compact development, particularly to the degree that Smart Growth reduces public service costs, reduces external costs, benefits disadvantaged people, or supports other strategic planning objectives.

“Property taxes can be structured to favor more compact, infill development over sprawl in order to reflect the lower cost of providing public services within existing urban areas, the reduced per capita transport externalities generated in areas with reduced per capita vehicle travel, and strategic planning objectives such as greenspace preservation.”

This same policy of taxing to regulate behavior is being used to slowly tax any land that is designated to become wilderness, in order to make it unlivable, unprofitable, and/ or uninhabitable. The plan is to force people off their land and into a sustainable community by making it unrealistically expensive to own, farm, or live on your own private property. Grants and subsidies are used to promote “smart” development in undeveloped or abandoned areas (land recycling). It is in this way that the U.N. and Federal government, under the Wildlands project (soon to be re-named), will section America up and divide it into 1.) Federally owned “wilderness” areas, surrounded by 2.) Buffer zones of limited human activity, and 3.) Sustainable communities wherever people are allowed to live.


On June 16th, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department Of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Department for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) formed the “Partnership for Sustainable Communities”. Simply called “The Partnership”, the sole purpose of this alliance is to restructure the country piece by piece, until all of the United States is re-built completely into “Sustainable Communities”.

The Partnership for Sustainable Communities has established 6 “livability principles” which shall act as a “foundation for coordination”. These livability principles are very vague, which seems to be a common theme for the “sustainable development” movement. However, they are descriptive enough to give you sufficient pause. And so, one by one:

“Livability Principles”

“1.) Provide more transportation choices. Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health.”

What they really mean is provide a “variety of public transportation choices” (all run by the government), and the elimination of private vehicles, as discussed. The UN says that all privately owned transportation is not sustainable. And this is where I think that many of us would have to consider the consequences of such legislation. Who wouldn’t support reliable transit, if the other side of the coin wasn’t outlawed cars? However, this movement would be the end of personal transportation. What if there was an attack, or a terrible fire, and you and your family needed to evacuate. Would you run with all your things? Are you expected to take transit in emergencies? What about just “getting away?”

“2.) Promote equitable, affordable housing. Expand location- and energy-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to increase mobility and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation.”

Again, we must remember that what they are focusing on verbally is not the concern. The keywords here are “location efficient” (mixed-use development), “energy efficient” (government subsidized), “combined cost of housing” (sustainable apartment complexes), “and transportation” (did I mention this was all getting paid for with your money?)

Even the use of the term “equitable” is intentionally deceiving because it brings to mind thoughts of home equity. As we covered, personal property and homes are unsustainable, so you will never see a “home”, and you will never own any property you may inhabit (and pay for), so you will never be able to gain or lose equity ever. You will own nothing. These units will be owned by the state, or some other government sponsored corporation. However, the one bright spot in our lives that will come from these housing units – and it is almost worth applauding the EPA for accomplishing it – these units will… save energy!

Now that none of us have to pay for it… Oh wait, we would all be paying for it in taxes.

“3.) Enhance economic competitiveness. Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services and other basic needs by workers, as well as expanded business access to markets.”

As was outlined earlier, the goal is to make the have available work within walking distance from their hovel. They call this “economic competitiveness”, because it will keep everyone in town with a guaranteed job. Additionally, it is expected that the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and development programs will be consolidated into a single “economic security council”, which will (supposedly) provide a substantial amount of U.N. Monopoly money for the working class slaves to buy their basic necessities with.

How can something be competitive when it has guaranteed outcomes?

“4.) Support existing communities. Target federal funding toward existing communities—through strategies like transit oriented, mixed-use development, and land recycling—to increase community revitalization and the efficiency of public works investments and safeguard rural landscapes.”

As we can see, the EPA’s idea of a re-vitalized community is a community that has become sustainable. In their minds, unless a city is re-vamped according to their version of sustainable, it is a hell hole of private use. The only vital city is a sustainable city.

There is a clear plan of attack outlined in this “principle”. The Partnership targets federal tax dollars on development in “existing communities”, and that means your community. When they say support, they are really referring to their intention to spend our federal tax dollars on subsidies to businesses and grants to NGOs and other foundations for the expressed purpose of building existing communities like yours and mine into sustainable communities. This is why we all need to get involved in this. It is happening right now.

This principle outlines their intention to focus on public transit “re-vitalization”. When the Partnership says that they are focusing their efforts on “transit oriented” strategies, they are referring to re-vamping our existing transit systems into more streamlined systems, all ultimately guided by the DOT; Federally authorized transit.

The term Land recycling means the buying up and re-purposing of any existing land that could be re-developed into a mixed-use sustainable community. This is happening with any under used land such as abandoned where houses and factories to undeveloped lots.

Safeguard rural landscapes should speak for itself. However, in case you missed the point, we are all re-organizing our societies for the sake of the untouched wilderness.

“5.) Coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment. Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding, and increase the accountability and effectiveness of all levels of government to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices such as locally generated renewable energy”

The usual barriers to collaboration are the people whose homes and lives are planted sfficiently in the ground wherever sustainable development is being adopted. In the classic local planning process, endless meetings would follow endless meetings to ultimately come to conclusions that were of little or no consequence. Local processes are being actively subverted in order to prevent this sort of “gridlock”. By using funding (taxes) the Partnership can add the necessary incentive to build or re-develop, or they can invest in foundations and NGOs.

“6.) Value communities and neighborhoods. Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing in healthy, safe, and walkable neighborhoods—rural, urban, or suburban.”

There will be three different versions of the sustainable communities. There will be common and recognizable community themes such as rural, urban, and suburban. Price brackets and designs will range from high end, mid range, and of course low income. The price will, of course, be location appropriate, but that will not matter since the jobs will be location specific as well. All the CEOs can live and work in the mountains while the rabble can work in the environmentally friendly apartments and townhouses. Plastic Utopia.


The first thing that we need to all start doing is getting familiar with our local officials, agencies, and governments. Unlike many other national takeovers, Sustainable Development is happening on the ground floor, county by county. This means that you can and do have the opportunity to stop this in its tracks right where you live.

But what do I do? Many of us are intimidated by our own lack of familiarity with the civil process, and don’t want to get caught off guard or waste a good opportunity. The good news, ladies and gentlemen, is that there is a process built right into the legal language of the very environmental programs that are geared toward protection.

There is a process called “COORDINATION”, which is REQUIRED by many Federal agencies, including the EPA. This is a very specific process which puts local governments at an equal footing with the Federal government. To simplify this process, let’s look at the definitions, specifically at how coordination differs from “consultation”, or “cooperation”. “COORDINATION” implies two (or more) equal parties organizing their efforts together toward a common goal. Only equals can coordinate efforts.

This becomes clearer as we look at “consultation”. An agency, or an individual, can consult with another party about a given goal. However, in consultation, there is no necessity to use the input of the other party at all. I may choose to consult with a friend of mine about whether or not I should get a new car, but ultimately, it is my decision. In the same way, an agency, corporation, or other party may choose to go to a consultant for advice, but needs not follow it. In like kind, a Federal agency may choose to consult with local governments and private citizens about a given agenda, but can also choose to simply file away said concerns without having to show what was suggested by whom, how they used the input of parties, or if they didn’t, showing why they didn’t use input.

Furthermore, there is the term “cooperation”. It is not necessary that two parties be equal to cooperate. Anyone can cooperate with a given process without giving their consent to it. I can have a gun pointed to my head and choose to cooperate, whether or not I want to.

In stark contrast to these terms is “coordination”. Coordination can only be accomplished between two or more equal parties coordinating their efforts. This is crucial, and is one of the most effective ways that local governments are protecting themselves from LA21. Many Federal agencies are aware of their coordination requirements, although they may try and trick you and your local officials into a cooperative, or a consultative role. Do not fall for it. While the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land, this is still America.

America is about local control, and the protection of individual rights for all of us. There is so much precedent for the power of local government, it is astonishing. We only need to use it. Many of us are overcoming our fears of local officials for the greater good. Please, join us in this fight. You need not fight the same battles, but you must fight. The most effective way to stop Sustainable Development is to start locally, before it’s too late.


And so, in accordance with the first installment, here are few choice quotes from the great Bastiat, and his masterpiece “The Law”, a must read for anyone:

“…Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

“But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder…”

“…Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple, which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder…”

“…This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

1. The few plunder the many.

2. Everybody plunders everybody.

3. Nobody plunders anybody.

“We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.

“Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.

“Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.

“No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate)…

“…Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

“We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain…”

“…This must be said: There are too many “great” men in the world — legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.

“Now someone will say: “You yourself are doing this very thing.” True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to study and admire…”

“…God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! A way with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

“And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.”

– Frederic Bastiat – “The Law”; 1850

Original artikel

Click here for part 3

Dit bericht is geplaatst in Veritas Nieuws Service met de tags . Bookmark de permalink.

Geef een reactie

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *