Excellent synopsis of Agenda 21 and corresponding rules and regulations that all lead us to less private property rights and more government. This fellow is a member of a local A-21 committee and this is a very illuminating and astute piece.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a follow up on my views on Agenda 21 and ICLEI. Feel free to share this with anyone you like.
For the last two years I've watched with great interest the growth of concern over Agenda 21. I've tried to understand why it has attracted so much attention now, considering it was adopted 20 years ago, yet for the last 20 or 30 years the efforts of property rights organizations and experts at think tanks have been much less effective at raising concern over similar abuses. One difference now is simply the timing--the "sleeping giant" is waking up. Additionally, after employing Urban Planning principles for more than two decades, the high cost and poor results are more evident now than ever. However, neither of these points explains why focusing on Agenda 21 appears to be more effective than other "threats" at motivating people to finally get involved and take action. I've asked many people why Agenda 21 has captured their interest and in most cases they reply that they don't want the UN and other countries deciding what we should be doing here in the US. So I believe one motivator is the awareness that Agenda 21 policies constitute a threat to sovereign control of United States citizens. This would imply that people are more willing to accept abuses to property rights, unfairness, and the high cost of intrusive regulations, as long as we are responsible for these bad policies ourselves.
However, I think there is another explanation, which is perhaps even more significant. In the past all these many threats to property rights seemed like separate uncoordinated actions, yet Agenda 21 reveals there has been a "blueprint" all along. It "connects the dots" in a ways that were unknown to many people before. It depicts a broad plan for government control over our lives and property. Plus, this is hard evidence that it is not merely a "conspiracy theory" but a "conspiracy in fact" and shows how all these diverse policies are related. The result of this new awareness has caused the very name "Agenda 21" to become a catchall term for all these threatening policies--Smart Growth, Transit Oriented Development, Urban Planning, Growth Management, and many others. Agenda 21 is now a convenient "handle" for identifying all these related policies.
There has also been a lot discussion about Agenda 21 and ICLEI membership being unconstitutional and akin to treason, but I think either would be hard to make stick. The reason is that neither one is legally binding, in and of themselves. So why are they a threat, if they aren't legally binding?
This introduces another dilemma, which also explains why Agenda 21 is often dismissed as "conspiracy theory" and "paranoia" by those who have been involved with government planning for many years. First, there's a HUGE disconnect between the average citizen and professional urban planners. Average citizens assume that government policies are intended to solve problems for the public, such as traffic congestion, while in reality many policies are intended to change people's behavior instead. And changing behavior can be motivated by making problems worse, instead of solving them. If traffic is worse, they can motivate people to get out of their cars and into public transportation. The Urban Planners believe that Public Transportation is more "sustainable." Most citizens assume that government should "react" to the desires and needs of the public, however, Agenda 21 type policies are designed to manipulate the public's actions--to control them. After all, that's what Urban Planners are trained to do.
When most citizens first hear about all the planning hype of Growth Management and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) etc. it sounds like something new. However, the American Planning Association (APA) has been pushing concepts of Smart Growth, Urban Villages, and mass transit systems, since even before Agenda 21 was first adopted in Rio. Most employees in Planning Departments in cities and counties hadn't even heard of "Agenda 21" until recently, and still wouldn't know about it today, except citizens have become alarmed and are now addressing it in public meetings. Nevertheless, the planners have been "on board" with the very same concepts all along; they just didn't call it Agenda 21. In fact, to them these are simply basic principles of "good urban planning" and are taught in planning courses like "good grammar" is taught in public schools. So to them Agenda 21 DOES seem like "conspiracy theory" hysteria, because in their eyes these policies are not related to anything the UN has done, but simply "business as usual." Indeed, the Growth Management Act (GMA) was passed in 1990--2 years before Rio and Agenda 21. In Washington State most of our problems really began with the GMA, even though it was built on a foundation, which is much older.
To trace the roots even further, the creation of zoning laws was probably the beginning. Zoning, like so many other policies harming us today, really got started during the Progressive Era, approximately during the first quarter of the 20th century. Zoning was a successful assault on private property during this time. Ironically, the same motivations which drove Progressivism also drove Communism, nearly from its beginning. In both cases, the importance of property rights was unappreciated by society as a whole, so they let many of those rights slip away. The test for constitutionality of Zoning was decided by SCOTUS in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. ( en.wikipedia.org. ) in 1926. So in order to challenge the Constitutionality of GMA you'd also have to challenge zoning, which is not likely to happen. Instead, it would be easier to repeal the GMA based on pragmatic arguments that it doesn't work.
So the reason Agenda 21 and ICLEI are still harmful, even while they are not "legally binding," is because every measure regarding Smart Growth and Transit Oriented Development etc. are ALREADY embedded into other laws, plans, and codes, which ARE approved through legitimate channels. Agenda 21 was implemented as "soft law" but it was never approved by congress. Unfortunately, this also means there is nothing to repeal. So attacking Agenda 21 directly is like denouncing a rainy day. Instead, our efforts are likely to be much more effective if we attack the laws and codes which implement the same types of policies advocated by Agenda 21.
The real value in all the attention currently surrounding Agenda 21 and ICLEI is bringing these types of issues to the forefront, so now people are beginning to recognize the relationships and common themes. Many of the bad policies have been disguised behind good sounding concepts. The title of Rosa Koire's book really hits that nail on the head -- Behind the Green Mask. For many years it has been difficult for most people to see where these underlying philosophies ultimately lead, because they only saw the "green" facade, which hid the bad policies from view. However, the poor results of these policies are becoming more evident daily and they are no longer hidden. So I think the best approach is to use Agenda 21 for what it does best--to educate people on the relationships between all these bad policies and motivate them to get involved. Then focus our attention on attacking the actual laws which CAN be repealed, such as repealing the Growth Management Act.
Nevertheless, one way to directly attack Agenda 21 is to disprove the false premises upon which it is based. Underlying the "green" ideologies of Agenda 21 and ICLEI are several fallacies, which are so pervasive they are often accepted as givens. These fallacies fuel the the drive for "sustainability" and heavy government control:
- The earth's resources are finite and we are running out.
- That mankind is ruining the planet, through pollution and exploitation.
- That population growth is exceeding our ability to produce food.
However, these fallacies were refuted by the economist Julian Simon in his 1983 book, The Ultimate Resource.
- Natural resources and energy are getting less scarce.
- Pollution in the US is decreasing.
- The world's food supply is increasing.
- Population growth has long-term benefits.
Over time the earth is actually becoming more fertile and better suited to life and growth. We do need to change some of our current practices, such as wasting many of our key resources; however, these challenges are more the fault of big government, rather than the lack of it. Innovation and the free markets tend to solve problems related to waste and shortages of resources. Government tends to seek for steady-state conditions, which is why the word "sustainable" is so appealing to advocates of big government. The free market adapts to supply and demand signals and naturally results in greater health, longer life, and a higher standard of living. Rather than "steady-state" conditions, the free-market creates "thriving" conditions. We don't want "Sustainable Development" but "Thriving Development." We want prosperity, not mere survival.
There is really much more to say on these topics, but this is just a quick overview. Please let me know if you'd like me to elaborate any further.
Thanks,
Rick
|
