.

LETTER: Why Town Shouldn't Have Approved SCI

Ken Eyring wrote to Patch about the problems with the Sustainable Communities Initiative.

By Ken Eyring

On June 4, the Windham Board of Selectmen approved Windham’s participation in a $100M Federal Planning Program that is designed to ultimately produce a Land Use and Resource Planning document that will greatly diminish our property rights, redistribute wealth, and ensure equal outcomes – not equal opportunity – for every person all across America. 

The program is the Sustainable Communities Initiative (HUD/EPA/DOT).  By participating, Windham will become an accomplice to aiding the Federal government in producing a blueprint to transform our Democratic Republic to one of Central Planning under the guise of Regional Land Use and Resource Planning. 

According to the terms and conditions of the program… emphasis of the final plans must address “environmental justice” and “social equity” regarding a vast range of areas, including income, housing, education, health, infrastructure, resource allocations (water, sewer), zoning (mixed use, high density/compact housing) and transportation (bikes, walking and mass transportation). 

One of the many mandates of the plan is to document “socioeconomic inequity”.  What does this have to do with Land Use Planning? 

Another is to reduce “Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).”  Take a moment and let that sink in… the government wants to track each of our Vehicle Miles Traveled – and in addition, there are several planned taxes associated with this mandate.

The structure of the program includes many extremely progressive committees and progressive “partner” organizations.  One of the committees is a Regional Equity Team – except the name of the committee does not reflect who is on it.  The majority of NH residents are NOT represented on this committee – which will have an influential emphasis on the planning process. 

One of the partners is HEAL NH (healnh.org).  HEAL stands for “Healthy Eating Active Living”.  If you read their document “2012 Livable Walkable Communities Toolkit”, you will see this document is more about social engineering than anything else.  Make sure to also read the LWC Toolkit’s Appendix A.  These documents describe how zoning laws need to be changed so that people will have an opportunity to live in mixed use, high density/compact housing… so that every town will then conform to the Fair Housing Act (according to the 2010 NH Analysis of Impediments).

Another partner is Action Media (actionmedia.org), a PR firm that “provides communications for positive social change.”  Their “Get Results” webpage states: “Our clients’ work is about power: how are resources used, and who gets to decide? Our work is about the power of communications to shift the advantage, to mobilize support and neutralize opposition.”

The inclusion of Action Media as a partner elevates my concerns and leads me to question why would our government enable our tax dollars to be used to neutralize any opposition that we, the people, may have?  Who serves who?  Isn’t it OUR government? 

This concern is strengthened further by what is written in the grant application document in the section titled “Strategy to Address Barriers and Incorporate Existing Plans” (see page 17 of the Grant Application Narrative).  In this section, it acknowledges “Anticipated barriers include NH’s strong tradition of individual property rights and resultant resistance to planning and zoning.” 

The proposed solution (by our “representatives” in this program) to overcome our “strong tradition of property rights and resultant resistance” is to bring this issue to a committee whose members include the DOT, DES and OEP.  This committee will “work together to identify potential statewide strategies for reducing and/or eliminating the barriers.”

I want to say that again because this is an extremely important point.  By its own words, our government will work towards reducing or eliminating our property rights because they are “a barrier” to the goals of the Sustainable Communities Initiative program.

I find this to be very disturbing.  Especially when considering the history of other countries that have used these types of tactics to oppress their citizens.

There are many other partners, and many troubling goals and relationships with the program’s partners.  Instead of going on and on, I encourage you to follow this link (http://southernnh912.com/content/nothing-life-free-neither-sustainable-communities-initiative) and download the embedded hyperlinks at the end of that article to see the legally binding HUD documents that define this program – in HUD’s own words.  (To make it easier to read, many of the areas of interest are already highlighted)

As I read through those documents and learned many of the details of this program, two thoughts kept coming to mind: (1) James Madison’s warning that Liberty and Property are inseparable, and (2) Karl Marx’ statement “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

According to James Madison, the term property encompasses “every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone else the like advantage.”  Property, therefore, encompasses far more than material possessions.  It includes such things as a man’s talents, intellect and personal security.  Under this definition, any government that seizes a man’s rightful property is violating that man’s liberty.

The Selectmen who voted in favor of the program justified their votes by saying this is only a planning program, they wanted “a seat at the table”, and that it is advisory only.  With the troubling framework, partners and goals of the program clearly spelled out, I have serious concerns why any of my elected officials would want a seat at this table and participate in this type of centralized planning program whose goals include (by their own words) dismantling our property rights and redistributing our wealth – which leads to a reduction of our liberties and freedoms. 

The SCI program is a massive new entitlement/welfare planning program that goes against every principle of our founding documents.  To dismiss concerns by saying this is only planning… and then include our town in this program is a reckless disregard for the fundamental values that our liberties and freedoms are based upon. 

Our Selectmen approved by a vote of 3 to 2 to commit Windham to participate in this planning program, with Ross McLeod, Kathleen DiFruscia and Roger Hohenberger voting in favor of the program, and Bruce Breton and Phil LoChiatto voting against.

I am grateful to Mr. Breton and Mr. LoChiatto for standing by their principles and voting to protect our Constitutional Republic.

For those who wish to know more, please feel free to call me. 

Respectfully,

Ken Eyring

603-434-4836

 

References

The contract Agreement is comprised of the following instruments.  To make it easy for the reader, many areas of interest are highlighted.

1. HUD-1044 and HUD-1044 Continuation Sheet(s)

2. Grant Agreement Terms and Conditions

3. HUD 424-CBW, Total Budget Summary

4. Grant Deliverables (See HUD 1044 Continuation Sheet)

5. Grant Application Work Plan/Logic Model (Tasks within Work Plan are considered deliverables)

6. OMB Circulars A-87, A-133 and A-102, which is incorporated in 24 CFR Part 85

7. Office of Sustainable Housing Communities (OSHC) Program Policy Guidance

8. Notice of Funding Availability (FR-5500-N-33)

9. The Granite State Future Agreement

10. Grant Application Narrative Statement

11. 2010 NH Analysis of Impediments

12. 2012 Livable Walkable Communities Toolkit

13. LWC Toolkit’s Appendix A

John Smith June 19, 2012 at 05:24 PM
The assumption of those who think the way Ken Eyring does seems to be The status quo is freedom, and any attempt to change the status quo would therefore be an act of tyrannous control. But the statue quo is not "freedom." It is a set of conditions that has evolved for certain reasons, and which may or may not be optimal for the people living in it.
Mike Puffer June 19, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Tea Party guy here. We are fighting Agenda21 in our state also. We have a few strong conservative - yes they do exist!!! in our Senate who are crafting a bill in the mold of the recent Alabama bill that outlaws Agenda21. At every level from the Townships, Parrishes, Citys, Countys and State we must defeat this evil. Central planning is the cause of premature death of over 100 million people in times of peace. Here is a democrat website that is a great resource - www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com, also www.Freedom21.org, www.FreedomAdvocates.org, Look on youtube for Michael Shaw, Tom DeWeese, Rosa Koire and Agenda21. We The People can and will drive marxism out! Mike Info@MIlleLAcsTeaParty.com
Jane Aitken June 19, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Rosa Koire from the Post Sustainability Institute will be in New Hampshire on these dates: Sat. June 23, 2-5:00 PM at Southern NH Univ. 2500 N. River Rd., Manchester Sun. June 24, 4:00 PM at Elks Lodge, 282 Durham Rd., Dover Tues. June 26, 6:30 PM at Kingswood Art Center, McManus Rd., Wolfeboro
Jane Aitken June 19, 2012 at 11:14 PM
And your point is?
Jane Aitken June 19, 2012 at 11:25 PM
In their own words: "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
John Smith June 19, 2012 at 11:58 PM
The status quo of excessive suburban sprawl based on a range of subsidies has nothing to do with freedom. In fact, creating more housing and transportation choices would be freedom. What this author calls for is antithetical to freedom.
John Smith June 20, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Rosa Koire is guilty of what she complains about: pushing an agenda on to other people. She leaves out the fact that people want choices. Not everyone wants to live in a suburb and not everyone wants to live in a city. She complains about eminent domain, but how does she think many of the roads and highways got built? Does she think our car-based lifestyle suddenly appeared without government intervention? She blatantly lacks an understanding of public finance, subsidies, and zoning
John Smith June 20, 2012 at 12:05 AM
Local and regional planning efforts existed long before 1991 and Agenda 21. It's quite laughable you think this is one big UN takeover. The UN has literally close to no power. We have seen that in so many world situations over the past 4 decades. Your ignorance is truly abysmal. I have strong dissapointments with planning, but at least I haven't subscribed myself to these ridiculous beliefs.
John Smith June 20, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Since you don't have a clue about anything planning let me clarify a few things for you: Places like DC and NYC were planned entirely in the 1700s and 1800s. They didn't just get planned magically. They had street grids imposed on them where they used eminent domain for the entire city. Also, the suburbs we see everywhere didn't just magically appear due to the free market. We had federal highways built, which are subsidized today through a large portion of general revenues. We had GM and Standard Oil lobby to destroy streetcar lines, and we had the National Association of Home Builders pushing for subsidies that encourage more sprawl. So we are the furthest thing from the free market. Agenda 21 is this distraction pushed by crazies for the past two decades (John Birch Society and now sadly many Tea Party members are succumbing to these ridiculous beliefs. It has nothing to do with planning today.
John Smith June 20, 2012 at 12:23 AM
Please tell us all how you enforce a visioning document. Have you seen these general plans produced by communities every 10 years? They hardly have impacts beyond being produced. There is no implementation funding that comes with making sure these plans actually lead to something. So really I don't know why you are all crazy about this. And attaching terms like "communism" just goes to demonstrate the level of ignorance you actually have.
Jane Aitken June 20, 2012 at 02:35 AM
Well "John Smith" - Interesting you say it has no power. We see its agenda in every aspect of our lives -- in every public, educaitonal, civic, social, human services, and even religious organizations. It certainly has an agency to deal with every aspect of our lives, as if anyone gave it permission. Have you perused their website lately? Local planning used to be for roads and commercial development, period. It didn't seek to redistribute wealth, provide social equity, or force people to abandon their rural properties, cars, or water wells. And if the bureaucrats want to implement it in its most extreme form, it can be draconian. You're talking to people who have warned about this for years, so it might be best to give up trying to soft pedal this now.. I think Ken has proven his case quite well. On the other hand, residents can resist, and they will also have to be prepared to file many lawsuits and be vigilant about legislation such as this, so they can retain their property and personal rights. Example: A few years ago, a member of a regional water commission from Bedford, and a State Rep, attempted to file legislation that would allow the commission to have jurisdiction over Bedford residents’ private wells through eminent domain. The bill was soundly defeated at the committee level. See HB 572 from 2005 filed by Rep Michael Scanlon. It is solid proof of what can happen when you're not looking. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2005/HB0572.html
Jane Aitken June 20, 2012 at 02:37 AM
Rosa Koire is actually someone who WORKS in those areas, for the government, and knows them intimately (public finance, subsidies, and zoning) as she comes in contact with them every day. If you want to live in compact housing, that's fine. But don't force the rest of us to OK?
Jane Aitken June 20, 2012 at 02:38 AM
John, are you one of the three who voted for this? What do you get out of it?
Jane Aitken June 20, 2012 at 02:43 AM
And what crazy at the UN wrote this? Were they just kidding or what? Please don't try to trot out the old line that it's not the UN -- nowadays EVERYTHING is being pushed from there... "ICLEI has already been in effect in some cities in NH. ICLEI is a UN NGO organization that helped write Agenda 21 for the 1992 Earth Summit and then set, as its mission, to bring Agenda 21 policy to every city in the world. It does this by meeting with local officials, signing contracts with them to set standards for energy and water use, building and development codes, farming policy, etc. From their website: “ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the ‘International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives’. The Council was established when more than 200 local governments from 43 countries convened at our inaugural conference, the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York.”
Jane Aitken June 20, 2012 at 02:54 AM
Actually John, the REAL tea party that was formed in December of 2007 was against the UN and everything about it from the start, and against republican actions taken by the likes of Bush 41 who signed us onto Agenda 21 and W who got us back into UNESCO. Perhaps you never heard of it then.
Kevin Eggers June 20, 2012 at 05:26 AM
Jane, stop twisting the knife with Agenda 21 facts. John Smith wants to remain inside the box, where he doesn't have to think too deep. It's a lot simpler for government to take the subsidies and implement the adverse policies, claiming "It's what we've always done." I live in Napa California, where bureaucrats claim to know nothing about Agenda 21. Recently Napa crafted a sustainability plan subsidized by the federal government. Napa used the UN's definition for Sustainable Development and the UN's interconnecting circles of Social Equity, Environment, and Economy. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, and has little ducklings, you get the picture. Only someone dead or a bureaucrat addicted to subsidies can't see how Agenda 21 is being implemented nationwide.
Kevin Eggers June 20, 2012 at 05:41 AM
Does John Smith know that Rosa Koire worked for the government in the San Francisco Bay Area as an eminant domain expert. She understands how planning can adversely affect land use and value. Rosa isn't against thoughtful, "we respect individual rights," planning; she's against extreme Agenda 21, "we want to control every aspect of your life," planning,
Jane Aitken June 20, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Thanks Kevin. All too often these companies hired to "Delphi" people will admit they cannot use certain terminology so as to give away the force behind the 'changes'. As many others have asked before me, why would the regional planners need to hire a company to sway the public to accept this program? We don't see people beating down the doors of the town hall asking for anything like this, certainly not anything so restrictive and all-encompassing or redistributive.
Jane Aitken June 20, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Oh and the day we start taking orders from a 'world congress' is the day we've lost our national sovereignty and ability to govern ourselves. "World Congress"???? Who died and appointed them bosses over our constitutional republic?
Jane Aitken June 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM
http://worldcongress2012.iclei.org/
John Smith June 20, 2012 at 06:37 PM
Rosa Koire worked on cases involving eminent domain. That does not make her an expert. If she was an expert you would think she would recognize the federal highways as one of the biggest uses of eminent domain. However, that was long before she got there, and who needs to know history anyways? If she understands planning, would she not realize that planning in fact keeps market values higher by excluding unwanted activity. It seems you forgot the practice of zoning and how that is in fact a planning tool. As for Agenda 21, it's been irrelevant to planning. Planning has existed for several hundred years. I guess when you are a hammer, everything must be a nail. It is absolutely absurd that such things as traffic calming, greenways and bikeways, traffic easements, traffic roundabouts, multi-use dwellings, buffer zones, art in public places, and General Land Use plans all relate to some insidious agenda. As for the actual document I'm not even sure how it is relevant to anything. I could pull out about 1,000 non-legally binding agreements and point to them to blame it on everything I see around me. Would that make me a fool? Indeed it would.
John Smith June 20, 2012 at 06:44 PM
You can see my below comment in reply to Kevin. You can go off all you want on a mindless banter, but I really am not going to waste my time. I live in a single-family house and I like where I live. Some people may actually want the choice of living in a place with better transportation and more walkable environments. We should let them. It's not what I want, but people should be given that choice. This is where your hypocrisy exists. You try to avoid this hypocrisy by pointing to some illogical argument. It really is not worth my time. I encourage you to look at the article "Smart Growth for Conservatives".
Jane Aitken June 20, 2012 at 07:22 PM
Rosa is not against highways. And if you want to live in compact housing you move to a city. It would be nice if you had posted a link to your article.. What we are posting is not mindless banter... but facts from the group that is pushing this ICLEI. BTW, what is your real name, John?
Jane Aitken June 20, 2012 at 07:31 PM
I just looked it up. This is another ploy to cover up Agenda 21. From the website: "Whittemore suggests that the mere denial of a conspiracy, as he contends the APA has advised, is counter-productive, and suggests ideas for engaging Agenda 21 in a more productive dialogue." So the American Planning Association advises promoters not to mention Agenda 21 and to seek other ways of implementing it without calling people conspiracy theorists. Read that part again "...suggests ideas for engaging Agenda 21 in a more productive dialogue". It doesn't say, does not follow it, says how to implement it by stealth.
Jane Aitken June 20, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Agenda 21 Hypocrisy http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/20/godfather-global-green-thinking-steps-out-shadows-at-rio-20/
John Smith June 20, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Here is the article I was talking about: http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2012/05/smart-growth-for-conservatives.html Also, Whittemore is not the guy in the article, you aren't looking at the right article. And, I really can't stand your paranoia. I know Rosa is not against highways, which in itself represents her hypocrisy. Highways require more eminent domain than any of these transit lines she talks about. As for these insane predictions of people being moved from their homes, where is the basis for that? It's the same kind of fear as people who believe in Area 51 and aliens. You can be conservative and exhibit common sense, but I guess that is too hard for you people. I really am done with this conversation. You can go on with you 4 post reply, but I really don't care what you have to say because what you have to say has no logic to it. You cast your fears with an emotional basis.
Jane Aitken June 21, 2012 at 05:19 PM
It isn't every day that land is taken for highways. That is rather limited and more often than not highways, cut through commercial areas anyway not through suburbs. Tell us, how do you stand to gain financially from this boondoggle, if that is the reason you are pushing this? I guess if you weren't so paranoid you'd have used your real name, eh?
Jane Aitken June 24, 2012 at 05:26 PM
You hate paranioa, but we hate liars even more. This is going on all over the country whenever outsiders from NGOs are involved. People can deny connections or claim ignorance but the facts are there. This is for Mr Sinnott who claims no connection. http://youtu.be/VcRYF1CTRl0
Jane Aitken June 30, 2012 at 08:40 PM
Here's a sweet piece of evidence. This guy spells it out, and admits that these internationally formed councils, NGOs, corporations, foundations will enforce this Agenda 21 international directive, all under the guise of -- you guessed it -- local control!!!!! Author is the President-elect of the "National Association of Counties"? Elected by whom? How is this even legal? http://hennepin.us/portal/site/HennepinUS/menuitem.b1ab75471750e40fa01dfb47ccf06498/?vgnextoid=56e0a2622d6d5210VgnVCM20000048114689RCRD
Jane Aitken January 10, 2013 at 05:41 PM
Note to readers: The UN has been pulling all references to Agenda 21 off their website and the whole initiative is being rebranded as "Future Earth". But alas, Salem NH is about to 'step' in it. http://www.eagletribune.com/newhampshire/x1746076648/Salem-board-will-decide-whether-to-join-planning-project

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »