The encroachment of Agenda 21 – watch San Francisco

At National Review Online, the article Regionalism: Obama’s Quiet Anti-Suburban Revolution. What’s happening in the San Francisco area has Agenda 21 written all over it. The author of the article doesn’t mention the U.N. plan by name. Who wants to be branded a conspiracy theorist, right? To learn more, Lynne at Sandy Hook Truth has written a number of informative articles on Agenda 21.

From the NRO article:

In the face of heated public protest, on July 18, two local agencies in metropolitan San Francisco approved “Plan Bay Area,” a region-wide blueprint designed to control development in the nine-county, 101-town region around San Francisco for the next 30 years. The creation of a region-wide development plan–although it flies in the face of America’s core democratic commitment to local control–is mandated by California’s SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. The ostensible purpose of this law is to combat global warming through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. That is supposedly why California’s legislature empowered regional planning commissions to override local governments and press development away from suburbs into densely-packed urban areas. In fact, the reduction of greenhouse gases (which Plan Bay Area does little to secure) largely serves as a pretext for undercutting the political and economic independence of California suburbs…

The plan presses 70-80 percent of all new housing and 66 percent of all business expansion into 150 or so “priority development areas” (PDAs), select neighborhoods near subway stations and other public transportation facilities.

Agenda 21 is being implemented all over the country. If you know the buzzwords, you’ll notice that it’s happening in cities near you. For example, one city won a “going green” award, “sustainable” is often used, and you may see the term “new urbanism”, to name just a few. For some reason, the global elitists, through the U.N. and national governments like our own, want populations centralized in urban areas “many times denser than Manhattan” and they use the excuse of “global warming” to push us around.

Those who understand Agenda 21 are fighting against it. However, those in favor of the U.N.’s agenda have been strategically placed in positions of power. See the results of one city council meeting in one of Lynne’s videos:

As the NRO article states:

Press accounts of the Plan Bay Area controversy generally say nothing about the financial interest that “non-profit” “grassroots” organizations have in passage of the plan, or about pressures on the bureaucrats in charge to maintain their government-mandated “partnerships” with these community organizations. So when opponents of Plan Bay Area complain about officials simply going through the motions of public consultation, they’re right. The deck is stacked, the fix is in. By way of the federal grant, many of the “grassroots” groups that support Plan Bay Area are actually partners of the decision makers (the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments). The Obama administration’s role in all this, while generally unnoticed, is substantial.

Nevertheless, what prompted today’s post was an article from CBS in San Francisco: Richmond Threatens Eminent Domain To Address Foreclosure Crisis. Richmond is a city in the eastern San Francisco Bay area.

The city has offered to buy more than 600 underwater mortgages at below the homes’ current value.

“If they are unwilling to negotiate a sale of the loans, which we want them to do, then we will consider using eminent domain as another option to purchase these loans at fair market value,” said Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin.

Richmond is the first city in the country to take the controversial step of threatening to use eminent domain, the power to take private property for public use.

Would “they” be so bold as to confiscate privately-owned homes? Will they demolish them to build government housing? Or will they leave the lots vacant to force people to move into the city?

According to the article:

Richmond has partnered with San Francisco-based Mortgage Resolution Partners on the plan. Letters have been sent to 32 servicers and trustees who hold the underwater loans. If they refuse the city’s offer, officials will condemn and seize the mortgages, then help homeowners to refinance…

Mortgage Resolutions Partner will receive a flat fee per mortgage and has said it will handle all legal costs.

For some time, I had wondered if the government would begin buying foreclosed homes and either renting them out or holding the mortgages. Now that seems an unnecessary step, as they seem to be rapidly implementing their plan to force us into cities, at least in San Francisco – for now.

There seem to be plenty of individuals and groups that are financially benefiting from this usurpation of our rights. I wonder where they’ll be allowed to live when the rest of us are corralled in urban areas? The answer is that when they are no longer useful, they’ll be forced to give up their homes and cars, just like the rest of us. But, unlike us, they will have sold their souls.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s