https://drrichardday.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/living-space-agenda-21/
Texto:
Living Space & Agenda 21
Where we live will also be controlled, and the process started in 1992 at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, during which an ‘action plan’ for the 21st century was established named ‘Agenda 21’, which aimed to address sustainable development at local, national, and international levels.
Agenda 21 is presented as a voluntary plan, and not legally binding, however, in some countries it has influenced local legislation (for example, the Local Government Act 2000 in the UK).
Parts of Agenda 21 have probably already been implemented in your local area, although you may not know about it. You may find some reference to it on your local government/council website, but it has not been widely promoted, with few people knowing how Agenda 21 drives parts of local decision making, impacts on legislation, or of the impact this can have on their lives.
Agenda 21 addresses some of the problems of an expanding population Dr Day described – space to live and waste management
The Agenda 21 proposals are open to local and national interpretation, and one area which has concerned residents of many countries (especially the USA) is the concept of population zoning and a reduction in size of living space.
In some cities in the United States, local authorities are re-thinking building regulations to reduce the size of apartments. In 2012, San Francisco building regulation changes were proposed allowing for apartments (known as micro-units) to be as small as 275 square feet (approx. 25.5 square metres). According to Scott Wiener, the city supervisor who proposed the legislation, the city had a housing affordability crisis, with rents being ‘through the roof’. Some critics of the legislation believe the reduction in living space, and the zoning of residential developments is part of the globalist’s agenda to concentrate the population in easy to control areas, and that ‘stacked shoebox’ housing will become the norm for many developments across the US.
Some states in the US have supported resolutions condemning Agenda 21. These include Kansas, where Republican representative Dennis Hedke told fellow lawmakers during a speech in November 2012. “The notion of sustainability is not necessarily a bad thing. However when guidelines are transformed into indoctrination, globally, nationally and with each state and local government, and that indoctrination is connected to an intense socialistic philosophy, questions are raised.”
In the same week, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted to ban implementation of policies connected to Agenda 21. In an interview with a news service, a Republican representative, Anne Cartwright said “I know it [Agenda 21] is totally against our Constitution from reading the U.N. biodiversity assessment,” she continued “It’s through local initiative that it is being implemented in bits and pieces to erode our property rights.”
In Europe, the situation is different, with many apartments in large cities being small units in blocks within specific residential zones. However, the size of newly built homes is getting smaller in the UK, which already has one of the lowest average area sizes for apartments in Europe. House builders claim that the cost of building land and the demand for new homes is so high that they have to produce compact and affordable homes.
According the UK organisation ‘Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment’, part of the ‘Design Council’, ‘… there are no national minimum space standards, and neither building regulations nor the planning system specify minimum floor space for privately developed homes in England. The result has been private housing which does not consistently provide what CABE would consider to be adequate space.’
In the UK in December 2012, a review of planning regulations by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor concluded that many of the planning regulations in place to protect the British countryside should be abolished. The main driving force behind the review was the government need to create more population zones and increase house building.
The ‘Royal Institute of British Architects’ (RIBA) criticised the size of new UK homes in their report ‘Case for Space’ (September 2011). The finding of the report was that the floor area of the average three bedroom home was only 92 per cent of the minimum recommended size of 88 square metres. The report also went on to criticise the size of other housing developments as being small that recommended minimums.
In the USA, the charity ‘Wildlands Network’ (formerly known as ‘Wildlands Project’) involvement in land zoning initiatives linked to Agenda 21, under the guise of environmental conservation in North America, has caused concern with organisations criticising the charity for being complicit in the globalist’s agenda to move the population to restricted zones, restrict (or eliminate) private land ownership, and the destruction of independent farming.
The ‘Wildlands Network’ claims to use a science-based solution to create four large protected corridors of land running east to west and north to south to protect wildlife and people in the long term, by linking parks and nature preserves with a new, healthy habitat. They also claim to have a role in ‘mitigating climate change’ and using scientific mapping named ‘Wildlands Network Designs’. Since changing the organisations name from ‘Wildlands Project’, the organisation now claims to consist of a number of ‘network partners’, including conservation organisations, foundations, artists, zoos, private land owners, and many other private and government organisations.
The ‘Wildlands Network’ has worked closely with government agencies who use the ‘Wildlands Network Designs’ and mapping into their land management programmes.
As we have already established, the ‘Wildlands Network’ was formerly the ‘Wildlands Project’ (‘Wildlands Project Inc’) which is registered in Florida, which in turn is the product of another organisation, ‘Wild Earth Society Inc.’ which is registered in Vermont, USA. In corporation records, both ‘Wildlands Project Inc’ and ‘Wild Earth Society Inc’ share the same identification number. Donations to ‘Wildlands Project Inc.’ show as going to the Vermont Corporation, where they have charitable status. Financial records show that the major contributor to the ‘Wildlands Project Inc.’ was the ‘Ted Turner Foundation Inc’ of Atlanta, Georgia.
Ted Turner is a known globalist who is also known to have extreme views on population control, and controls a huge media network, including CNN, MGM, TNT, Turner Entertainment, and a vast array of other business interests. Until 2011, he was the largest private land owner in the United States with his substantial land purchases in 2007 coming under the spotlight of other media organisations such as Fox. His outspoken and controversial views have earned him the nicknames of ‘The Mouth of the South’ and ‘Captain Outrageous’.
In Florida, where the ‘Wildlands Network’ is based and is heavily involved in conservation projects in the state, there is an initiative called ‘Florida Forever’ which is active in acquiring land from private owners through the ‘The Acquisition and Restoration Council’ (ARC). ARC is responsible for reviewing ‘Florida Forever’ projects and determining the projects geographical boundaries, and is also responsible for the priority ranking for projects, and adopts an annual land acquisition work plan.
Land that meets the criteria of Florida statutes, and Rule 18-24 of the Florida Administrative Code can be purchased by the state, provided the purchase prices is 80% or less of its market value, for projects authorised by ‘Florida Forever’.
Between 2010 and 2012 the ‘Florida Forever’ project received little funding due to the financial recession and the slump in duty usually raised through property taxes. In 2012, the project received a fresh injection of cash from the Florida budget, and the Florida cabinet authorised funding for 21 conservation projects. There was criticism from some of the Florida community who felt that the projects the state were authorising focused more on water quality, buffer zones around military bases, and to projects which were already substantially complete, implying that the funding and projects were being used to ensure large tracts of land were inaccessible to the population.
Similar criticisms of the ‘Wildlands Network’ and local government involvement in the acquisition of private land have been made in other parts of the US. There are claims that organisations such as the ‘Wildlands Network’ and government organisations are working towards controlling all land in the country, with the eventual aim of making private land ownership the privilege of a few, and forcing everyone else into zones with very little housing space, in accordance with chapters of Agenda 21.
Although there are initiatives all over the world to produce residential zones with small housing units, there does not seem to be a direct link between organisations such as ‘Wildlands Network’ and local government, other than local government being involved with environmental conservation and (perhaps) taking, or considering, advice from local environmental organisations – which in itself may be enough to show that there is some connection, but not enough to show irrefutable direct links to a government or globalist agenda.
Agenda 21 also makes recommendations for the control of waste management. Agenda 21 identifies four main areas of waste management – minimising waste, reuse and recycling of waste using environmentally sound methods, promoting environmentally sound disposal and treatment, and extending waste coverage.
Entradas
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario