U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-30-2012, 01:46 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,581,646 times
Reputation: 4048

Advertisements

Republican Platform Opposes Agenda 21 - NYTimes.com

I realize that this thread may get axed for being politics-based, but I post it here because it specifically addresses the issue of urban planning as a matter of public policy. "Agenda 21," a UN policy statement from around 20 years back, has been mentioned here occasionally because some local planning meetings have been disrupted by individuals who claim Agenda 21 is a globalist plot to force Americans to surrender all property rights and move people into Soviet-style apartment blocks. Those espousing it were normally lumped in with the folks talking about chemtrails, black helicopters, and other conspiracy theories.
Quote:
In a New York Times article in February written with my colleague, Kate Zernike, we reported about activists aligned with the Tea Party disrupting local city and state land use planning meetings nationwide to denounce sustainable efforts to reduce energy use including bike lanes on public streets and smart meters on home appliances. The activists see such community projects as the first steps in a plan to limit individual rights.
But now, opposition to Agenda 21 is officially part of the Republican Party platform:

Quote:
We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty, and we oppose any form of U.N. Global Tax.
My question is this: How seriously do you take the idea that urban/regional planning is a United Nations based plot to force Americans to surrender their property rights? Is this a priority that should be included in an agenda-setting document for one of America's two major political parties? And what does this party platform imply, not just at the federal level, but for state and local authorities who deal with planning issues?

 
Old 08-30-2012, 01:51 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,116,674 times
Reputation: 3118


What is cleverly disguised as a talking point catered to the tin-foil-hat base is more like paid policy by these guys:

 
Old 08-30-2012, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,343,644 times
Reputation: 3562
Being a libertarian, I understand the opposition to anything UN-sponsored, but I also agree with HandsUp that it just so happens to align with oil interests.

All in all, I don't think it has anything to do with urban planning. It has to do with two things:

1. The UN's impact to national sovereignty (across the board, not just with Agenda 21).
2. Impacts to big oil. The Republicans probably care about this one more.
 
Old 08-30-2012, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,091 posts, read 16,121,723 times
Reputation: 12684
What?

That's really two separate issues. One is Agenda 21 which they don't support as it calls for voluntarily giving up some sovereignty. Note that no one in America really supports the idea of it. We never signed Kyoto and we didn't participate in Rio+20. Does that mean Obama thinks there's a UN plot to take over the country, or does it just mean he doesn't support Agenda 21? The second issue is the UN proposed global tax for natural and political disasters.
 
Old 08-30-2012, 03:21 PM
 
358 posts, read 360,503 times
Reputation: 306
I firmly believe that the word agenda is the cause of the spread of opposition. The word already has negative connotations with the Tea Party, i.e., the "liberal agenda". It makes it sounds like a sinister plan.

All the UN had to do was hire a PR firm to name it something friendlier like Idea 21. It never would have received the attention it now receives.
 
Old 08-30-2012, 03:22 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,817 posts, read 10,729,607 times
Reputation: 2523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
What?

That's really two separate issues. One is Agenda 21 which they don't support as it calls for voluntarily giving up some sovereignty. .
what? Its non binding. Its not a treaty. A country can do parts of it, or not. They will print a report on how you are doing - just as any non profit org, or for that matter any magazine can.

Theres no loss of sovereignty. None. Zero.

And of course when a country DOES sign a binding treaty (which Agenda 21 is NOT) it does not "lose sovereignty" Sovereign states have been signing binding treaties for hundreds of years. They have also been exiting such treaties for hundreds of years. Its the nature of a sovereign state to both enter into treaties, and also to reserve its right to withdraw from them.
 
Old 08-30-2012, 03:23 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,817 posts, read 10,729,607 times
Reputation: 2523
it has to do with scaring people, thats all. Revs up the tea partiers, which seems to be a strategic goal.
 
Old 08-30-2012, 03:25 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,817 posts, read 10,729,607 times
Reputation: 2523
and whats worth noting - Mitt Romney as GOVERNOR of Massachusetts, implemented a Smart Growth strategy fully aligned with everything the Federal govt is actually DOING on sustainability - and probably well aligned with Agenda 21 goals as well.

Our politics today is worthy of Lewis Carrol.
 
Old 08-30-2012, 03:28 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,817 posts, read 10,729,607 times
Reputation: 2523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
What?
The second issue is the UN proposed global tax for natural and political disasters.
which hasn't actually been proposed by the UN afaik.
 
Old 08-30-2012, 03:31 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,817 posts, read 10,729,607 times
Reputation: 2523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
What?

We never signed Kyoto .

We did sign Kyoto. We never ratified it. Clinton never submitted it for ratification as it wouldnt have gotten 2/3 in the Senate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top