How Agenda 21 influences the Bradley County BCC 2035 joint strategic plan

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Agenda 21, Chapter 7This fol­low-up is relat­ed to our Sep­tem­ber 18 post, UN’s Inter­na­tion­al Build­ing Codes, nec­es­sary tool for Agen­da 21 imple­men­ta­tion. The Bradley Coun­ty, Ten­nessee, Board of Com­mis­sion­ers vot­ed this week to adopt the pro­posed 2035 Joint Strate­gic Plan. The post below is an exam­ple of local Agen­da 21 oppo­nents’ efforts to stop imple­men­ta­tion through edu­ca­tion, pub­lic aware­ness, and polit­i­cal pres­sure.

Short­ly before Hen­ry Lamb’s death, I asked Hen­ry to eval­u­ate the BCC 2035 growth plan and its pro­posed build­ing codes. Hen­ry was one of the fore­most lead­ers on Agen­da 21 and how it was affect­ing our local com­mu­ni­ties. He was great at analy­sis and his thor­ough under­stand­ing of Agen­da 21 made it a joy to drain his brain at every occa­sion.

Short­ly before his untime­ly death he took great inter­est and was drawn to what was being done in Bradley Coun­ty. He gra­cious­ly stud­ied our growth plan and drew com­par­isons to Agen­da 21 and offered his genius to show specif­i­cal­ly where our very own growth plan was indeed a prod­uct of the UN and Agen­da 21. His analy­sis showed the eeri­ly close sim­i­lar­i­ties [sic] the UN’s plan to even­tu­al­ly herd us all into pods, loss of sov­er­eign­ty, prop­er­ty rights and even­tu­al­ly world dom­i­nance under a new world order.

His analy­sis when done showed many elect­ed lead­ers that their involve­ment was indeed a devi­ous plan by the UN to gain con­trol of the last bas­tion of free­dom, our prop­er­ty rights and our sov­er­eign­ty.

This week the Bradley Coun­ty Com­mis­sion vot­ed to enact new build­ing codes in accor­dance with Agen­da 21, par­tic­u­lar­ly chap­ter 7.

These new reg­u­la­tions and codes are set to go into affect on Jan­u­ary 1, 2015. They have allowed for a 90 day edu­ca­tion peri­od before the final vote is cast. This is part of that edu­ca­tion­al process.

You may ask what is wrong with build­ing a build­ing that is done right and has reg­u­la­tions that pro­tect the cit­i­zen­ry? It is all incre­men­tal and it takes baby steps to make leaps ahead. This is by design. Our elect­ed lead­ers once the pieces of the pie are formed and the plan in place will have very lit­tle say so about what goes on in the com­mu­ni­ty of Bradley Coun­ty main­ly because they won’t have elect­ed offi­cials to rep­re­sent them. The peo­ples voice and rep­re­sen­ta­tion will be tak­en away.

Please read (the analy­sis) by Hen­ry Lamb.…as it relates direct­ly to our coun­ty and it’s growth plan.

#####

Below are excerpts from a June, 2011, Bradley Coun­ty News post. This edu­ca­tion­al effort has been well-researched, set­ting an exam­ple for one facet of oth­ers’ efforts to stop Agen­da 21 in their locale:

Appen­dix 1. Pub­lic Chap­ter 1101
Sum­ma­ry of Growth Pol­i­cy Man­date of TN Pub­lic Chap­ter 1101
(passed 5/1/98 by the House and Sen­ate as Sen­ate Bill 3278
and approved 5/19/98 by Gov­er­nor Sundquist):

Under a growth pol­i­cy law enact­ed in May 1998, Ten­nessee coun­ties and
munic­i­pal­i­ties are required to devel­op joint plans for urban growth. This
require­ment applies to all coun­ties except those with a met­ro­pol­i­tan form of
gov­ern­ment.

The plans must spec­i­fy three types of areas:

Urban growth areas for each munic­i­pal­i­ty with­in the coun­ty
The urban growth areas of a munic­i­pal­i­ty must be con­tigu­ous to exist­ing
munic­i­pal bound­aries and must encom­pass the like­ly sites of high-den­si­ty
res­i­den­tial or non-res­i­den­tial growth over the next 20 years; be rea­son­ably
com­pact yet suf­fi­cient­ly large to accom­mo­date that growth; and reflect the
municipality’s duty to facil­i­tate devel­op­ment of its resources while con­trol­ling
urban expan­sion and tak­ing into account impacts to agri­cul­tur­al lands, forests,
recre­ation­al areas, and wildlife man­age­ment areas.
Planned growth areas with­in each coun­ty
Planned growth areas of a coun­ty must not fall with­in the exist­ing or urban
growth bound­aries of a munic­i­pal­i­ty and must include the like­ly sites of high or
mod­er­ate res­i­den­tial or non-res­i­den­tial growth with­in the coun­ty over the next
20 years; be rea­son­able and com­pact yet suf­fi­cient­ly large to accom­mo­date that
growth; and take into account impacts to agri­cul­tur­al lands, forests, recre­ation­al
areas, and wildlife man­age­ment areas.
Rur­al areas with­in each coun­ty
Rur­al areas shall include ter­ri­to­ry that is not with­in urban growth or
planned growth areas and is to be pre­served as agri­cul­tur­al lands, forests,
recre­ation­al areas, wildlife man­age­ment areas, or for uses oth­er than
high-den­si­ty com­mer­cial, indus­tri­al, or res­i­den­tial devel­op­ment.

Non Gov­erne­men­tal Orga­ni­za­tions (NGOs) and key doc­u­ments play­ing vital roles in Bradley Coun­ty!

BCC Strate­gic Growth Plan, google it for more infor­ma­tion! PDF ver­sion
Unit­ed Nations Con­fer­ence on Human Set­tle­ments
Pres­i­dents Coun­cil on Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment
Our Com­mon Future
Sus­tain­able Amer­i­ca
1976 UN Con­fer­ence on Human set­tle­ments
McBride, Dale and Clar­i­on Con­sul­tant
AECOM Con­sult­ing
Bradley Coun­ty Cham­ber of Com­merce

Why Agen­da 21 [sic] in Bradley Coun­ty?

It is a prop­er­ty grab and your prop­er­ty rights are in jeop­ardy!

The Unit­ed Nations Con­fer­ence on Human Set­tle­ments states “ Land…cannot be used as an ordi­nary asset, con­trolled by indi­vid­u­als and sub­ject to the pres­sures and inef­fi­cien­cies of the mar­ket. Pri­vate land own­er­ship is also a prin­ci­pal instru­ment of accu­mu­la­tion and con­cen­tra­tion of wealth and there­fore con­tributes to social injus­tice… Pub­lic con­trol of land is there­fore indis­pens­able…”

The effect of this process is to remove the deci­sion-mak­ing process from the peo­ple and their elect­ed offi­cials and put the process and the out­come in the hands of the appoint­ed pro­fes­sion­als and spe­cial inter­est groups called stake­hold­ers.

Pub­lic Act 1101 requires your elect­ed lead­ers to hold two pub­lic hear­ings in the process of devel­op­ing the County’s plan and present it to elect­ed offi­cials for approval. Elect­ed offi­cials have 120 days to rat­i­fy or reject the plan, fail­ure to do one of the oth­er results in auto­mat­ic rat­i­fi­ca­tion. Coun­ties that rat­i­fy the plan are sub­ject to sig­nif­i­cant rewards! Inter­na­tion­al codes are already active in Bradley Coun­ty!

Inter­na­tion­al Build­ing Codes minus the aster­isks that are already in Bradley Coun­ty for this Growth Plan!
Inter­na­tion­al Res­i­den­tial Code
Inter­na­tion­al Ener­gy Coser­va­tion Code
Inter­na­tion­al Fire Code
Inter­na­tion­al Plumb­ing Code
Inter­na­tion­al Pri­vate Sewage Dis­pos­al Code
Inter­na­tion­al Mechan­i­cal Code
Inter­na­tion­al Fuel Gas code
Inter­na­tion­al Exist­ing Build­ing Code
* ICC per­for­mance Code
* Inter­na­tion­al Prop­er­ty Main­te­nance Code
Inter­na­tion­al Zon­ing Code

Many of these Inter­na­tion­al codes are designed to pro­mote pub­lic safe­ty, some how­ev­er pro­mote Agen­da 21 and impose gov­ern­ment dic­tat­ed behav­ior on local cit­i­zens. The Ener­gy Con­ser­va­tion Code came about as a direct result of the Amer­i­can Recov­ery and Invest­ment Act, passed in Feb­ru­ary 2009. ARRA was designed to stim­u­late eco­nom­ic recov­ery by pro­vid­ing stim­u­lus fund­ing to var­i­ous sec­tors of the econ­o­my and to accom­plish a pol­i­cy goal of cre­at­ing more ener­gy effi­cient build­ings. Pg 3 Intl. Ener­gy Con­ser­va­tion Code.

This Com­pre­hen­sive Land use Plan with these UN influ­enced codes trans­forms both the process through which deci­sions that gov­ern cit­i­zens are made, and the mar­ket place where cit­i­zens earn their liveli­hood. The fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­pal that gov­ern­ment is empow­ered by the con­sent of the gov­erned is com­plete­ly bypassed in the process of devel­op­ing the BCC 2035 Strate­gic Growth Plan. Nowhere in the process do the cit­i­zens, even through their elect­ed offi­cials, have an un-coerced oppor­tu­ni­ty to dis­sent, or with­hold their con­sent. The plan was pre­sent­ed by appoint­ed pro­fes­sion­als, pre­sent­ed to elect­ed offi­cials, who may either approve the plan, or deny their cit­i­zens access to sig­nif­i­cant fund­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties. Once gov­ern­ment has the author­i­ty to con­trol the use of pri­vate­ly owned land, as in the case in Bradley Coun­ty, and through­out Ten­nessee, the nat­ur­al step is for gov­ern­ment to dic­tate the behav­ior of the peo­ple who own the land that the gov­ern­ment con­trols.

The ques­tion remains- Are we ready to sur­ren­der free mar­ket cap­i­tal­ism, indi­vid­ual free­dom of choice, pri­vate prop­er­ty rights, and gov­ern­ment empow­ered by the con­sent of the gov­erned? If we are [sic], then we must explain to our elect­ed offi­cials with great accu­ra­cy and enthu­si­asm a bet­ter way to con­front the future. Local com­mu­ni­ties must be free from state man­dates that ignore state sov­er­eign­ty. If the peo­ple are to have a voice in their gov­ern­ment, and pro­vide the con­sent that autho­rizes gov­ern­ment action, peo­ple must be involved in these process­es of gov­ern­ment.