Posted on 02/16/2005 6:15:55 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
The visioning process includes: values research, how to run "facilitated" workshops and to how to use consensus building to create scenarios for area change. When public officials and NGO's (non-government organizations) use the term "visioning" it really means Agenda 21 principles are being implemented.
Television makeover programs that transform men and women from sloppy to slick are popular. Makeup artists, hair dressers and clothing specialists remake their passive subjects and the new look is shown off to gasping friends and family. Transformational changes are not limited to people these days. American neighborhoods, swarming with central planners and government funds are getting made over too.
Americas new look starts with federal and state funded visioning councils who impose their plan utilizing compliant politicians, compliant business people and paid representatives from foundation and tax-funded non-profit organizations. The unsuspecting public becomes the recipient of a vision that implements Smart Growth.
Smart Growth restricts housing construction to high-density subsidized (cost-shifted) apartments or condominiums. Cities are filled in by building vertically and cramming people together. Occupants living in these new developments are often subject to increasing rules and regulations administered by Associations or Housing Trusts. Cluster developments with purposely limited parking (near train or bus stops) are designed to take people out of their cars, thereby frustrating peoples ability to get around as they might choose.
Some planners in the Western United States learned their terminology and techniques from a group called Envision Utah. Through Envision Utah planners learned about the visioning process. Planners return from the regional visioning workshop with a mission in place. Our visioning sets up a framework project for zoning, says Gordon Garry, Director of Research and Analysis for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
Once the framework for zoning is in place, local governments, non-elected regional councils and public/private partnerships, begin to change residential neighborhoods to mixed uses, often utilizing processes that work outside constitutional governmental procedures. By transforming the look of the town, planners and politicians are also engineering social changes that will negatively affect the lives and the lifestyles of existing residents.
If your town is working toward a vision, its best to understand the Smart Growth plan behind the façade.
In re: my post earlier today #34: I finally wrote the following to my local newspaper. It is irritating that they just cut number of words allowed. And yes, I will admit to a second agenda. The paper has run 2 articles in the past month on New Age one "religion" spirituality and I took advantage of the fact that one of the members of the Socrates Cafe is the owner of the Gnosis Center to get a dig in there as well.
I hate being sensationalistic, but sometimes when your town is half-asleep, you have to wake them up. I could also have taken a "wait and see what they do" approach, but again, later could be too late. If I can cause citizens in my area to be wary of the group itself, perhaps they will keep the facilitator from controlling the Common Council meetings.
Editor:
In Thursday's article on the Socrates Cafe, Steve Johnson is quoted as saying, "Maybe the people of Glens Falls are self-directed" and "They do what they want, and they go around the law if they want to."
I would be interested in knowing what prompted this comment and if he can offer specific examples where the good citizens of Glens Falls are "going around the law." What law? Some law he'd like to see created in the near future?
It was of particular interest to me that this article should appear the day after I had a discussion with friends about how the Delphi Technique is used by facilitators to manipulate citizens into a consensus in regard to the "Smart Growth" agenda. The process begins in groups such as this one.
What makes a desirable community? I suppose that depends on one's view of how independent-minded we American citizens should be "allowed" to be. The character of a city is not to be found in collectivist visioning, but in eclecticism and in working together while respecting the rights of the property owner.
Yes, the goal is "to get people thinking differently." It is an attempt to coerce citizens into collective behavior and thinking. The goal of the Delphi Technique and the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (the "new" thesis) is to bring all participants to a "oneness of mind" (toward the goal of the facilitator). Neo-gnostic gurus use similar techniques.
Just a word of warning to the "independent-minded" (law-breaking?) citizens of Glens Falls. Is it "cleanliness" on South Street that is an issue? Or is it something else? Is your street next?
(note..."friends" is you:) and South Street is a bar-filled street and home to many of the area's indigent. OTB is there, as well as the Food Pantry. Not a particularly dirty street- these people are more concerned with getting rid of the people who frequent the area). I can walk on South Street safely.
I'm sure I'll get blasted, but I'm too old to care.
Very interesting article and responses. Thanks for the ping. So far I haven't seen anything like this that has been mentioned here in south Texas but I wil keep my eye out for it.
Check out the Austin area. They have been heavily hit by the planners.
Did you see this? This is great!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345670/posts
Thanks for pinging me. There is a group of us here in Santa Cruz County CA that are very interested in the goings on in Washington state, particularly King County.
Their critical areas ordinance is one scary piece of work.
Citizens need to unelect some of their elected officials in a hurry.
I understood your very first post to say that we currently have a free market in housing. If I misunderstood, I'm sorry.
In general, you sound like a country person who doesn't understand that there are people who simply enjoy living in the city because of the vitality, the culture, the ability to get around without a car, and the wealth of job opportunities. When you mentioned earlier that it might be pleasant to live and work on a ranch, it made me smile because frankly a lot of city people find the smells of a ranch pretty off putting. People are different. There should be room in America for people to be able to choose what they want from among vibrant and healthy cities, towns, villages, suburbs, and country life.
I would also submit that the cities are full of crime and congestion because of decades of zoning and redevelopment that have split the cities into business districts, shopping districts, and residential districts. Whereas historically, cities were often made up of street-level shops and businesses with people living above and were safe and vibrant places because lots of people were always around. Government ruined that. Many people don't flee the city because they hate city life. They flee the chaos government created. In addition, current development methods soon bring the very thing they were fleeing to them once again. And so the cycle goes.
I would also like to see the studies about most Americans wanting to live in the suburbs. If the choice is presented as living in the ruins of government's hubris of yesteryear versus a shiny new suburb, then of course they will say the suburb. On the other hand, given options that include a community where you can walk to work, walk to the corner grocery store, hit a bookstore, and then go home and walk the dogs in a vibrant, safe community, I would expect that many Americans would like that choice.
What's not to like about getting out of the cities is that job opportunities are typically very limited. So many times the price of that life is hours in gridlock. I know too many Californians that never get to enjoy their piece of the country because of the commute they have to endure.
"Smart Growth" is a Dumb Idea to Lower Crime
Daily Policy Digest
Environmental Issues / Environment
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Author Douglas Morris and other "smart growth" advocates claim that suburban sprawl contributes to increased violent crime rates. But a comparison of crime rates among cities characterized as "smart growth" and "sprawlers" reveals a different story, say the National Center for Policy Analysis' H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., and Pamela Villarreal:
In 2002, Los Angeles' violent crime rate of 1,349 per 100,000 was more than double that of the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area, considered the country's most sprawling area by Smart Growth America.
Portland's violent and property crime rates of 828 and 7,127 per 100,000, respectively, were much higher than sprawling Raleigh-Durham, N.C., with rates of 455 and 4,416.
Seattle's violent and property crime rates of 705 and 7,298 per 100,000 outpaced sprawling Denver's rates of 534 and 4,994.
In addition, both violent and property crime rates in Portland, Seattle and Los Angeles are much higher in the central city than in the wider metropolitan area including the suburbs. In fact, according to FBI crime statistics there are no suburbs in the country with a higher murder rate than their associated central city.
Smart growth policies have produced mixed results at the neighborhood level as well:
A Raleigh, N.C., study showed that street robberies were less likely in neighborhoods with sprawl-associated features like cul-de-sacs, high rates of home ownership and single family homes.
In New Bedfordshire, England, neighborhoods designed using Europe's equivalent of CPTED averaged more than twice the number of crime and disorder incidents per year (5,200) as traditional neighborhoods of comparable size (1,800).
Even in the face of high impact fees, suburbs continue to grow and develop - because consumers demand them. Market forces, not bicycle paths, create villages, say Burnett and Villarreal.
Source: H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., and Pamela Villarreal, "Smart Growth = Crime, Congestion and Poverty," Brief Analysis No. 473, April 22, 2004.
Smart growth is a threat to freedom of choice, private property rights, mobility, and local governance. Although smartgrowth policies seem drastic, they are really a natural extension of the zoning laws that cities have adopted since the 1920s. Those zoning laws have been made increasingly restrictive over the years, and smart growth will make them even more prescriptive. Smart growth is clearly an example of creeping social regulation, if not creeping socialism.
Is New Urbanism Creeping Socialism?
--RANDALL O'TOOLE, Thoreau Institute
Thank you for all the information; but as I've said several times, I both understand and OPPOSE smart growth. Mr. O'Toole, whom you quote, wrote an article saying virtually the same thing I am saying. http://www.ti.org/neotrad.html
I'm not convinced he has come up with workable solutions, but at least he sees government planning is and has been the problem for most of the past century.
Contrary to what you say, a spokesperson for a large developer said in a meeting that I attended that demand for condos in California is very high. But she said that developers are not willing to take the risk because current law allows the developer to be sued twenty or thirty years later. In addition, I've had real estate agents tell me that townhomes near where I live are always snapped up (even in severely depressed markets and even though it's not a particularly nice area). If I had the time, I would be interested in running the numbers on the prices per square foot people are willing to pay for condos and townhomes compared to single family homes. I know I've been shocked by the prices of the condos and townhomes in my area when compared to the homes. Such high prices would suggest pretty serious demand.
The current structure of municipal funding and zoning and regulation favor the suburban tract development so that is what we keep getting more of.
Many of us would love to live in a neighborhood where we could work, live, and shop all within walking distance
I think they were talking about latte servers, music store owners and book stores.
Here's an example of the demand (and price) for condos.
"Indeed, between the third quarter of 2002 and the third quarter of 2003, condominium prices rose a whopping 16.6% to a median price of $167,200, according to the National Association of Realtors. Single-family home prices rose 10.1% over that period, by NAR's estimation, and some economists believe the appreciation rate of single-family homes was even lower. The median price of a single-family home was $177,000, only modestly higher than the median price for a condo."
Source: http://www.realestatejournal.com/columnists/housetalk/20031219-barta.html
An interesting article that goes into depth on these issues:
"Why Sprawl Is a Conservative Issue"
by Michael Lewyn
Source: Part 1 -- http://verbatim.rutgers.edu/lewyn/archives/000155.html
Part 2 -- http://verbatim.rutgers.edu/lewyn/archives/000156.html
This is the first I have heard of the man, but I will have to learn more about him. He sees many of the same issues I do with the current debate on growth and planning.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. I have known people who much prefer to walk and bicycle who have had to buy a car because life in much of the U.S. simply isn't doable without. When the author speaks of tyranny, he simply means that in general Americans HAVE to have automobiles to function in daily life.
I have lived in a European village and known the pleasure of being able to walk two blocks to reach the countryside, the grocery store, the train station, the bank, coffee shops, and restaurants. Your idea that such places squash individuality is laughable. I probably have never felt so free. In addition, most people had cars and enjoyed driving on the Autobahn. It was just that they didn't have to spend money on gas just to do their daily chores. They could enjoy fresh air and the exercise of walking as they did them instead, if they so CHOSE.
I also stayed in several Eastern European countries soon after the Iron Curtain fell. Believe me, I know the tyranny of the Soviet-style block apartments and being cut off from the farmland. The Smart Growth movement will lead there because it is central planning and has a definite agenda. I am advocating a return to a truly free market with an absence or minimum of zoning, so that those who want walkable cities will have that choice once again.
If sprawling cities and automobiles are so critical to freedom, then L.A. should be the freest, most "American" city. But when I drive by gated community after gated community there, it reminds me of medieval fortresses.
The "vision" of the planners of the 1950s clearly had some serious flaws, and it's time for a change. I don't know why allowing some cities to once again be walkable is so threatening. Government planners need to get out of the way, and let the market work.
Haha good point. Unfortunately, their "freedom" drives the citizens out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.