Is Biodiversity Protection the Goal Behind Comprehensive Land Use Plans?

The written draft of the Le Sueur County Comprehensive Land Use Plan can be found here.

It is worth your consideration to question the “possible” interpretation of this written document. We are wary of the wording because “words mean things,” and we are aware of the actual plans that were drawn up long ago as documented below, that are precisely in direct relation to these plans being incorporated in our county government today.

To verify reason for our legitimate worries, I provide the following:
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS – HABITAT I, VANCOUVER, CANADA, 31 MAY-11 JUNE 1976

The following is being used to justify use of our tax dollars for government control of our land and community structure:

“UN-Habitat now promotes socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities. It is the focal point for all urbanization and human settlement matters within the UN system. UN-Habitat envisions well-planned, well-governed, and efficient cities and other human settlements, with adequate housing, infrastructure, and universal access to employment and basic services such as water, energy, and sanitation.” (Emphasis added).

MAKE NOTE OF THE BOLD STATEMENT BELOW! Keep it in your thoughts. THIS is what we are concerned about. IT IS REAL, and it is being implemented in LE SUEUR COUNTY Minnesota, through the COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. The plan that our commissioners spent $200,000.00 of our tax money on. It is a plan to save the environment from us – you and me! Don’t believe it? Consider this – There have been a lot of outlandish and unimaginable changes taking place in communities surrounding us, right? Well, they are finally getting their focus on the conservative and quiet Le Sueur County. We need to realize that these changes will not happen overnight, but it will happen, and it will come about with the structure put in place by means of the “Comprehensive Land Use Plan,” and the adoption of it, by our County Commissioners.

This statement is our concern:

“This conference produced Agenda 21, the ultimate plan of action to save the world from human activity.” (Emphasis added).

That statement is found at azbackroads.com.

This paragraph is amazingly straightforward:

“Between 1976 and 1992 a new strategy for land use control was devised. It is subtle, sinister, and successful. “Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level of public authority consistent with effective action and a locally driven approach.” The reference to “public authority” here is not to elected city councils or county commissions. The reference is to newly constituted “stakeholder councils” or other bodies of “civil society” that consist primarily of professionals functioning as representatives of NGOs affiliated with national and international NGOs accredited by the United Nations. This strategy is becoming increasingly effective.” (Emphasis added).

They said it straight out folks, the “public authority” is not the elected officials that you voted into office on Election Day, the people that are now authorized to make decisions are the “appointed” persons sitting on the councils of the NGOs (non-governmental organizations). These are the very
same people that are included in the decision making for the Use of Our Land! Control of our local communities has been stripped from “our control,”

The Plans as relates to the “One Health” platform, reduces humans to no more importance than that of habitat:

“Implementation of the UN’s land use philosophy is well underway in America and is now being accelerated through the use of the “collaborative process” using stakeholder councils. The 1973 Endangered Species Act has been expanded administratively to now cover not only endangered species but the habitat that a listed species may wish to use — even though the habitat may be privately owned. This policy breathes life into the GBA recommendation to extend legal rights to biodiversity. It, in fact, clarifies “the principle that biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled human use.”

The legal status of biodiversity has been further elevated by the Vice President’s “Ecosystem Management Policy,” which places biodiversity protection at the same priority level as human health, and further instructs officials to consider human beings to be a “biological resource” in all ecosystem management activities.” (Emphasis added).

“Plants and animals are objects whose degree of protection depends on the value they represent for human beings. Although well-intentioned, this specifically anthropocentric view leads directly to the subordination of biological diversity, and to its sacrifice in spite of modern understanding of the advantages of conservation. We should accept biodiversity as a legal subject, and supply it with adequate rights. This could clarify the principle that biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled human use. Contrary to current custom, it would therefore become necessary to justify any interference with biodiversity, and to provide proof that human interests justify the damage caused to biodiversity.” (Emphasis added).

And, there is so much more:

Recommendation D.1

(a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of…achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.

(b) Land is a scarce resource whose management should be subject to public surveillance or control in the interest of the nation.

(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements….

Recommendation D.2

(a) Agricultural land, particularly on the periphery of urban areas, is an important national resource; without public control land is prey to speculation and urban encroachment.

Recommendation D.4

(a) Public ownership of land cannot be an end in itself; it is justified in so far as it is exercised in favour of the common good rather than to protect the interests of the already privileged.

(b) Public ownership should be used to secure and control areas of urban expansion and protection; and to implement urban and rural land reform processes, and supply serviced land at price levels which can secure socially acceptable patterns of development.

Recommendation D.5

(b) Past patterns of ownership rights should be transformed to match the changing needs of society and be collectively beneficial.

(c)(v) Methods for the separation of land ownership rights from development rights, the latter to be entrusted to a public authority.

The official U.S. delegation that endorsed these recommendations includes familiar names. Carla A. Hills, then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development became George Bush’s Chief trade negotiator. William K. Reilly, then-head of the Conservation Foundation, became Bush’s Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Among the NGOs (non-government organizations) present, were: the International Planned Parenthood Federation; World Federation of United Nations Associations; International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); World Association of World
Federalists; Friends of the Earth; National Audubon Society; National Parks and Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; and the Sierra Club.1

These ideas came to America in the form of the Federal Land Use Planning Act which failed twice in Congress during the 1970s. Federal regions were created and the principles of the UN land policy were implemented administratively to the maximum extent possible. NGOs were at work even then, lobbying for the implementation of UN land policy at the state and local levels. Both Florida and Oregon enacted state Comprehensive Planning Acts. Florida created state districts and multi-county agencies to govern land and water use. Most states, however, were slow to embrace the UN initiative toward centralized planning and land management.

By 1992, the UN had learned to tone down its language and strengthen its arguments The UN, working in collaboration with its incredible NGO structure, operating at the behest of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and the World Resources Institute (WRI), made sure that the decade of the 1980s was awash with propaganda about the loss of biodiversity and the threat of global warming.

The foundation for the propaganda campaign may be found in three publications published jointly by the UN and its NGO collaborators: World Conservation Strategy, (UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1980); Caring for the Earth, (UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1991); and Global Biodiversity Strategy, (UNEP, IUCN, WRI, 1992). These documents, along with Our Common Future, the report of the 1987 Brundtland Commission (UN Commission on Environment and Development) set the stage for Earth Summit II, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Again – Read this statement:

This conference produced Agenda 21, the ultimate plan of action to save the world from human activity.

The document echoes the 1976 document on land use policy, though in somewhat muted terms. From Section II, Chapter 10 (page 84):

“Land is normally defined as a physical entity in terms of its topography and spatial nature; a broader integrative view also includes natural resources: the solid, minerals, water and biota that the land comprises. Expanding human requirements and economic activities are placing ever increasing pressures on land resources, creating competition and conflicts and resulting in suboptimal use of both land and land resources. It is now essential to resolve these conflicts and move towards more effective and efficient use of land and its natural resources. Opportunities to allocate land to different uses arise in the course of major settlement or development projects or in a sequential fashion as land becomes available on the market. This provides opportunities…to assign protected status for conservation of biological diversity or critical ecological services.”

Activities 10.6:

(c) Review the regulatory framework, including laws, regulations, and enforcement procedures, in order to identify improvements needed to support sustainable land use and management of land resources and restrict the transfer of productive arable land to other uses;

(e) Encourage the principle of delegating policy-making to the lowest level of public authority consistent with effective action and a locally driven approach.

Activities 10.7:

(a) Adopt planning and management systems that facilitate the integration of environmental components such as air, water, land, and other natural resources using landscape ecological planning… for example, an ecosystem or watershed;

I do hope that you are concerned about your family’s future and the future of America. Indeed if you are, you need to read up and speak up. The Le Sueur County Commissioners’ meetings are on the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Tuesday mornings @ 9:00 AM in the Commissioners’ Chambers at the Government Center (Court House). Read up on the above provided FACTUAL information and compare those plans to the County Land Use plan as provided in the link above. Then speak up. Do it before the commissioners adopt the Land Use Plan. They will be doing that very, very soon. They need to be convinced of the power they hold in their vote, and the devastating change that will come to the communities they live in.

Or…DON’T READ UP. DON’T SPEAK UP. DON’T GET INVOLVED. The choice is yours… Get Involved – OR – SIMPLY WATCH IT EVOLVE.