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.

Private property rights are protected in America by the US. Constitution which recognizes that the right to life, liberty, and property, are given by GOD—not by “some men” to “other men.”

The right to own property is the basic foundation of freedom in America. Citizens are free to be self-reliant, govern themselves, engage in free market enterprise, and determine the best use of their land.

In countries ruled by tyranny, private ownership and control of property is never allowed—property and people are controlled by the government. It has been said that “either you own property, or you are property.”

Comprehensive Land Use Plans in counties and cities across the nation are violating private property rights by:

• Placing decisions for the use and control of physical land and resources under government control.
• Declaring the environment and habitat as entities with equal rights to that of humans, thus jeopardizing property rights for environmental concerns.
• Declaring that ownership of private property violates the ideology of “equity.” Reasoning that those who worked to secure property have an unfair advantage over those with no property.
• Declaring that decisions made by “expert planners,” NGOs, and government agencies for the use of private land, is superior to decisions of the private property owners’ who pay taxes on the land.
• Declaring that land should be used for economic activity for political gain by the government.

Land Use Planning today encompasses far more regulations and controls from past plans:

Increased “Affordable Housing” for low-income and no-income residents ● “workforce housing” for “human capital” employed by the government ● farming restrictions based on regulations of environmental concern ● tracking energy creation and limiting consumption ● strict tracking of industry operations ● modes of transportation ● taxes ● increased control of mineral extraction ● education curriculum ● today’s planning involves inventory & control of every aspect of our lives.

Le Sueur County is Currently Updating the “Comprehensive Land Use Plan”

It is imperative that citizens demand the language used in the draft of the written land use plan be open for review by the public, to ensure it is free of ambiguous language which could make it vulnerable to the interpretation of someone wishing to impose baseless regulations, restrictions, and requirements on private property rights now, and in the future. It also needs to be recognized that a Land Use Plan is a voluntary blue-print that does not need to be enacted. If the county commissioners choose to adopt the document as policy, it will then become a contractual agreement that can be upheld in a court of law. Any violations of the written land use can revoke ownership of private land. It is in the best interest of all, for the commissioners to use the plan as a blue print only, and not subject land owners to interpretations of NGOs, developers, stakeholders, and government agencies, that are hungry for control of private property.

93 % of the land in Le Sueur County is privately owned.

Everyone needs to be involved. This is about power and control of the government over property and people. What are you currently allowed to do on your property without getting permission from a local government agency? The matter will only get worse with the Land Use Plan, and without property rights, there is no freedom. WE NEED TO STOP BEING SILENT!

There have been many controversies on the Highway #99 Project through Le Center, MN, that are starting to fall into place. In the draft plans, the reconstruction of the highway through the city, leaves no access to the businesses and takes portions of land from some of the businesses for the construction of roundabouts. The businesses along this stretch of highway are predominantly connected to automotive services: car wash, gas stations, body shop, and detailing.

Guess what folks? In our current world of hysteria about Climate Change, the automobiles are the culprit! And don’t be fooled, this has deep connections to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan being updated in Le Sueur County as well. We’ll connect those dots in another communication lest this gets too confusing.

Here’s an eye-opening statement that led to the “Aha” moment connecting the peculiarities in the highway draft plans from MnDot- for this stretch of highway through Le Center, and the fact that most businesses effected are automotive businesses.

From this website: https://climate.state.mn.us/envisioning-cleaner-transportation-future we are told:

“Transportation is the number one source of carbon pollution in the United States, and became the single largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Minnesota in 2016.”

On this page: https://climate.state.mn.us/transportation we find remedies to the crisis created by automobiles:

“We learned that stakeholders want to see:
– transportation solutions that address and prioritize equity
– a more robust strategy for reducing vehicle miles traveled
– more support for non-motorized transportation options, including funding to support active transportation modes like biking and walking.”
(emphasis added)

Mm-hmm!

Stakeholders! Who are they? They are mentioned non-stop in the Comprehensive Land Use plans.

Equity? How does that fit into the conversation about repaving/reconstructing a highway?

Who wants to reduce vehicle miles traveled? Did they let you weigh in on that?

More funding for non-motorized transportation? Using our tax money to immobilize us!

Oh yeah! More taxation to support the imaginative climate crisis that the young Greta Thunberg warned us about when she flew across the ocean to educate us Americans, looked the camera in the eye, and stated “How Dare You!”

Another page: https://climate.state.mn.us/climate-action-framework-progress-report offers more remedies to the problem at hand, with the help of more tax money:

“Goal 1 – Clean Transportation
Connecting Minnesota through a safe, equitable, and sustainable transportation system that
serves all people of our state.

Progress:
– $1 billion investment in public transit. New rebates to make EVs and e-bikes more
accessible
– $80 million in federal funds for projects like EV chargers and bike paths.”

We, the taxpayers, are a never ending source of money for these people who believe it is their responsibility to protect the earth from us and our selfish, destructive ways.

Notice the desire for public transit? The “Corridor Alternative” draft plans provided for the Highway #99 Project, show a 10′ wide allowance for parking on the South side of the highway, on each side of the entrance to the County Fairgrounds. Might this be planned as a passenger drop-off for transit vehicles?

See alternative #2, at this site: https://hdr.jotform.com/251193410303948

They can surely walk to their destination from here, be it the fairgrounds or a business/residence in town. The concept of urban transport systems are not new to the
discussion of regional planners such as Region Nine Development Commission and Minnesota Valley Council of Governments.

Urban transport systems are also a staple in the planning of the United Nations document from the Earth Summit concerning transportation.

From Chapter 7 of that document- Human Settlements; Section 7.52:

– “…encourage development patterns that reduce transport demand.
– Adopt urban-transport programmes favouring high-occupancy public transport…
– Encourage non-motorized modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and footways in urban and suburban centres…”

If you search the MnDot website for greenhouse gases, you’ll find an abundance of information relative to plans they have for the benefit of Climate Change, which include reducing the number of vehicles on the road and encouraging travel by foot and bicycle instead. This would explain the six foot wide sidewalks along the highway on one side, and the 10 foot wide bicycle paths along the highway on the other side, in the draft plans for highway #99 through Le Center.

When questioning the six foot wide sidewalks, we are told this is a requirement of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), which permits two wheelchairs adequate room to meet and pass. They’ve been working on their plans for a long time and they’ve thought of everything, combing through every conceivable question and tacking a ‘non-questionable’ answer to each.

Another key player in the transportation system planned for our future is MADO, the Minnesota Association of Development Organizations. On their website, under the tab ‘DevelopMN’ we find ‘Human Capital.’ Click on that and you have the following encouraging words:

“Opportunities for Human Capital:
• Population and workforce expansion through immigration” (emphasis added).

Think on that for a moment! If indeed they are planning on mass immigration as a development strategy for our communities, the six foot wide sidewalks may be a necessity. In many 3rd world countries people are lucky to have a house, let alone a vehicle. They navigate by foot. We also need to pay attention to the words ‘Human Capital.’ To these people that are planning our future, we are nothing but capital, inventory, a tool to be used at their whim for their prosperity. And you must question “population…expansion.” Ah yes, the stacking of the deck so-to-speak in areas where they wish to change the economic, political and social make-
up of a community.

On this site: https://mnado.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/DevelopMN-1.pdf we have a booklet: “Comprehensive Development Strategy for Greater Minnesota.” On page 7 we find:

“Increase the percentage of small businesses who are owned by new Americans and people of color through technical training and lending.” (emphasis added)

Here they are talking about immigration and equity. Notice that we the taxpayers, the people whose money supports the system, will not be the ones receiving the technical training nor be beneficiaries of the lending, it will be new Americans. What about the current small business owners whose livelihoods are threatened with the proposed draft plans for the Highway #99 corridor through Le Center? No concern for them?

On page 10 of the MADO booklet, we hear about climate change again:

“In 2018 in the United States, fossil fuel combustion accounts for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions and 98% of carbon dioxide emissions. The Center for Biological Diversity estimates that 4.1 billion metric tons are added to the atmosphere each year.”

Transportation is covered on page 11. Their concern is not the businesses along the corridor, it is the efficiency of the highway for “truck travel time.” They did mention that the roundabouts would be fashioned for trucks to drive over, right? https://hdr.jotform.com/251193410303948

“Alternative 3:
– Compact roundabout
– Allows trucks and larger vehicles to drive over center island”

If you feel compelled to look into this further, check out the abundance of information on the many links offered at this MnDot website and here.

This is big and there is a lot that is hidden! We have to search for the agendas hidden in their many plans for our future, because nobody will ever come right out and tell us the truth. Unfortunately many of the powers that be don’t even realize what they are helping to transport down the pike and usher into action. They are simply hearing rosy outcomes of Utopian ideals and have been conditioned to ‘sign here’ and ‘vote yes,’ without the need to think. The thinking is left to the planners, the folks that have been ‘appointed’ into positions of authority, not the persons that have been elected by the people.

Welcome to “Regional Governance” where people are “appointed” to make decisions for you, at your expense, without your consent.

“ The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and Inflation.”

~ Vladimir Lenin ~

Public Private Partnerships (PPP or P3), are advocated as a way to fund desired government infrastructure projects in cities, with the financial help of private sector investors. This concept was created as a strategy for implementing sustainable development, wherein the government entity rewards the private business with tax-payer derived funds and/or amenities (tax breaks, incentives, the waiver of regulations, free tracts of land, or exclusive rights to future development), in return for
the business funding a portion of the project.

Most of today’s citizens view ‘infrastructure’ as the building and upkeep of roads and bridges, and shared community spaces such as parks and swimming pools. This is not the ‘infrastructure’ that the sustainable development planners have in mind. The decisions driving the infrastructure they seek are all based on economics and become controlled by the private business investors engaged in the project. Sustainable development infrastructure is designed as building blocks, the framework, for which cities become nothing more than work centers for the people that live within these so-called ‘human settlements.’

Through this arrangement of PPP, the cities ultimately lose their sovereignty to the investors who will control decisions of the operations within the city, and citizens lose their right to decide their future as they become a simple cog-in the-wheel, living in ‘workforce housing’ and working in the private sector industry.

In Le Sueur County, MN, the subject of “workforce housing” entered into conversations with the building of a 54-unit ‘workforce housing’ project in New Prague. New Prague City officials asked the Le Sueur County Commissioners for a 15-year tax abatement on the project, which was thankfully denied by the county, but granted by the City of New Prague and the New Prague School District. This is an example of Public Private Partnership in which the government entity (the city of New Prague, MN) chose the contractor to implement the housing project, then worked to provide the contractor favorable tax breaks, at a cost or disadvantage to the public. The tax levy and school district funding will be an additional burden upon the taxpayers as they will foot the bill for the lost tax revenues. Keep in mind that it was tax generated monies that were provided as an incentive to draw the business into the community in the first place. The citizen taxpayer is forced to provide the funding, yet is never given a vote as to how the money is spent.

The MHFA Workforce Housing Project Uses Tax Generated Money. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) provides grants and incentives for use in
‘workforce housing’ projects. These projects cater to residents who are of low income status and who will work in the created business industries of the PPP.

The following information is copied directly from the MHFA website. Note the biased DEI criteria for receiving benefits from this tax-funded state agency.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

“We are committed to racial diversity, equity and inclusion in all of our work, from our hiring practices to our investments in new homes.

Minnesota Housing acknowledges that its offices are located on Dakota land. We recognize that local, state and federal housing policies have disadvantaged Indigenous people, Black Minnesotans and households of color for decades.

We listen to and incorporate the words of those who have faced housing instability and homelessness. We are expanding our work with developers of color and we strive to close the homeownership gap between white households and households of color. Minnesota Housing supports staff members with continuing
education to better serve Minnesota as antiracist public servants.”

As taxpayers, we are being forced to fund hand-outs to people according to their financial status and ‘race’ alone. This a blatant example of “redistribution of wealth,” which as defined by Wikipedia states:

“Redistribution of income and wealth is the transfer of income and wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others through a social mechanism such as taxation, welfare, public services, land reform, monetary policies, confiscation ….”

Whether those on local boards of city councils and county governments truly understand the injustice and social impact of what they are being swayed into voting for or not, is questionable. The reality however, is that these unwarranted practices which are pushed for by NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations), according to the dictates of Global Governance Planners, are unjustly stripping the financial stability and property rights of citizens that have worked for what they have, in order to level the ‘social’ living standards of all, regardless of merit. This is nothing short of socialism and is most definitely a main focus of our concern and attention to taxation and Comprehensive Land Use Plans.

What happens when the ‘workforce housing’ is built, and there are not enough low income, racially disadvantaged people found in the city to reside in the housing? Forced migration to comply with the newly created compliance rules of ‘workforce housing?’ Catering to people of low income and racial minority status is the norm these days whenever tax generated public funds and grants are involved. It is also the norm to use public funds and tax generated grants to fund most every government project. For the working class that pays their own way, it is a lose-lose situation. And that is the goal of Global Governance. Eliminate the middle class.

“ The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and Inflation.”

~ Vladimir Lenin ~