Additional
Titles

Other

DeWeese
Articles:

Total
Surveillance Equals Total Tyranny

Loosing Your Liberty in The Name of Fighting
Terrorism

The Faith-Based Initiative is a Trojan
Horse

NWV
Store

Books

DVDs

Merchandise

Writers

Advertise

Submit
Story

Contact
NWV

Donate to
NWV

About
NWV

NWV Home

More
DeWeese
Articles

THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION AND IT'S "FAULTY"
HANDBOOK

by Tom
DeWeese
August 28, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

With
great fanfare, the American Planning Association (APA) reported results of
a recent survey the group conducted, (“Planning America: Perceptions
and Priorities”) showing that the anti- Agenda 21 “crowd is slim.”
Said the report, only 6% of those surveyed expressed opposition to Agenda
21, while 9% expressed support for Agenda 21 and 85%, “the vast
majority of respondents, don’t know about Agenda 21.”

Typically, APA is using the
survey to formulate the image that opponents to Agenda 21/ Sustainable
Development are just a lunatic fringe with no standing and of no
consequence in the “real” world. They continue to portray Agenda 21 as
simply a 20 year old idea, and just a suggestion that planners and local
governments might consider.

However,
a closer look at the full survey, plus some additional APA reports reveal
some interesting, and in some cases, astounding facts.

First
the survey:

It was
designed to show support for “Planning.” This has become an obsession with
the “planning community” because Agenda 21 and Sustainable
Development have become the center of protests by property owners and
those who feel government has grown too big and powerful. So the APA has
launched a series of efforts to fight back. These include conducting a
“boot camp” to train their legions of planners across the nation on how to
deal with anti-Agenda 21 protestors.

According to the APA, the
findings of the Survey reveal that: Only one-third believe their
communities are doing enough to address economic situations; Very few
Americans believe that market forces alone (the free market) improve the
economy or encourage job growth; 84 % feel that their community is getting
worse or staying the same; Community planning is seen as needed by a wide
majority of all demographics; and of course, that 85% of Americans just
don’t know enough to hold an opinion about Agenda 21.

Those
are pretty astounding findings. Looks like these “honest” planners have
their fingers on the pulse of the nation. And as the APA constantly
reminds us in their materials, “there is no hidden agenda,”(as in Agenda
21).

Astounding perhaps, until
you look at the actual questions asked in the survey. For example, Finding
#4: Community planning is seen as needed by a wide majority of all
demographics (79% agree; 9% disagree; and 12% don’t know). Wow!

But here
is the actual question that was asked: “Generally, do you agree or
disagree that your community could benefit from a community plan as
defined above?” The definition provided in order to
answer the question was this: “Community planning is a process that
seeks to engage all members of a community to create more prosperous,
convenient, equitable, healthy and attractive places for present and
future generations.”

Asking
the question in that manner is akin to holding up a picture of Marilyn
Monroe along with one of Rosy O’Donnell and asking which one would they
want to date. Give me the pretty one please – says 79%. In fact, in some
actual planning meetings they do just that – hold up a picture of downtown
depicting decaying, dreary buildings verses one of a shining, beautiful
utopia, and they literally say, “which one do you want?” If the
answer is (of course) the pretty one, then, YES, the community supports
planning! Talk about a “dumbed down” process.

Moreover, as the American
Planning Association adamantly denies any connection to the United
Nations’ policy of Agenda 21 and its planning programs, how strange it is
then, that the APA definition of planning is almost identical to the
definition used by the UN to define Sustainable Development. Compare:
“Development that meets the needs of today without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The UN further
defines Agenda 21: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a
profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has
ever experienced.” Such a forced policy would certainly “engage all
members of a community” whether they want to be or not. The UN calls it a
“redeployment of human resources.” Other than semantics, there is
no difference in the APA’s and the UN’s definitions of planning.” The
planners’ definition uses an interesting term, “equitable.” The UN also
uses such a term in describing Agenda 21 – “Social Equity.” And that is
translated into another term: “Social Justice.” It means “redistribution
of wealth.” Is that what the “local” planners have in mind for their
community development?

It’s
obvious that the APA is playing word games with its surveys and
definitions of planning. No wonder such an overwhelming majority answer in
the affirmative to such questions.

And,
yes, maybe a lot of Americans don’t know what Agenda 21 really is.
However, if the APA asked real questions that gave a solid clue as to the
planning they actually have in mind, I’m quite sure they would get a much
different response – whether the person answering had ever heard of Agenda
21 or not. For example, here are some sample questions that could help the
APA take the real pulse of the community – if they wanted to be
honest:

• How do
the citizens feel about planning policy that dictates the size of their
yard and forces high density developments where one practically sits on
top of their neighbors? Do they still support such
“Planning?”
• How do
the citizens feel about planning that enforces the creation of public
transportation with a limited number of riders – yet could cost
taxpayers so much money that it would be literally cheaper to buy each
potential rider a brand new Rolls Royce, even when the chauffeur is
thrown in for good measure? Do they still support such
“Planning?
• How do
they feel about planning that enforces limits on energy use and forces
up energy costs? What if that included forcing residents to replace
their appliances with more energy efficient ones to meet “Planning
Standards?” Do they still support such “Planning?”
• How do
the citizens feel about Planning that forces cars to “share the road”
with bicycles and foot traffic, even as Planners narrow the streets,
deliberately making it harder to drive? Do they still support such
“Planning?”
• How do
the citizens feel about Planning that forces tax payers to pay for
plug-in stations for electric cars that hardly anyone wants or uses, for
the specific purpose of forcing people to buy them? Do they still
support such “Planning?”
• How do
the citizens feel about Planning that creates non-elected boards,
councils and regional governments to enforce their policies, which
actually diminish the power of the officials they elected, severely
reducing citizen input into policy? Do they still support such
“Planning?”

Ask the
questions in this manner instead of trying to whitewash them into sounding
like innocent, non-intrusive local ideas for community development. Ask
the questions so that they reflect the consequences of the plans, and then
see if the 85% now are so eager to ignore the effects of Agenda
21.

The
reality is that Americans across the nation are now openly protesting such
policies as they are being enforced in communities everywhere. They are
directly tied to the stated goals of Sustainable Development, the official
policy of Agenda 21. And that is why a twenty year old “suggestion” has
become the focal point of attacks on “local” planning.

Planners
are shocked that people are opposed to such attacks on their private
property and their pocketbooks, and they are doing everything possible to
label such Americans as “fringe conspiracy theorists.” The survey is part
of that effort.

In fact,
the APA survey follows a barrage of news articles, obviously contrived by
the public relations firm hired by APA, to again, paint its image as just
a group of honest planners trying to do their jobs while being unjustly
attacked by fringe radicals. Such convenient reports have suddenly
appeared on the front page of the New York Times, Washington Post,
Wisconsin Watch, Mother Jones and the Southern Poverty Law Center, to name
a few. It’s interesting to note that most of these stories name me as the
perpetrator.

As
mentioned, the APA has organized a boot camp to train their planners how
to combat us nasty protestors. Through its new training, the APA downplays
revealing details of the plan, instead, suggesting ways to make their
presentations merely “conversations with the community,” using empathy,
and terms that are non-technical.” Obviously APA believes the protestors
are just simpleminded and unable to see their wisdom. One shouldn’t be so
upset over losing control of their property, their business or their farm.
There’s a higher good at stake here, after all.

And so,
to accomplish that task of dumbed- down “planning,” (and in fact, hiding
its real purpose) the APA is going to great lengths to change the words.
For example, the APA has issued to its members a “Glossary for the Public”
that suggests what words should no longer be used in public meetings when
discussing planning, because they make the opposition see “red.” So the
planners should not use words like collaboration and consensus, or public
visioning, or even “Smart Growth.”

The
Glossary provides specific language and tactics to be used to defuse
protests. “Stay on message,” it says. “The following phrases may be useful
to help you frame your message in a way that is positive and inclusive,
when transitioning to a local example, or to stay on message during public
meetings where critics may attempt to distract from the agenda or topic at
hand.” And here is the language they suggest: “Plans and planning are
time-tested ways for communities and neighborhoods to create more options
and choices for their residents...” In other words, we’ve always had
planning, so what’s the problem?”

Such
“public” meetings that the APA is so worried about being disrupted are not
public at all. They are “consensus” meetings, run by professional
facilitators, trained in psychology to use stealth to direct the audience
into a pre-determined direction for a pre- determined outcome. Anyone
asking questions outside the well-controlled box is labeled a protestor.
And we are protesting that! It is not how things are to be done in a free
society, especially when your own property is at stake.

Yes,
there has been planning throughout the history of America. Many
communities have come up with efficient ways to deal with water use and
waste disposal, and to assure that factories weren’t built next door to
private homes, and so forth. And no one is protesting that!

Our
fight is with “planning” that is specifically designed to curtail energy
use, drive up costs, control private property and development and building
- literally dictating a change in our lives and even changing the very
structure of our system of government.

One of
the tools the APA uses to enforce planning is through the International
Code Council (ICC), an international set of standards based on a one size
fits all set of regulations. The ICC also develops the International
Energy Conservation Code, a model for energy efficiency code. And it
develops a standard for Accessible And Usable Building Facilities. Each of
these codes is aimed at cutting back energy use, controlling private
property use, and, in short, enforcing sustainable development. Where was
the concept of sustainable development first introduced and perfected as
an agenda for development? Oh yes, in Agenda 21. There is no room for
discussion, reason or consideration for exceptional local situations. The
APA brings these codes and others into the community planning as a pre-
packaged deal inflicting the community with (yes) foreign regulations. And
yes, dedicated Americans protest that this is not local government or
planning, but the enforcement of an international (UN) agenda.

We
further find similar pre-packaged regulations coming from federal
agencies, including the EPA (which openly admits that some of its grant
programs are designed to impose Agenda 21) the Forest Service (which
admits that its policies on forest conservation are coming from the UN’s
Brundtland Commission on Global Governance), as well as polices from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of
Transportation, to name a few.

And so
it goes. Government in the U.S., at all levels, is happily moving forward
with such plans, using the ground troops supplied by the American Planning
Association in every community. It’s happening fast, and is all-pervasive.
And as people are being run over by such plans, some are trying to slow
down the runaway freight train by standing in the tracks and yelling stop!
They of course are the ones labeled as fringe nuts.

However,
as the APA does everything it can to so label our movement, a shocking new
report provides new evidence that the sustainable polices advocated by APA
in the cities – the policy known as Smart Growth – is wrong headed and
really pretty dumb. And where does such a report appear? Here’s the real
shocker. It was published in the Journal of the American Planning
Association in an article entitled “Does Urban Form Really Matter.” It is
an analysis of Smart Growth polices in the United Kingdom which shows that
the “compact city” controls don’t work.

Says the
report, “The current planning policy strategies for land use and
transportation have virtually no impact on the major long-term increases
in resource and energy consumption. They will generally tend to increase
costs and reduce costs and reduce economic competitiveness.” Continues the
report, “Claims of compaction will make cities more sustainable have been
debated for some time, but they lack conclusive supporting evidence as to
the environmental and, particularly, economic and social
effects.”

There
you have it. Right out of the pages of the APA’s own Journal, the very
policies that they are forcing on communities across the nation, are
wrong. Forcing mass migration into cities where people are to live in high
density buildings, or homes on lots so close together that the dog can’t
squeeze between houses, have no effect on the environment. But as I have
stated in articles and speeches across the nation, such “planning” creates
an artificial shortage of land, causing housing costs to go up. It doesn’t
cut down on energy use or protect the environment. It’s a useless
intrusion in the lives of honest Americas.

And that
is exactly why we are protesting Agenda 21. It is wrong. The premise is
wrong. The facts as presented by the APA and other planners, are wrong. It
is wrong for our nation. Wrong for property owners. Wrong for future
generations.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews
Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail
Address:

In the
1970s, author Richard Bach, who wrote the classic book, Jonathan
Livingston Seagull, also wrote a second book entitled, Illusions: The
Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah. In the book, a Messiah, as he was
forced to come up with answers to the problems of life, consulted the
“Messiah’s Handbook.” All he had to do was open the book and it would
miraculously turn open to the very page containing the answer he sought.
He stumbled through his adventures, following the handbook. But finally,
in the end, as he consulted it a final time, the page read simply,
“Everything in this book may be wrong.

There is
only one right approach for a community to come together to discuss and
solve common problem: open discussion, honest debates and votes, and above
all, a full concentration on the protection of private property rights as
the ultimate decider. The American Planning Association needs a new
handbook!

© 2012 Tom DeWeese - All Rights
Reserved

Related Article:

1- The Deliberate Destruction of Education in
Tennessee

Share This
Article

Click Here For
Mass E-mailing

Tom
DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty,
free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics
education and American sovereignty and independence.

A
native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as
editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age
of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team
to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge
University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge
Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and
President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese
Report

For
40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer
and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s
need to keep moving forward while protecting our
Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

The
DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540)
341-8911

E-Mail: [email-masked]

E-Mail: [email-masked]

Website: http://www.americanpolicy.org/

Home

And that is exactly why we
are protesting Agenda 21. It is wrong. The premise is wrong. The facts as
presented by the APA and other planners, are wrong. It is wrong for our
nation. Wrong for property owners. Wrong for future
generations.