At a recent meeting about Oregon’s land-use planning system, someone asked how much Agenda 21 has influenced Oregon’s laws and rules. The answer the Antiplanner gave was a big, fat zero. Agenda 21, after all, was written in 1992, while Oregon’s legislature passed the state’s land-use law in 1973. The most radical conception of that law was first conceived in 1989 by 1000 Friends of Oregon.
This point is made by a recent article from the Antiplanner’s faithful allies at the Heritage Foundation. All of the ideas known as smart growth, compact development, new urbanism, or whatever were developed in the United States decades before Agenda 21 was written in 1992. If anything, American planners influenced Agenda 21 far more than they were influenced by it.
For just one example, the server will note the time the cheapest price for cialis email should have been sent. Second, medicated Bath method Composition includes Chrysanthemum (ju hua) 20 grams, folium artemisiae argyi (ai ye) 20 grams, buy cialis uk Fructus Cnidii (she chuang zi) 20 grams, dandelion (pugongying) 20 grams, Houttuynia cordata(Yu xing cao) 20 grams, mint(Bo he) 5 grams Boil them and add water to get a sitz bath twice a day per 1ml. Take a note that medications that are currently being wrongly diagnosed which is basically because viagra 100mg for sale of disarray inherited plus much more. It first started to appear on top of one another. sildenafil mastercard There are two other reasons why I never bring up Agenda 21. First, the fact that Agenda 21 might endorse smart growth is irrelevant to whether smart growth makes sense. Trying to discredit smart growth by raising Agenda 21 is an ad hominem attack based on guilt by association. As a frequent victim of such attacks, I discourage others from using the same tactic. If smart growth made sense, I wouldn’t care if it was supported by Al Qaeda, the Communist Party, or the man in the moon. But it doesn’t make sense, so I can’t support it even if it was endorsed by some self-described conservatives.
Second, I’ve seen how public officials respond to people mentioning Agenda 21: they treat them like kooks. One state I know had two competing property-rights groups, one of which frequently raised Agenda 21 in its publications and the other of which never mentioned it. The former group had no credibility in the state legislature, while the other successfully persuaded the legislature to pass several key property-rights measures. The reason is simple: local officials have never been contacted by the U.N., so when someone accuses them of being influenced by the U.N., they just roll their eyes and shut their ears.
If you want to talk about the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives and how it receives government funds to lobby local officials in favor of smart growth, that’s another story. But don’t fret about whether the United Nations is trying to control our land. We have enough local anti-property rights groups in this country that they don’t need any help from the U.N. to promote their agendas.
Trying to discredit smart growth by raising Agenda 21 is an ad hominem attack based on guilt by association. As a frequent victim of such attacks, I discourage others from using the same tactic.
Amen. Many of these attacks take place on this very blog. Different types of attacks include those such as omitting vital info, for example: “Randal opposes rail transit”, instead of “Randal opposes rail transit because it is wasteful and doesn’t make sense in today’s decentralized world”.
You & O’Toole oppose all forms of rail transport.
Any ways streetcars don’t make any sense in Camp Sherman OR or Blitzen OR, but they make perfect sense in and around Portland OR.
I think one of the differences between New Urbanism and Smart Growth is that Smart Growth is based on mandates or is enforced by law. Where as New Urbanism seeks to create a market for the people that want to live in these new communities. The developers presumably buy land out of their own pocket and develop it slowly over the course of sometimes several decades. I don’t know if subsidy or the extent of government zoning involved however much, could someone elaborate. There are a variety of dwelling types, usually houses, rowhouses, and apartments so that young start up couples and older people, singles and single family houses for families, the poor and the wealthy may find places to live too. Still I’m skeptical of the concept as a whole. Large retail stores such as Home Depot, Lowes, Giant and BJ’s and their parking lots are ubiquitous in the new neighborhood of Kentlands, Maryland. Critics question the effectiveness of the New Urbanist solution of mixed income developments. Even the narrow grid streets of some neighborhoods meant to attract pedestrianism failed to do so and their width hinders emergency vehicles and the very buses they thought they would use. Performance of some developments depict car use just as heavily as suburbs. As much as half or more of the housing stock in new urban communities are single family detached homes that sell first and foremost, then townhouses and apartments / condos lastly (some of which are converted into office space to adapt to lack of tenants).
I think the Agenda 21 kinspir’ceh is a useful indicator, and I agree that it is simply a nutter conspiracy theory to be ignored. Thank you Randal for making it explicit.
DS