The plot to transform the San
Francisco Bay Area into a political “Region” is largely unknown by the
residents living there and overwhelmingly opposed by those who do know. The
global boiler plate program called One Bay Area (OBA) or Plan Bay Area will roll out across the nation on a grand scale. OBA
involves more than $250,000,000,000 (over a quarter of a trillion dollars). The
plan destroys rural and suburban lifestyles and transforms areas into dense
mega-cities where people are assessed, monitored and controlled. Sound extreme?
Regional government is promulgated through
Councils of Governments (COGs)
and serves to neuter local government through a federalized system of carrots
and sticks. COGs are designed to be the primary engine in the United States to
advance Agenda 21 at the local level. The Plan for the Bay Area is the
prototype of what COGs throughout the country will commit to if the Plan is
implemented in the Bay Area. Over time the Plan abolishes private property as a
system of public private partnerships assume control of our economic future.
Michael Shaw of Freedom Advocates
and Rosa Koire of The Post Sustainability Institute are spearheading a lawsuit to block the implementation of
Plan Bay Area, an agenda created by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG). The lawsuit challenges the Plan on the basis
of Constitutional and/or statutory violations inherent in the Plan.
These include state and federal equal protection violations, and violation of
the state constitutional guarantee that each city and county has autonomy from
coercive state control and regionalist philosophy. Article XI of the
state constitution guarantees city and county autonomy, and the 14th amendment
of the federal constitution guarantees equal protection.
You Can Help! Freedom Advocates has established a litigation fund to halt
the One Bay Area Plan’s affront to the American system of government. You can
participate in the effort to restore our historic local system of government by
contributing to the legal action to stop ABAG’s One Bay Area program and
ultimately abolish the COG system. Read the outstanding Opening Brief (below)
written by attorney Timothy Kassouni and help us carry this lawsuit through to
the finish! We need your financial help to avoid an administrative takeover of
America including the restructure of your entire way of life. Go to the Donate
page to make a contribution to support our litigation.
Freedom Advocates has recaptured its
501(c)(3) eligibility status, so your donations are tax deductible.
Amended Complaint Brief –
March 6, 2014
Michael Shaw of Freedom
Advocates, Rosa Koire, and The Post Sustainability Institute file Complaint
seeking to negate ABAG’s One Bay Area Plan.
Opening Brief – Filed July
15, 2014
Kassouni
Law files opening brief in case challenging Plan Bay Area’s Sustainable
Communities Strategy
Today the land use law firm of
Kassouni Law filed the opening brief in an important case challenging the Plan Bay Area’s
Sustainable Communities Strategy adopted by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG). Kassouni Law represents Michael Shaw of Freedom Advocates,
Rosa Koire, and the Post-Sustainability Institute. MTC and ABAG were directed by law to craft a plan to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state to 1990 levels by the year 2025.
However, the end result is a 150 page manifesto of social engineering run amok
which will fail to hit its greenhouse gas emissions target.
The plan over time will drastically
reduce if not outright ban the development of many vacant parcels in the
Bay Area, thereby forcing residents to work and live in small, high
density Priority Development Areas (PDAs). Not only that, important
environmental protections provided by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be eliminated for favored developers who build in
these PDAs, creating serious equal protection and environmental concerns.
Federal transportation funds administered by MTC will be withheld from cities
and counties unless they agree to the draconian land use restrictions imposed,
bribery in common parlance.
An independent study prepared for
the government by Economic Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS.) has concluded the
Plan is infeasible, as it relies on a number of legislative and
Constitutional changes, including the repeal of Proposition 13, which has
helped keep property taxes in check for 40 years, and which has also restricted
the state’s ability to raise taxes without a 2/3 super majority vote.
Even if the plan is
adopted, any positive effects on the environment will be virtually
nil according to studies performed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Further, given the CEQA modification for PDAs, the impact on the
environment may be negative.
It is hoped that the Alameda County
Superior Court, where the case has been filed, will see through the charade of
sustainable development and restore common sense for the people of
California.
Response from ABAG – August
29, 2014
ABAG’s response to our Opening Brief
was received on Friday, August 29, 2014. The government’s response demonstrates
bureaucratic overload.
Reply Brief – October 20,
2014
Petitioners’ Reply: How this
bureaucracy has demonstrated its excess.
Hearing – November 10, 2014
Superior Court of the State of California
County of Alameda
Judge: Hon. Evelio M. Grillo
Superior Court of the State of California
County of Alameda
Judge: Hon. Evelio M. Grillo
Tentative Ruling, Court
Hearing, and Supplemental Briefing
On Friday November 7, Alameda County
Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo issued a tentative ruling denying
Petitioners’ request for the issuance of a writ of mandate halting
implementation of the One Bay Area Plan in the matter of the Association of Bay
Area Governments’ (ABAG) restructure of local government.
On Monday November 10, a hearing was
held to discuss this tentative ruling. Petitioners’ counsel focused on the
statutory requirement that the Sustainable Communities Strategy be “feasible.”
The definition of feasible includes the requirement that greenhouse gas reduction
be achieved within a reasonable period of time. In its briefing, ABAG never
presented a feasible plan nor addressed the issue of the timing for their
“Strategies” implementation. Currently, ABAG merely concludes the
project is feasible despite the fact that their planning consultant
offered no evidence to support ABAG’s conclusion. ABAG recites a number of new
laws will have to be passed before the Plan can be fully implemented. This list
includes gutting Proposition 13. Is that feasible? ABAG offers no timetable for
a feasible plan designed to transform the Bay Area in accordance with the
“Strategies” law itself.
Further, consider: ABAG’s
judicially relevant assertion that their funding of One Bay Area (OBA) is 5% of
federal funding issued to this geographic area. This perspective misleads the
relevant fact that ABAG funding of OBA totals 50% off all discretionary federal
payments to this area! As a consequence, Cities and Counties are coerced into
participation by the force of these lost dollars.
There are more issues raised on the
record linked below.
It was an interesting Hearing!
Read:
Final Ruling
In a result oriented decision,
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo ruled against Freedom
Advocates and others in the war over protecting Cities and Counties from a
transformation of local government (One Bay Area). The new form of
government in the San Francisco Bay Area is run by ABAG (Association of Bay
Area Governments). ABAG has jammed a $300 billion national taxpayers funding
program that extorts all 101 cities and 9 counties in the Bay Area. ABAG is a
COG (Council of Governments). COGs are directed and funded by the federal
government and are extra-Constitutional. Total transformation is the Agenda –
including massive stack and pack housing on 3% of the area’s land mass,
abolition of private property, public transportation in replacement of private
auto use and attacks on rural housing – pure Agenda 21 and “justified” on the
basis of ‘climate change.’ A convenient excuse for restructuring government! As
the Bay Area goes, so will Los Angeles and then San Diego. The Bay Area cities
have been lured to remake their zoning ordinances in order to qualify for
receipt of a share of One Bay Area’s $16 billion ‘start up’ fund to be
distributed soon by ABAG, unless there is Court intervention.
The One Bay Area plan intends
for the San Francisco Bay Area to become the first American City-State (see
video here). Newspapers in the Bay Area essentially do not report on
the transformation. The public is unaware. COGs came to California by decree of
then Governor Ronald Reagan, who declared as justification: “The era of horse
and buggy government is over.” Liberal politicians + Conservative politicians =
Globalists. The real battle is Globalism vs. America. Where do you stand?
Seven Reasons Why Plan Bay
Area is Illegal & Bad Policy for California by Timothy Kassouni
Plan Bay Area is a monumental land use document prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), for the ostensible purpose of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions by 15 percent by the year 2035, as required by former Governor
Schwarzenegger’s Senate Bill 375. Kassouni Law is currently litigating the legality of this plan in
Alameda County Superior Court, and a final decision is expected within the next
several weeks. These are the top seven reasons why the plan is a bad idea:
http://globalizationofcalifornia.com/?page_id=2807
Continue reading here
Seven Reasons Why Plan Bay Area is Illegal & Bad Policy for California
Posted by Timothy V. Kassouni at December 17, 2014 & filed under Land Use, One Bay Area, Plan Bay Area, Sustainable
Communities Strategy.
Plan Bay Area is a monumental land use
document prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC), and the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG), for the ostensible purpose of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions by 15 percent by the year 2035, as required by former Governor
Schwarzenegger’s Senate Bill 375. Kassouni
Law is currently litigating the legality of this plan in Alameda
County Superior Court, and a final decision is expected within the next several
weeks. These are the top seven reasons why the plan is a bad idea:
1) The plan violates equal protection.
One provision of the plan allows developers of low income
housing a free pass when it comes to complying with the myriad and wildly
expensive California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. However, there
is no difference between the environmental impact of a low income project, and
a non-low income project. This is a classic example of an equal protection
violation, and punishes property owners who do not wish to pander to MTC and
ABAG projects designed to coerce large swaths of people into high density
parcels. Conversely, property owners who wish to use their land for Plan Bay
Area projects are given preferential treatment by skirting California’s
environmental regulations.
2) The plan will increase housing costs.
One of the main features of the Plan is the diversion of the
populace and new development into densely populated areas in the Bay Area. Much
of the undeveloped land under Plan Bay Area will remain just that, undeveloped
to reduce drive times. This artificially caps continued land development for
residential use which will drive the cost of already expensive Bay Area
housing even higher.
3) The plan is not feasible, therefore illegal.
According to an independent study commissioned by the MTC and
ABAG, the plan cannot come close to its greenhouse reduction target. It will
fail unless substantial legislative changes are made, including the abolishment
of Proposition 13, which was enacted in 1978 to help ensure that property taxes
do not increase exponentially as the cost of real estate increases, and which
also requires a 2/3 vote to increase taxes. Plan Bay Area recognizes the need
for increased taxation to pay for its implementation and thereby seeks to
abolish Prop 13 for more revenue. It is highly unlikely that legislative
changes of this type will be enacted, as Proposition 13 continues to retain the
support of Californians. Simply put, in California, it is illegal to implement
laws that are incapable of successful outcomes and Plan Bay Area will be
unsuccessful if MTC and ABAG are not able to fund Plan Bay Area’s
implementation by increasing taxes and gutting Prop 13.
4) Even if implemented, the plan will have no effect on the environment.
Assuming that MTC’s and ABAG’s independent study was wrong
and the Plan hit its target, it would only reduce global greenhouse gas
emissions by less than one-half of one percent, according to the Environmental
Protection Agency. A miniscule drop in global emissions which would do nothing
to affect climate change.
5) The plan has the practical effect of taking away local autonomy over the land use process.
The California Constitution has a provision commonly known
and the “home rule” guaranty, which grants cities and counties complete
autonomy over the land use process, including the preparation of
general plans, zoning ordinances, and issuance of building permits. The Plan
usurps this local autonomy by cutting off billions of dollars of federal
funding unless these local governments rezone property and force most
construction into priority development areas to create high population density
land parcels. However the United States Supreme Court has likened ultimatums of
this sort to a “gun to the head.” Our State Constitutional framework should not
be upended with extortion tactics.
6) The plan replaces local government with rule by unelected bureaucrats.
Our state is premised upon local government, wherein the
voters of cities and counties can decide issues of land use free from state
interference. The plan, however, was drafted and enacted by a handful of
unelected bureaucrats who have been given the power to decide what is best for
the Bay Area and its residents.
7) The plan is an outmoded solution.
Other than the movement of residents into small parcels, the
plan offers antiquated solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Far less
costly, and more in keeping with the culture of the Bay Area the plan should
have accounted for advances in technology. Technology limits the need to
drive and will continue to do so exponentially with more advancement thereby
exponentially reducing emissions. The reader of Plan Bay Area is left
scratching his/her head wondering if this plan is a dinosaur of a 1950′s land
planning commission when moving populations would have been the only solution.
One is left to ponder, are Bay Area residents giving up their civil liberties
when they have many alternative and viable options to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions?
http://www.kassounilaw.com/2014/12/plan-bay-areas-sustainable-communities-strategy/
No comments:
Post a Comment