By Peter Galuszka

A half a century ago in rural places like the tobacco and corn fields of Eastern North Carolina, there used to be billboards with strong and aggressive messages. One said: “This Is Klan Country.” Another advocated: “U.S. Out of the United Nations.”

Both represented frightening, hard-right elements. The source of the first sign was obvious. Another, slightly more presentable group had put up the second sign. That was the John Birch Society, an ultra-conservative organization founded in 1958 that hated communists, pushed U.S. unilateralism, and purported to uphold so-called “American” values, which, at the time, were codes words for Anglo Saxon “Christians” upset about everything from growing globalism to integrating the races at home.

Now, people of the same ilk, Tea Partiers and other hard-right types, are extending decades-old U.N. paranoia to down-in-the-weeds smart growth policies that set up limits such as lot size, where growth should go and how services can be matched to growth.

In an intriguing article in this Sunday’s Richmond Times Dispatch, reporter Rex Springston outlines how this cabal apparently based in the Richmond area and in the watery Middle Neck has targeted the smart growth campaign. They have helped delay comprehensive plans in Henrico and Chesterfield Counties, oppose the use of electricity meters, bike paths, and cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay.

Their rallying cry is the so-called “Agenda 21” which is a policy established by the U.N. back in the early 1990s promoting the then-fashionable ideals of “sustainable development.” Given that the document came from an international group representing countries of all income and development levels, it pushes such guidelines as grouping housing for the sake of efficient resource use.

The anti-Agenda 21 crowd claims that the plan would strip away home ownership. It would end private farming and would apparently push people into Stalin-style collective farms or somesuch. Erecting smart electric meters in individuals’ houses for more efficient use of electricity is part of a plot for mass surveillance by Big Government. Naturally, George Soros, the billionaire, left-leaning financier, is behind this. Yet the Republican National Committee and Next Gingrich have embraced getting rid of Agenda 21.

Close to my home in Chesterfield County, anti- Agenda 21 types have helped delay adoption of a new comprehensive plan which had been designed more or less around smart growth policies. Growth would be concentrated around existing highway and commercial areas and not allowed to hopscotch hither and yon. A “green zone” in southwestern Chesterfield where I live would be kept green. Tea Party types threw wrench into that one, saying it would take property rights away from owners.

One wonders where these clowns were back 20 years ago when Chesterfield’s growth-happy board of supervisors gave into every idea any developer had. That is why schools are overcrowded and police and fire services are short-changed. My small subdivision has shifted school districts three times in 10 years to help the county rectify its disastrous planning.

The Tea Party people like bad planning because it represents “freedom,” I would guess. It seems extremely odd that they would drag in a sleepy, two-decades-old UN proposal as their whipping boy. Their claims that it is fostering global socialism is as nutty as the John Birch Society itself.

One wonders, with the global economy deciding where jobs go more and more, how these people deal with the 21st century world. Their solution seems to be to dress up like Patrick Henry in colonial garb, wave their rattlesnake flags and tell the rest of the world where to go. The rest of us will be paying for the consequences.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    Oh, BTW…
    The draft plan is gone. They are (thankfully) starting over. But not so much because of these folks.

  2. If you like what you’ve seen and heard so far, you’ll LOVE THIS:

    Spotsylvania County is getting ready to do the annual 5-year update of it’s Comp Plan.

    The Planning Commission has asked the Planning Department to return with a brand new Comp Plan that starts from ZERO and has in it ONLY what the State mandates.

    this ought to be interesting…….

  3. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    Wow Larry…If they had any sense, they would revise the public facilities plan and leave it alone.
    Anyway, that’s at least a three year process…have fun, but watch out for the ordinance amendment.

  4. I heard from some anti-Agenda 21 people from time to time. I see them as somewhat amusing. At the same time, much of the smart growth movement does not see new urbanism as another choice in housing and lifestyle, but rather, something that must be forced through government. There are many rabidly anti-automobile, anti-suburb, etc. people out there. They are just as scary as the anti-Agenda 21 crowd. Listen to Senator Barbara Favola talk about smart growth or her former colleague from the Arlington County board Chris Zimmerman on the same subject. Then read some of the posts on Greater, Greater Washington. They are looney tunes.
    Every time I get extremely frustrated with Fairfax County, which I do, I try to tell myself I could still be living in Arlington. There are extremists on the fringes.

  5. squier13 Avatar

    “…the smart growth movement does not see new urbanism as another choice in housing and lifestyle, but rather, something that must be forced through government.”
    *****
    No, that is incorrect. New urbanist designs are literally illegal in most parts of the country, as in zoning codes do not allow that type of development. Try building a multifamily building with stores on the first floor and only a couple parking spaces and no setback from the RoW in Chesterfield and see how that goes.

    What the new urbanists are saying is for governments to stop rigidly separating uses and mandating pointless setbacks and off-street parking. All they are saying is for government to get out of the way and let the experiments unfold.

    What they have found is that people really like mixed-use neighborhoods where they can walk to stores or even their offices and not have to get in a car to do everything they need to during the day. Not only do these developments NOT need to be “forced through government” there is in fact a huge market demand for them. Look at your own example of Arlington, that is one of the most densely populated parts of Virginia (and 11th wealthiest county in the USA) and it isn’t because government is forcing all those people to live there.

    I don’t think there’s any parallel between the new urbanists and the “Agenders.” New urbanists promotes a particular type of development planning; “Agenders” promote a baseless conspiracy theory.

  6. squier13 Avatar

    On that note, I would think a lot more of the “Agenders” if they would drop the idiotic canards about the UN takeover and just be honest about what they want.

    “IMHO” what the “Agenders” are really saying is, hey we LIKE suburbia, we like car culture and we want government to do everything in its power to preserve and expand that lifestyle. We want government to give us cheap gasoline no matter what; we want government to build roads and sewers and water plants wherever the developers want to put up the next subdivision and strip mall; we only want to see large lot single family houses; and we DON’T want anyone telling us there might be limits to our lifestyle.

    I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that because the alternative, that they really believe in a UN takeover, is completely idiotic.

  7. chriswiegard Avatar
    chriswiegard

    yes indeed, the agenda 21 folk are NUTBARS. and yes indeed, they are trying to turn the clock back to MORE suburban sprawl, even though here in Chesterfield we are now paying the price for past Laissez Faire approaches to development. How do you even start with mass transit when there is so much space between homes that setting up bus stops is unrealistic?
    There is only one possible solution to the agenda 21 wackos trying to impose their vision on Chesterfield: other people with working brains need to show up at planning meetings. See you there on April 5, 2012.

  8. these are GOOD comments that are NOT coming from the frequent posters.

    thank you!

    Let me add. The Agenda 21 folks I have seen and heard – seem to oppose
    the use of eminent domain.

    They also seem to oppose the concept of designating land use including targeting where growth and infrastructure investment should occur.

    it seems to me that they basically are challenging virtually the entire concept of government’s role in land use.

    am I wrong?

    As I said in an earlier post – the newly-appointed Planning Commission in Spotsylvania as the first step in reviewing the Comp Plan, has directed staff to bring back a Comp Plan that has nothing in it at all except what Virginia mandates.

  9. “turn the clock back to MORE suburban sprawl” & “we like suburbia, we like car culture and we want government to do everything in its power to preserve and expand that lifestyle”
    I see these two views as essentially one in the same. As I have written before, there are many people in both Fairfax and Arlington Counties who don’t oppose suburban sprawl since it moves many costs away from these counties. Residents of these two counties (and others) do not have an obligation to accept a decline in lifestyle or higher taxes to keep development local. At the same time, there is room for urban development in both counties. For example, virtually no one testified against the revised Comp Plan for Tysons. Most people support adding significant density at the four rail stations. There is no outcry against mixed use development. There has been support for strict TDM measures. There are strong objections to the public paying any substantial (e.g., greater than 25%) of the infrastructure costs to support an urban Tysons.
    At the same time, I would suspect there would be strong opposition to the expansion of urban areas outside the existing Tysons boundary and outside the clear walking areas near the stations.
    Mass transit, even simple bus service, is extremely expensive. Fairfax County is struggling how to fund expanded bus service, not just to and from Tysons, but all over the county.
    I think there is room for both strong protection of Fairfax County’s large suburban footprint and the development of urban enclaves.

  10. People want a standard home with a front and back yard that they can afford on the salary they earn.

    It’s not an unreasonable expectation of prior decades but the plain fact is that all but the mature career jobs in the NoVa area are hard pressed to find a single family detached home with front/back yards for a mom/dad/family but the exurban jurisdictions where that house can be found for an affordable price is where those who cannot afford the NoVa version of it – go.

    this is not a unique NoVa situation. It’s pretty much the deal in most urban areas.

    The “cost” of this mismatch is the commuting infrastructure, the parking for work, and the hammered surface-streets once people leave the interstate commuting infrastructure.

    Who pays for this? That’s the issue. Does NoVa pay for this? Not directly financially, but they pay for it in horrendous interstate and surface street congestion.

    should those who describe their commute as a “no-choice” circumstance pay for the commuting infrastructure?

    So far, they do not think so. They think it’s up to the state to provide the infrastructure and the money should come from all Virginian’s not them who drive.

    ergo -there is the Sprawl conundrum in a nutshell.

  11. Rocc0thedog Avatar
    Rocc0thedog

    larryg’s last comment hits the nail on the head. While a big argument of the “Agenders” is that sustainability is an environmental farce that will leave the country broke, in actuality one of, if not THE main purpose of sustainable planning is to minimize the financial burden of development by reducing the impact on government services.

    All levels of government are going broke trying to support the sprawl development that has resulted from decades of Euclidean zoning. Let’s look at highways alone, 48,281 of the total 57,729 miles maintained by VDOT are secondary roads. The majority of those secondaries being “neighborhood” roads built by developers and then turned over to the state for maintenance. Since we’re talking maintenance, let’s look at lane miles which provides a better picture of how much asphalt has to be maintained by the state: 97,629 lane miles out of 125,366 total are secondaries. That’s a heck of a lot of surface coats, pothole repairs, culvert repairs and plowing on neighborhood streets that, when looked at on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, serve very few citizens.

    Let’s look at another indicator, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). From 1987 to 2008, VMT in Virginia doubled from 54,834 million to 82,279 million. The largest driving factor for this jump is the development of suburban and exurban auto dependent neighborhoods, requiring people to not only drive for every trip, but to drive increasing longer distances for every trip. All this increased VMT equals increased wear and tear on the roadway and an increased expenditure of tax dollars for maintenance payments.

    You can make a similar dollar and cents argument for installation and maintenance of water and sewer lines (although that cost can be recovered through hook-up and user fees), and fuel and fleet maintenance costs for emergency service vehicles and school buses.

    The point of all this is that by allowing (notice I did not say “requiring”) for new-urbanist/neo-traditional/sustainable development, you are providing a tool that government can use to help reign in their costs for services which should, in turn, reduce their tax burden. You would think this would be an idea that a group of citizens who feel they are “taxed enough already” could get behind. I fully support folks having the freedom to do what they wish with their property, but those people need to realize the costs associated with it and be prepared to dig deep in their own pockets to support it.

Leave a Reply