November 25, 2012
Dear Citizens of Lubbock,
Thank you for taking the time to start educating yourself regarding what is taking place in our great city. We feel that smart meters are the first step in implementing Agenda 21. The downtown plan which is taking place in Lubbock is definitely local agenda 21 in action with Gianni Longo, the ringleader, who once spoke at a UN conference and now advances Agenda 21. Documentation in the Sevier County newspaper states that “the UN uses ‘collaborative conferencing’ to subtly entice communities into ceding sovereignty.” Longo has been involved in over 600 cities in some capacity bringing about Sustainable Development, a term which can be interchanged with Agenda 21 as they are one and the same. I am including an article as a footnote to this letter that my son wrote about one of his discoveries with smart meters and how these are just a part of a global cap and trade scheme. The whole goal is to commoditize our energy. This was even confirmed during a meeting with the Lubbock Power and Light CEO at United with several people present. We will not be subject to supply and demand but by price fixing that the big wigs set. The average American consumer will definitely be the loser. Please look at the abstract and the inventor, as well as the assignee, in the article footnoted. It just takes 45 seconds to realize what this is all about.
In addition to smart meters, we have come up with a list of items that we would like to not see come out of this Imagine Lubbock comprehensive plan. We know that the outcome is predetermined via the Delphi technique. We observed this technique being used where my son lives in regards to their transportation planning, park planning, and city planning with form based codes. We observed the very same technique being used at the civic center with a set of outcomes that were predetermined to select from. We believe the conservative and correct way to plan is via the free-market planning approach “where local government planning should, first of all, protect the private property rights of its citizens. The legitimate function of local planning is to facilitate the safe and coordinated exercise of the free market in real estate and commerce.” Henry Lamb
The downtown project is about to launch into these charrettes which will most likely result in form-based codes which foster predictable built-in results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form rather than separation of uses as the organizing principle for the code. There are many private property implications imposing such a code onto current private property owners.
We are compiling a list of some of the mandates that we feel will come out of the plan and what these goals will mean for the citizens of Lubbock. We are open to discussing this further, and there are many other outcomes that are possible, but we are trying to point out the most obvious.
Redevelopment is the name of the game that is being played in Lubbock, and these concerns are numerous in regards to this fairly new policy to the public on this broad of a scale. There are private property implications. If there are “new” design rules (Form-Based Zoning), then the owner of that property is now under restrictions that never existed. It is like someone coming into your neighborhood and telling you that you can only paint your house red. All of the property owners were sent a letter in the “human activity” center in San Marcos where my son lives, and the letter stated that there were too many property owners. This implied that they needed to consolidate ownership in order to do the complete project that they had in mind. Fifty percent of their allocated money from their MPO will now be spent ONLY in those activity centers of 1/4 to 1/2 mile in width while the rest of the citizens in the county suffer. This is robbing the suburbs to pay for the cities. I am assuming this new top down policy will apply to Lubbock as well. Also, in new development the developer typically pays for infrastructure. In redevelopment, the taxpayer is on the hook, and the bonding that goes with it does NOT usually go before the taxpayers. If the development does not succeed, the taxpayer is on the hook for the loss. If the development wins, then it is straight to the bank for the developer, while the taxpayer is left hanging. Also, people inside the centers will be paying lower rates in electricity, while the more distant properties will be charged higher rates. This is where we will be getting our tiered pricing. This results in social nudging, encouraging the population to move toward the determined “activity center”. The larger your home, the more you will pay per kilowatt hour. Also, low income HAS to be integrated into these federal projects to promote social equity, and likewise in the suburbs, many of the foreclosed homes are being purchased with neighborhood stabilization grants to “level” the playing field in the wealthier neighborhoods. Following are some specifics that should be taken into consideration if the Imagine Lubbock Plan comes to fruition:
- No International Property Maintenance Code—In the 2009 version and later there are clauses in these codes that permit city workers to come into the home without a warrant.
- No across the board rezoning of any property in the downtown area via form-based codes. Each property should be considered on its own merit with input from surrounding property owners. If new urbanism is a desire, let it be a free market to a need, and someone in the private market can provide it and put it before the city council just like everyone else does.
- We do not believe that a majority of transportation dollars should be concentrated in one area and that it should go where there is a need. We should not have to re-engineer. If there is a desire to revitalize downtown, it should not be through federal grants, which always come with federal mandates and strings attached. After reviewing HUD, DOT and EPA’s sustainability goals, we do not believe that the limits on personal freedom and private property outweigh the potential spectrum of benefits that the preferred sustainability status has to offer Lubbock.
- We do not believe that the EPA and TXDOT should play a role in our community development.
- We believe that social justice promoted through planning from the central government mimics socialism.
- We do not seek preferred sustainability status, and we do not believe that this is a core desire or outcome that should come from community development. This should be an individual choice.
- While we are not opposed to public transportation, we do not agree with any plan that promotes a decrease in per capita miles traveled and transportation-related emissions for the region. We believe this to be frivolous.
- While carbon dioxide may be a greenhouse gas, we disagree with the EPA’s opinion that it is a pollutant which must be regulated.
- We believe strongly in individual liberty; while community is important, many comprehensive plans promoting social justice/social equity are placing rights of the community above the individual, and there are no such rights in our Constitution nor our Declaration of Independence.
- While we believe in improved energy efficient standards, we oppose amending our city charter or accepting federal grants to promote these ideas.
- We oppose partnerships with ICLEI, and after further review, believe it is treasonous to enter into a contract with a foreign organization which is headquartered in Bonn, Germany. Furthermore, by contracting with ICLEI, a community is signing on to fifteen principles of the Earth Charter which are in direct conflict with our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
- We do not believe in a broad-based indicators project, which measures every human activity in regards to “sustainability”; that should be up to the individual family. One must not look too far from the origin of the term, “Sustainable Development” to find that it was coined by a socialist, Gro Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway and former Vice President of the World’s Socialist Party. “The WSP of the United States is part of a globalist socialist movement that believes capitalism cannot meet the needs of a majority of people in the world however “progressive” it might become. To meet these needs, capitalism must be replaced by socialism.” (From the Home Page of the WSP of the US)
- We do not support infill and brownfield projects using taxpayers’ dollars or grants through HUD, DOT and EPA. It is not the city’s job to determine underutilized areas of others’ private property.
- We support parks with voter approval; we believe that interconnected parkways are fiscally irresponsible and involve private property issues. Recently, in San Marcos, Texas, a ballot initiative, Proposition 2, BARELY failed to give the city power of eminent domain in order to obtain more park land by taking people’s private property, including homes.
- We are not willing to take the federal money which will turn our community upside down.
- We are opposed to price tiering, based on where someone lives in relation to an “activity center” (redevelopment area). We oppose amending the city charter to include the definition of an urban growth boundary. Lubbock has an abundant supply of land, and an anti-sprawl agenda could prove very costly to taxpayers.
It is imperative that we keep ICLEI out of our county government and our city government, as their main role is to maneuver local laws and push the envelope of people’s private property rights to implement smart growth and the Wildland’s project, the two key components of the physical manifestation of Agenda 21. The real agenda is control, and it has nothing to do with saving our environment.
Please encourage your friends and neighbors to register and attend the “Design Charrettes”, which are being held on December 1, 2, and 5, so they can witness for themselves the remaking of Lubbock by 1,000 or less people speaking for all Lubbock citizens. Much of this plan will be carried out without voter approval. The plan is highly endorsed by our mayor who stated at the last meeting at the civic center, “There will be people who try to stop you, but don’t let them.”
We need to fight for our God given unalienable rights! God bless Lubbock!
Leo and Liz Padgett
Smart Meters: The Gateway to Cap and Trade
What I find baffling is how Conservatives have presented themselves as being strongly opposed to Cap and Trade, yet they have allowed this very atrocious act against the American public to be implemented through the installation of smart meters. If you have a smart meter, you will be a pawn in one of the biggest global scams ever perpetrated against unknowing energy consumers. Also, I find it puzzling that the very entity entangled in the housing debacle, Fannie Mae, is a co-assignee for a patent for this scam as seen on the following website http://www.google.com/patents/US7133750. Sold to the public as being an effective way for the consumer to save money and energy, these meters are simply a means of calculating every single human activity performed inside your own home. No longer is your home a place of sanctity and privacy, it is now open for the whole world to see.
By commoditizing energy and making it tradable at the individual level, we are all subject to social equity objectives set out by the United Nations and the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. In other words, being able to spread the wealth around and pick winners and losers can be accomplished by the press of a computer key stroke in some bureaucrat’s office in your hometown or even across the globe.
Because there has been slim to no debate regarding how these meters are being utilized, it begs the question of how much our politicians at every level of government are profiting through this scam. We are finding evidence that this is probably the greatest factor driving the implementation of these freedom-robbing devices. Stay tuned to our website as we continue to unfold the layers of this global scam through kickbacks to locally elected officials, royalties to utility companies and officials, and massive profits via public-private partnerships.
by Justin Padgett www.resist21.com
The present invention is directed to a method of residential emissions trading and a residential emissions trading commodity. In particular, an embodiment of the present invention is a method for identifying, quantifying, and aggregating reductions in residential emissions into a tradable commodity. The step of quantifying the emissions reduction may further comprise the steps of measuring an energy savings resulting from the energy savings opportunity and calculating the emissions reduction resulting from the energy savings. The method may further comprise the steps of verifying the quantification of the emissions reduction and monitoring the residential energy savings opportunities and the quantification of the emissions reduction.
Original Assignees: Fannie Mae, CO2e.com, LLC
Primary Examiner: Kidest Behta
Attorney: Rader, Fishman & Grauer PLLC
Current U.S. Classification: 700/286; 700/295; 705/401