By Heather Gass
Town of Danville adopts International principles from UN in their 2030 General Plan!
Last
night the town of Danville voted to adopt their 2030 General Plan, EIR
(Environmental Impact Report) and optional SAP (Sustainable Action
Plan). With a crowd of over 250+ voicing their concerns the meeting went
into the wee hours of the night. The council made substantial changes
to the plan. Many of these changes were debated and discussed with
council during the hearing and should have led to a new public notice of
the plan changes prior to a vote, but instead the town ended the
meeting by unanimously voting to adopt all three documents setting the
town on a new course for the next 17 years. The most disturbing part of
this is that the City Council has set the small town of Danville on a
path following international principles and ideology by the United
Nations, but refused to acknowledge and disclose that fact to the public
at the meeting or in the planning documents.
The
word “Sustainable” appears 158 times throughout the Danville’s Plan and
SAP to describe everything from business, water, air, housing and
more. The entire foundation of the plan and direction of the town is
dependent on the exact meaning and understanding of this term by those
reading the plan. After all general plans are meant to provide clear,
concise and easy to understand information to the public. So a precise
definition and understanding of the word Sustainable would seem obvious
and necessary.
So what does the word “Sustainability” mean?
Well, The dictionary defines the verb “sustain” as meaning to “support,” “maintain” and to “keep from ruin.” But on page 1-3 of the Danville General Plan, we find the concept of “sustainability” strangely re-defined as “the ability to meet the needs of current residents without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” Where did this new definition come from?
Danville’s
General Plan consultants, DCE Planning (formerly known as Urban
Ecology) are responsible for inserting this new definition into our
plan. This re-definition is unclear, nonspecific and carries substantial
ideological baggage. And since this new definition is NOT in the
dictionary but is posited as the foundational basis for this 17 year
plan it would seem necessary to minimally understand its origin, yet no
credit or sourcing of this information is given in the documents. So
where did DCE Planning get this new definition?
The
concept of “sustainability” as “the ability to meet the needs of
current residents without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their needs” appeared in nearly identical terms in Our Common Future (http://conspect.nl/pdf/Our_
also known as the Brundtland Report, published by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987. Wikipedia also cites this same source.
[“Sustainable development,” says Our Common Future, “is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Chapter 2, Principle 1 — page 37 in the available 247-page PDF compilation)]
[Two paragraphs later, Our Common Future calls for “a progressive transformation of economy and society” (Sound familiar?), and demands “a concern for social equity between generations, a concern that must logically be extended to equity within each generation.” The document overtly seeks a remaking of global society “From One Earth to One World.” Unsurprisingly, Danville citizens are saying “thank you, no, that’s not a trip we want to take.”]
Why
is the town of Danville allowing an outside consultant, Barry Miller
who is the front man for DCE Planning (who wrote the regional One Bay
Area Plan) to inject a term into a small town General Plan with such
radical implications? And if that is what the definition the UN has
given for Sustainability then you then have to ask yourself what does
the UN consider unsustainable?
In
the following quote, former Under Secretary of the UN, Maurice Strong -
In an UNCED PrepCom report, dated August 1991, Titled; ("The
relationship between demographic trends, economic growth, unsustainable
consumption patterns and environmental degradation," identifies several items which are considered to be unsustainable…..
"It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class ... involving
high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and
'convenience' foods, ownership of motor-vehicles, numerous electric
household appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning ... expansive
suburban housing ... are not sustainable."
As a citizen of the town of Danville this should elicit immediate concern as the fabric of our lives, suburban lifestyles, are held in contempt.
As a citizen of the town of Danville this should elicit immediate concern as the fabric of our lives, suburban lifestyles, are held in contempt.
I asked the town to do one of the following….
1. Remove
the word Sustainable from the General Plan and EIR and go back to the
language and direction from the previous general plan. Danville can
continue to conserve and preserve without this misleading and
controversial language in our plan.2. Reject the adoption of the SAP Plan entirely. This plan is according to the town “Optional and Common Sense” and therefore unnecessary.
3. Redefine the word “Sustainable”
4. Or source and credit it properly within the town documents
When
the town was ready to discuss issues after the open hearing the town
manager, Joe Calabrigo tried to quickly whitewash the concerns about the
meaning and origin of “Sustainabilty” by saying it was common
definition. Even though the definition is NOT in any dictionary. Once
the council took over the only member to bring up a concern about this
was Karen Stepper. She questioned the definition and tried to discuss
it. Mayor Arnerich said he didn’t care where the definition came from
and did not want to source it in the document. Council members Robert
Storer said he was fine with the definition and agreed they should not
source it in the documents. Renee Morgan and Mike Doyle basically said
nothing about this controversial issue and then they all agreed that the
undisclosed definition should stay in the document as defined by the
Consultant and quickly moved on to other less toxic issues.
So
there you have it…… The town of Danville was made aware of the true
origin of the word “Sustainable” and will full knowledge of has refused
to openly credit and source this in their General Plan, EIR and SAP. So
much for transparency…Who’s wearing the tin foil hat now?
Video of this will be released shortly!
Heather Gass
DRE # 01478987
Better Homes and Gardens | Mason-McDuffie
Tel: 510-220-0603
email: heather.gass@bhghome.com
Website: www.bhghome.com/gasshomes
Confidentiality Notice:
This private email message, including any attachment(s) is limited to the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government(s), Municipality(ies), International Organizations, Corporation(s), agent(s), investigator(s), or informant(s), et. al., and/or Third Party(ies) working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring My email(s),and any other means of spying and collecting these Communications Without my Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review, Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights U.C.C.1-308. NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS. NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS.
This private email message, including any attachment(s) is limited to the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain Privileged and/or Confidential Information. Any and All Political, Private or Public Entities, Federal, State, or Local Corporate Government(s), Municipality(ies), International Organizations, Corporation(s), agent(s), investigator(s), or informant(s), et. al., and/or Third Party(ies) working in collusion by collecting and/or monitoring My email(s),and any other means of spying and collecting these Communications Without my Exclusive Permission are Barred from Any and All Unauthorized Review, Use, Disclosure or Distribution. With Explicit Reservation of All My Rights, Without Prejudice and Without Recourse to Me. Any omission does not constitute a waiver of any and/or ALL Intellectual Property Rights or Reserved Rights U.C.C.1-308. NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS. NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS.
