A healthy pluot tree produces beautiful, sweetly fragrant, and inspiring blossoms that can be appreciated by all life: birds, bees, humans, and many other animals.
The tree provides oxygen for us to breath, shade for the ground, and nourishing, delicious fruit to be eaten, composted, or used for seed to plant new pluot trees.
In the process of cultivation, we get exercise, interaction with community, and fruits of labor to share.
We must learn to appreciate and cultivate such things.
"Life is easy, why do we make it so hard?" —Jon Jandai
Plan Bay Area [OBA] is a sweeping land use plan by a conglomerate of public entities including ABAG, MTC, ICLEI, FEMA, DHS; banks and businesses; and NGOs. The plan is to implement SB 375 and create smart growth in PDAs, plus some alarming “enhancements” to PCAs, and $289 billion dollars for transportation (yes, billion).
One Bay Area, with MTC, will use new and existing transportation in Priority Development Areas (PDA) to unify the entire bay area as one region.
The smart growth specified by One Bay Area [OBA] is designed to increase the population density by 30% in PDAs (two million people expected) in the next 30 years, and has been mentioned in local media:
Although it’s virtually unknown to the general public, this massive, complicated land agglomeration plan is no conspiracy theory.
In this article, I’ll explain the key players and organizations involved in this plan, explore the environmental harm caused by smart growth, and provide a glimpse into the many diverse financial and political aspects. In my next article, I’ll explain some alternatives and actions that you can take.
MTC, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, is San Francisco Bay Area’s regional Metropolitan Planning Organization or MPO.
MPOs are federally funded and federally mandated transportation policy-making organizations in the United States comprised of representatives from local government and governmental transportation authorities.
ICLEI, which originally stood for “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives”, was also called “Local Agenda 21" or LA21. According to ICLEI Europe, ICLEI’s role is to facilitate local government input to UN policies worldwide — a stark contradiction to ICLEI USA’s contradictory claims. I’ll explain below how San Francisco provides input to the UN..
ICLEI was renamed to “Local Governments for Sustainability,” obscuring connection to Agenda 21. And in addition to explicitly denying association to the UN ICLEI USA website has removed pages that mentioned Agenda 21.
Notice ICLEI’s connection to Agenda 21, but review Agenda 21 carefully before making decisions and judgment about Agenda 21 from secondhand sources.
Money, facilitated by ICLEI, influences the local and regional officials, who might not know or care much about sustainability. (See also: Bay Area cities chase billions for transit sites).
ICLEI promotes the idea that cities should be walkable. Of course! Sprawl sucks! It’s great that San Francisco and Oakland are among the most walkable cities in the country. So why are they are being massively redeveloped to be made walkable?
Nobody voted to remake Oakland walkable. Not even voters are that stupid! This is top-down, generalized planning by ICLEI with adjustments based on sources of finance.
UN planning documents mention San Francisco in How To Make Cities More Resilient A Handbook For Local Government Leaders (the same document is also on ICLEI’s website and also mentioned in ICLEI world congress documentation), to describe “a universal goal, embraced locally” and “emergency managers doing outreach for disaster preparedness” (FEMA) [SF-ICLEI-RESILIENCE].
Agenda 21, signed by George H.W. Bush in 1992 for the United States, is not a binding contract.
The official UN source for Agenda 21 (not the fictional book by Glenn Beck) outlines a thoughtful agenda for quality of life, sustainability, and social injustice for the UN and other multilateral organizations and governments around the world to be executed at local, national, and global levels [Agenda21].
Smart growth is an urban planning and transportation theory that utilizes TOD, or Transit Oriented Development (concentrated growth around the central transportation arteries), using infill redevelopment, taking advantage of billions of taxpayer dollars and “a seemingly endless array of funding categories,” from corporate, multinational, federal, and foreign Real Estate and contracting.
SB 375, also known as Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, is a California State law targeting greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles, thereby providing further support to achieve the goals of AB 32 [SB 375].
AB 32, which set goals for the general reduction of statewide greenhouse gas emissions, gets money from taxing sources of GHGs [AB 32].
In response, a change.org petition has been created to stop PG&E from using rate-payer money to impede local governments’ right to provide clean energy.
PG&E’s recent track record of ICLEI’s three E’s (Environment, Economy and social Equity) includes covering up poisoning the entire town of Hinkley, dumping PCBs in groundwater, and pushing billions of dollars onto customer bills in order to build unnecessary dirty power.
PG&E is one example of the deceptive use of “Sustainability” for Non-Sustainable Ends.
Hallmarks of smart growth includes infill redevelopment, public/private partnerships.
A similar project is proposed for San Francisco’s Embarcadero 8 Washington Luxury Highrise.
Funding for Hunter’s Point Smart Growth green community comes from Lennar, too, and as with Oakland’s waterfront, with more EB-5 green card grants for China, by Lennar. EB-5 greencards means that Chinese Lennar gets the contract and the government sells them greencards for $45,000 apiece.
As usual, politicians promise job creation and a better environment while chasing after money. While those who own no land must struggle to pay for the increasing cost of living and decreasing environmental quality of densification.
In contrast to the corporate sustainability and government green card sales, take a look at a real grassroots initiative against the “sustainable” corporate giant PG&E to clean up Bayview Hunters Point.
Hayes Valley Farm, Free Farm, Kezar Garden, and other gardens will be or have been sold by the city to commercial developers, contractors, and Real Estate companies for smart growth (30% increase in population density in the PDAs, amounting to over two million people expected) in the next 30 years.
…Permaculture in a PDA is not “sustainable development" — better plow the whole thing over and put in some TOD smart growth…
Shockingly, this is the same 2+ acre lot. After being forcefully and violently cleared by SFPD (San Francisco police) for Avalon Bay “sustainable development” in one of Plan Bay Area’s PDAs, the farm was plowed while being guarded by aggressive police, 24 hours every day.
Prior to that project, Jay had started project planktown, in SoMa, for gardening native plants and vegetables to be given away to the community. That project was canceled by the bank, who wanted to keep the property. This is what real community is about, and it’s getting dominated by the same big banks and corporate interests, but this time, in the name of sustainability and social equity.
As I’ve written about before, Solving the Food Justice Issue Solves Many Problems.
A question for the reader: Does this smart growth contradict the ideas in Agenda 21 “quality of life” mentioned in Chapter 7 [Agenda21]? Or how about the Earth Charter and ICLEI’s constitution?
(3) Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful.
Is plowing over a farm sustainable? Is doing so without a public approval process — and even despite protest — democratic? Is it participatory when the police are called in to beat protesters? Is any of this considered peaceful?
(13) Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice.
Most of the few hundred people who actually attend MTC’s meetings complain. The fact that nobody on the street seems to even know what ABAG is indicates that this regional government of 1.7 million people is “transparent" in the sense that hardly anybody has heard of or seen it. Who’s to hold them accountable?
Smart growth means increasing population density, and so smart growth is unsustainable, as there are limits to how densely humans can be packed.
Plan Bay Area’s plan goes until 2040, but does not mention anything into the future beyond beyond 2040, past the set of current officials’ time in office.
Does the increase in micro-units (dwellings under 300sq feet) in San Francisco. Constrained to the PDA, reflect the “quality of life” mentioned in Chapter 5 of Agenda 21 [Agenda21]? Do San Francisco residents want the City to be like Manhattan? And why can’t we vote on that?
The new buildings in San Francisco’s exemption zone on Market Street are ecological blights. They do not provide greywater systems for gardening, food production, or even trees. If ICLEI, ABAG and MTC care about conserving water, which comes from Hetch Hetchy, then why do they prefer such anti-environmental development?
The new buildings are owned by mega corporations and will not be rent controlled. As a commenter points out:—
[Avalon Bay] exists to suck your savings away and insure you never save enough to buy your own home. Avalon’s business model is based on shocking rate increases once tenants become established. Whether you stay one month or longer after your initial introductory rent, the increase can be anywhere up to 40-50%. Avalon is not a regular apartment rental company where landlords prefer good tenants and increase rates only incrementally over the years.
I am personally reminded of Archstone SoMa, who raised our rent from $1910 in 2010 to $2910 in 2012, driving us out, while advertising the same unit online for a bit less. It’s nothing personal; it’s how they make money.
Densification does not sequester pollution at its source; rather, it concentrates it around humans. Pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter, Volatile Organic Compounds, CO, and CO2 can interact and react with one another to create chemicals that cause greater harm to humans and the environment such as asthma, cancer, neurological problems, and interference with plant growth, to name a few.
Dense urban areas require massive amount of resources to be trucked in, which means more pollutants being created.
Instead of asking how San Francisco can be more self-sufficient by conserving water and producing at least some food, the officials are vying for corporate money plowing over permaculture farms and gardens such as Garden For the Homeless, and using violence and force to build new communities, and pack people in and calling that sustainable.
While smart growth is ostensibly for sustainability and environment, it is motivated by money, as well as managing, controlling, and surveilling the populace. To quote former ABAG President Mark Green:
No city is independent. None has full control over its financial destiny with the state in the background. The more inwardly a jurisdiction turns, the more harmful it is. Relationships with other agencies wither and such jurisdictions are not perceived as team players. Cities that cooperate and collaborate tend to be rewarded when regional funding is allocated. Understanding this is good for the region.
A city cannot solve all its problems alone. Crime, water, school districts, community college districts, employment, leisure, friends and family… straddle city boundaries.
NIMBY-ism and the mantra “local control” still persist in some quarters. … — Mark Green, former ABAG President
Smart growth will bring 1.2 million jobs new primarily tech jobs; (“Google, Facebook” are exemplified in Bloomberg) and 660,000 total number of housing units that can be produced with the policies and investments outlined in the May 2012 Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy.
The jobs plan entails "multiple job holdings per person," (pg 2) (likely for non-tech workers) as OBA sordidly admits, but later contradicts just pages later with the admission: "Housing supply does constrain job growth; the region will lose jobs if constraints on housing supply are not sufficiently lifted" and "[m]atching the labor force to these replacement jobs will be a challenge, both locally and nationally." [OBA]
Bay Area Population, Employment and Housing Projections, from 2010 - 2040 2010 Population 7,151,000 2040 Population 9,299,000
A population density increase of 2,148,000 or +30%.
Housing supply does constrain job growth; the region will lose jobs if constraints on housing supply are not sufficiently lifted [OBA].
According to that, they’re managing the job market and economy, deciding what types of jobs people will be doing, how much they’ll earn, and who will work multiple jobs. They will make this happen by working with businesses.
Plan Bay Area describes a strong increase in the number of tech jobs to be occupied by the influx of people. This is facilitated by favorable, distortionary taxation to tech companies initially offered to Twitter and Zynga, and now part of the Enterprise Tax Zone.
SFBos asked those companies’ payroll departments to propose restructuring to SF tax council to attract more tech companies to SF. The new payroll tax adjustments and exemption zone on Market Street will mean more smart growth in a PDA.
According to Plan Bay Area: “The region is increasingly geographically constrained with fewer “greenfield” development sites left.” [OBA, pg 3].
They’re essentially saying “you can’t do that,” with the use of the term “greenfield” (irony).
More Jobs and housing might seem looks like a good thing from the perspective to victims of the economic collapse. Just keep in mind that the same banks who crashed the economy are funding the solution to the problem they caused.
With an artificially inflated tech economy to go along with the controlled Real Estate market, what could possibly go wrong?
AIG, BlackRock Inc., Bloomberg LP, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Google, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JetBlue, JP Morgan Chase & Co. and PVH Corp. signed on to Bloomberg’s “Carbon Challenge.”
Who all’s funding all this smart growth? Tracing all sources of money can be difficult, as admitted in The ABC’s of MTC:—
Imagine a huge reservoir filled primarily by local streams — but augmented by smaller tributaries with headwaters in Washington, D.C., and Sacramento — and drained by a complex network of pipelines. The pipes take a tortuous path, shooting off in all directions. There are a number of shut-off valves, and leaks sometimes occur. There seems to be a lot of liquid flowing from the tap, yet there is always a thirst for more.
This plumbing analogy can shed light on transportation finance in the Bay Area. With a seemingly endless array of funding categories, programs and associated acronyms, it is a complicated process that provides an essential service to many but is well understood by relatively few.
Recently, Deutsche was "The Bank With The Biggest Derivative Exposure In The World" facilitating much of the extant housing crisis by bankrolling toxic mortgages.
So Deutsche Bank is fighting climate change and promoting smart growth. Yet Deutsche has been the number 1 bank to invest in coal since 2005 [Bankrolling Climate]. This is not to say that climate change is any less real than the evil that is homelessness, but the financial moves by Deutsche Bank undermine its public position on environment climate change with ICLEI. It seems that the bank care about money.
Corporate financial backing for the commissions and boards includes members of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, co-chaired by Siemens, whose members include Syngenta, Monsanto, and the like. .
ICLEI membership is non-binding but brings a plan of action that comes with funding.
ICLEI helps with grants from FedConnect, EECBG (San Francisco will get $7.7 million), HUD Housing, Proposition 1C ($89 million for SF). California’s Strategic Growth Council will allocate $60 million in grants to cities, counties and MPOs for planning activities that are consistent with SB 375.
San Francisco will get help to “rethink the way they design, plan, implement and finance urban infrastructure” from Rockefeller Institute, along with 99 other cities.
San Francisco is also a member of ICLEI partner C 40.
As you can see, there are many sources of funding, and all of it coming from mega-corporations, big banks, and the NGOs they fund. Does this sound like a local grassroots effort to you?
ICLEI works with FEMA. From their site:—
“FEMA outreach: The plan directs the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to identify for State and local governments the existing programs that can support resiliency planning and projects.”
In addition to PDAs, PCAs, are areas intended to be prevented from human development and interaction.
MTC provides grants for projects in PCAs.
FEMA will cut down nearly half a million trees and spray sustainable Roundup to prevent stump regrowth.
FEMA’s reasons given for the major local deforestation projects are to avoid fires, to preserve environment, and to eliminate invasive species. All of which have been thoroughly debunked by local environmentalists.
FEMA will then use roundup to prevent tree regrowth while creating new pathways in Sutro Forest, Strawberry Canyon which are owned by UC, and Pacifica, [sutroforest]. Although UC failed the first time, they finally succeeded to gain FEMA funding.
And this is done for “Extreme Weather Resiliency Action Plan” (climate change, again) [STRONG], endorsed by ICLEI USA’s Policy Council of local elected officials for Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), with help from ICLEI.
DHS and FEMA, which has been under DHS since 2003, provide funding for re-building work and pre-disaster land use and development [DHS CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION ROADMAP]. Both work with ICLEI [ICLEI-FEMA], and DHS has granted San Francisco hundreds of millions for various environmental and surveillance programs..
Incidentally, UC is now headed by former DHS secretary Janet Napolitano.
Plan Bay Area is our local implementation of a global agenda, which can be seen in examples in the US, such as PlaNYC.
ICLEI plans can also be seen worldwide, in Europe, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, and more.
Behind the sustainability PR is a more sinister implication, governments worldwide working with mega corporations who police themselves through codes and regulations they decide upon.
I’ve designed a rough draft of a warning. I need money to get the blank stickers and have them printed.
These stickers can go on faucets and drinking fountains everywhere. Imagine that! If they’re on the faucets, maybe after seeing it a few times, if only 2% of all people do the research, it will have an impact. And that 2% will tell others, e.g.
Joe: Hey, what’s this sticker on the faucet about? It says “there’s poison in your water”
Jane: Oh, that’s about the fluoride that the city adds to the water.
Joe: But fluoride’s good for your teeth!
Jane: It’s actually really bad for you if you swallow it.
Joe: Really? I thought it was good for you? Jane: Nope. It’s a colorless, tasteless poison! Check out their website, fluoridealert.org.
1500 labels for $40 http://www.averylabelsonline.com/55weprmala1x.html
Laser printing 50 sheets at OfficeMax costs $5.
Total cost should be under $60 including tax and shipping.
I also will need to do a test print to make sure the QR code works.
I designed it in OpenOffice and I am not a designer. What do you think of the appearance and wording? Do you like the idea? Will you pay for it? And if not, can you suggest a way to get some money to pay for that? I have no bank account or credit card, BTW.
Feedback or suggestions? But I need money to pay for this! Please contact if interested in providing money or resources to make this happen.
Natural, non-toxic pest repellant and laundry cleaner.
1. Eat citrus
2. Dry peels
3. Add peels and vinegar to jar and wait 1 week.
Disinfects countertops, toilet, etc. Repels pests. No toxic chemicals.
For laundry, add baking soda and cleaner at time of wash.
For extra pest repellant effect, add peppercorns, clove, and cinnamon.
Planting beans and onions in San Francisco on Howard St and Van Ness.
Public Growing wiki: http://public-growing.wikispaces.com/
Cycle b3, Dominant 7, Drop 3
Cycling Inversions: Cycle b3, Dom7, Drop 3 voicings, outlining symmetric diminished scale (or “sym dim”).A7 root C7 3rd inv Eb7 2nd inv F#7 1st inv A7 root position
All of the notes in these four chords combined make up a half-step, whole-step scale from A. This means that in any context where half-step/whole-step scale works over a Dom 7 chord, that any dom 7 chord a minor third, flat fith, or diminished 7 away will work.
Chord cycles blog: http://chordcycles.tumblr.com
Polyrhythm: 6 on 4 and 9 on 2
Polyrhythm is one or more rhythms in the same meter that don’t share a common denominator. For example: 3:2 is a polyrhythm but 4 on 2 (2 on 1) is not.
3:2, as quarter-note triplets, can be derived from eighth note triplets, or 3:1.
6:4 two consecutive successions of 3:2.
9:2 is realized as three triplet subdivisions of 3:2
“ It Can Happen Here: The Confiscation Scheme Planned for US and UK Depositors ”
Confiscating the customer deposits in Cyprus banks, it seems, was not a one-off, desperate idea of a few Eurozone “troika” officials scrambling to salvage their balance sheets. A joint paper by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Bank of England dated December 10, 2012, shows that these plans have been long in the making; that they originated with the G20 Financial Stability Board in Basel, Switzerland (discussed earlier here); and that the result will be to deliver clear title to the banks of depositor funds.
New Zealand has a similar directive, discussed in my last article here, indicating that this isn’t just an emergency measure for troubled Eurozone countries. New Zealand’s Voxy reported on March 19th:
The National Government [is] pushing a Cyprus-style solution to bank failure in New Zealand which will see small depositors lose some of their savings to fund big bank bailouts …
Open Bank Resolution (OBR) is Finance Minister Bill English’s favoured option dealing with a major bank failure. If a bank fails under OBR, all depositors will have their savings reduced overnight to fund the bank’s bail out.
Although few depositors realize it, legally the bank owns the depositor’s funds as soon as they are put in the bank. Our money becomes the bank’s, and we become unsecured creditors holding IOUs or promises to pay. (See here and here.) But until now the bank has been obligated to pay the money back on demand in the form of cash. Under the FDIC-BOE plan, our IOUs will be converted into “bank equity.” The bank will get the money and we will get stock in the bank. With any luck we may be able to sell the stock to someone else, but when and at what price? Most people keep a deposit account so they can have ready cash to pay the bills.
The 15-page FDIC-BOE document is called “Resolving Globally Active, Systemically Important, Financial Institutions.” It begins by explaining that the 2008 banking crisis has made it clear that some other way besides taxpayer bailouts is needed to maintain “financial stability.” Evidently anticipating that the next financial collapse will be on a grander scale than either the taxpayers or Congress is willing to underwrite, the authors state:
An efficient path for returning the sound operations of the G-SIFI to the private sector would be provided by exchanging or converting a sufficient amount of the unsecured debt from the original creditors of the failed company [meaning the depositors] into equity [or stock]. In the U.S., the new equity would become capital in one or more newly formed operating entities. In the U.K., the same approach could be used, or the equity could be used to recapitalize the failing financial company itself—thus, the highest layer of surviving bailed-in creditors would become the owners of the resolved firm. In either country, the new equity holders would take on the corresponding risk of being shareholders in a financial institution.
No exception is indicated for “insured deposits” in the U.S., meaning those under $250,000, the deposits we thought were protected by FDIC insurance. This can hardly be an oversight, since it is the FDIC that is issuing the directive. The FDIC is an insurance company funded by premiums paid by private banks. The directive is called a “”resolution process,” defined elsewhere as a plan that “would be triggered in the event of the failure of an insurer …” The only mention of “insured deposits” is in connection with existing UK legislation, which the FDIC-BOE directive goes on to say is inadequate, implying that it needs to be modified or overridden.
An Imminent Risk
If our IOUs are converted to bank stock, they will no longer be subject to insurance protection but will be “at risk” and vulnerable to being wiped out, just as the Lehman Brothers shareholders were in 2008. That this dire scenario could actually materialize was underscored by Yves Smith in a March 19th post titled When You Weren’t Looking, Democrat Bank Stooges Launch Bills to Permit Bailouts, Deregulate Derivatives. She writes:
In the US, depositors have actually been put in a worse position than Cyprus deposit-holders, at least if they are at the big banks that play in the derivatives casino. The regulators have turned a blind eye as banks use their depositaries to fund derivatives exposures. And as bad as that is, the depositors, unlike their Cypriot confreres, aren’t even senior creditors. Remember Lehman? When the investment bank failed, unsecured creditors (and remember, depositors are unsecured creditors) got eight cents on the dollar. One big reason was that derivatives counterparties require collateral for any exposures, meaning they are secured creditors. The 2005 bankruptcy reforms made derivatives counterparties senior to unsecured lenders.
One might wonder why the posting of collateral by a derivative counterparty, at some percentage of full exposure, makes the creditor “secured,” while the depositor who puts up 100 cents on the dollar is “unsecured.” But moving on – Smith writes:
Lehman had only two itty bitty banking subsidiaries, and to my knowledge, was not gathering retail deposits. But as readers may recall, Bank of America moved most of its derivatives from its Merrill Lynch operation [to] its depositary in late 2011.
Its “depositary” is the arm of the bank that takes deposits; and at BofA, that means lots and lots of deposits. The deposits are now subject to being wiped out by a major derivatives loss. How bad could that be? Smith quotes Bloomberg:
…Bank of America’s holding company … held almost $75 trillion of derivatives at the end of June …
That compares with JPMorgan’s deposit-taking entity, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, which contained 99 percent of the New York-based firm’s $79 trillion of notional derivatives, the OCC data show.