Regionalism (Agenda 21) and Governor Chris Christie

Regionalism is the concept that the suburbs, through their taxes, should support the costs of their nearby city core. It comes straight out of the UN Agenda 21 where they use terms like “smart growth” and “sustainable development” or “sustainable living”. Regionalism is a favorite of “Community Organizers” like you know who. So, why is Governor Chris Christie of New Jersy, a darling of many conservatives and a keynote speaker at this year’s Republican National Convention supporting regionalism in his state? We will get to that in a moment. First, let’s review what “regionalism” is all about.

I first posted on the subject of regionalism about three weeks ago. In this post, I parsed an article at National Review by Stanely Kurtz on his new book,  Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities. Quoting myself from that post:

Have you ever heard of the concept of “regionalism”? I vaguely recall reading that term in some research I did a while back on Agenda 21. Mr. Kurtz explains that Obama learned to embrace regionalism from his Chicago community organizing mentors at the Gamaliel Foundation. “Regionalism” is the idea that the suburbs should be folded into the cities, merging schools, housing, transportation, and above all taxation. Kurtz says that the relationship with his community organizing mentors continues to this day.

Via Real Clear Politics,  came across another article about the Kurtz book at New Geography that is excellent and I hope you will bookmark it and read at your leisure if you want to know more about “regionalism”.  This article has some very interesting and important data. Take a look at this quote and the graph that follows:

Opponents of the suburbs have long favored amalgamating local governments (such as cities, towns, villages, boroughs and townships). There are two principal justifications. One suggests “economies of scale” — the idea that larger local government jurisdictions are more efficient than smaller governments, and that, as a result, taxpayers will save. The second justification infers that a larger tax base, including former suburbs, will make additional money available to former core cities, which are routinely characterized as having insufficient revenues to pay for their services. Both rationales are without foundation.

As you can see, bigger is not necessarily better and more efficient. The cities studied do not have a revenue problem. They have a spending problem. Sound familiar?

What does this regionalism have to do with Governor Chris Christie?  Fox News has he story. It seems that cash strapped Camden, New  Jersey, one of the most crime ridden and dangerous cities in the United States, is planning to do away with their police force and let the county provide that service.

In the latest example of a cash-strapped municipality taking drastic measures to deal with swollen public sector liabilities and shrinking budgets, the city plans to disband its 460-member police department and replace it with a non-union “Metro Division” of the Camden County Police. Backers of the plan say it will save millions of dollars for taxpayers while ensuring public safety, but police unions say it is simply a way to get out of collective bargaining with the men and women in blue.

[…]

The department has been under the control of the state since 2005, when a power struggle between then-Mayor Gwendolyn Faison and the department prompted Faison to ask the state to take over. That arrangement is set to expire and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has thrown his support behind the transition to county control, which he indicated will help keep costs down.

“A county police force that has a reasonable contract, and that’s going to provide a huge increase in the number of police officers on the streets here in Camden, is a win for everybody,” Christie said at a recent event at Rutgers-Camden University, where he signed a reform bill for higher education. “I’m willing to put my name on the line for this concept.”

The good Governor may regret putting his name on the line for “this concept”. Is Christie stupid? Has he gone over to the other side? Although I am not a big fan of Chris Christie, I don’t think he is stupid nor do I think he is a liberal in disguise. My guess is that like so many of our fellow Americans, I suspect that Christie is unaware of Agenda 21, Smart Growth, Sustainable Living, and Regionalism. These concepts receive the support of Democrats and Republicans, as well as, liberals and conservatives because the projects and the ideas being pushed always sound so good. Christie and the county surounding Camden had better wake up. I predict that the people of the suburbs of Camden are going to get screwed. They will eitheer pay higher taxes to cover the cost of policing Camden, or they will do with less services in their own areas. And, I doubt that Xamden will do any better in the end.

While we are rightly focused on the coming elections and the economy and our own well being and that of the nation, other Marxist leaning folks are going about the implementation of Agenda 21 and all of its nice sounding programs. Some of us are working hard to educate the people. But, to me, it is inexcusable that someone like Chris Christie doesn’t know what is happening under his own nose. This man was being pushed by many conservatives to run for the Presidency. Mit Romney considered him as a potential running mate. But, maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on the Governor.  I have no reason to believe that Romney and Ryan are any more aware of the dangers of Agenda 21.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Equalizing Outcomes “Obama Style” Think Sustainable Living ala Agenda 21

The closest thing to work Barack Obama has ever done was when he was a “Community Organizer” in Chicago. If he is reelected, he plans to capitalize on that experience.

I came across a very scary National Review  article that was reblogged at John Malcolm’s place. And, I thank him. The NR article is by Stanley Kurtz and is an adaption from his book  Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities.

Have you ever heard of the concept of “regionalism”? I vaguely recall reading that term in some research I did a while back on Agenda 21. Mr. Kurtz explains that Obama learned to embrace regionalism from his Chicago community organizing mentors at the Gamaliel Foundation. “Regionalism” is the idea that the suburbs should be folded into the cities, merging schools, housing, transportation, and above all taxation. Kurtz says that the relationship with his community organizing mentors continues to this day.

The alliance endures. One of Obama’s original trainers, Mike Kruglik, has hived off a new organization called Building One America, which continues Gamaliel’s anti-suburban crusade under another name. Kruglik and his close allies, David Rusk and Myron Orfield, intellectual leaders of the “anti-sprawl” movement, have been quietly working with the Obama administration for years on an ambitious program of social reform.

But, how could this possibly be pulled off?

One approach is to force suburban residents into densely packed cities by blocking development on the outskirts of metropolitan areas, and by discouraging driving with a blizzard of taxes, fees, and regulations. Step two is to move the poor out of cities by imposing low-income-housing quotas on development in middle-class suburbs. Step three is to export the controversial “regional tax-base sharing” scheme currently in place in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area to the rest of the country. Under this program, a portion of suburban tax money flows into a common regional pot, which is then effectively redistributed to urban, and a few less well-off “inner-ring” suburban, municipalities.

[…]

The centerpiece of the Obama administration’s anti-suburban plans is a little-known and seemingly modest program called the Sustainable Communities Initiative. The “regional planning grants” funded under this initiative — many of them in battleground states like Florida, Virginia, and Ohio — are set to recommend redistributive policies, as well as transportation and development plans, designed to undercut America’s suburbs. Few have noticed this because the program’s goals are muffled in the impenetrable jargon of “sustainability,” while its recommendations are to be unveiled only in a possible second Obama term.

Long time followers of Conservatives on Fire know that I am supporting Mitt Romney; but he was not was not the person I wanted to be our candidate for President. I do not agree, however, with my libertarian friends that Romney would be as bad or worse than Obama.Romney may not be a conservative but we know that he bends like a reed in the direction the wind is blowing. Our job is to make sure that wind is blowing  from the Tea Party members of the House and Senate. We need to elect more Tea Party candidates this election cycle and again in 2014 and 2016 and etc. If we can elect enough conservatives to the House and Senate, Romney will willingly move in their direction. Obama must be defeated!

On a side note, I was talking the other day with my sister, whom I love dearly. She is five years my senior, she is a widow, and she has a steady boyfriend who is in his eighties. She and her boyfriend both live on UAW pensions and Social Security. They are both life long Democrats but both totally disengaged from politics. Because I know my sister always votes straight Democratic ticket, I never talk politics with her. But, this time I decided to tease her a little bit and I asked her how she was going to vote this election? Her response was that she didn’t even know who was running but that she would vote Democrat as usual. So, I said: “You are going to vote for Obama again?” Her answer was very interesting. She said: “no, no, no we are not voting for Obama. He has lost our votes.”  What this means is that my sister and her boyfriend will vote for every Democrat on the ticket in Michigan but they will not vote for Obama. They won’t vote for Romney either. And, I’m thinking there may be a lot of Democrats like my sister and her boyfriend. I hope so!

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire