California Declares War On Family Homes to ‘Save the Planet’

[Kluge]

Hey Amy, long time no see.

I moved into a forest a while ago, what's new with you?

Oh, you know, produced a new human being...moved far away from the ole homeland, did some stuff and then did some other stuff.

How's the forest treating you?

 

[kezt777]

I'm new here so completely unfamiliar with the animosity growing here, but I decided to venture out on my own to the california govt websites to read about what this means and if AJ or others are blowing it out of proportion. It took me less than 5 minutes to find interesting documents linked directly from the California EPA website. Such as this from the "Senate Bill 375 - Research on Impacts of Transportation and Land Use-Related Policies" page, under Land Use-Related Policies, Residential Density - Policy Brief arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/density/density_brief.pdf (www at front)....

"Policy Description
Policies that will result in higher densities have often been mentioned in the suite of land use
tools that might reduce vehicle travel, as measured by vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Such policies include direct changes to land use, such as
relaxing minimum lot size requirements, increasing the density of allowed development, and
encouraging urban infill. More broadly, officials can encourage higher density through
combinations of infrastructure, zoning, or public finance policies that, for example, focus
development around transportation nodes (including transit stations) or raise land prices and
hence encourage smaller lot sizes as a result of impact fees."

and then other parts go on to seem to suggest that it is not proven that squishing more people together would help CO2 emissions, but then it ends with a Co-Benefits section that states things like:
""Co-benefits:
Increases in density should be considered as part of coordinated land use plans, rather than
in isolation. There are many possible co-benefits from land use policies that encourage
higher residential densities, concentrations of employment, shopping, and service
destinations, and infrastructure and urban design that make non-motorized travel modes
(e.g., walking and bicycling) more attractive options.""

Then I was forced to view a huge pile of legaleeze that I am not ashamed to say I don't have a hope in hell of understanding, so I found this on the CA gov page instead:
scag.ca.gov/sb375/pdfs/FS/gen-sb375-factsheet.pdf (www at front) in which the top of the Fact Sheet states "California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) is the nation’s first law to control greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by curbing sprawl. For California to reach its greenhouse gas reduction goals, we must address how our communities grow. This law directs the ARB to set greenhouse gas reduction targets for regions of the state and work with California’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to align their transportation, housing, and regional land-use plans with greenhouse gas reductions in mind." but all of that is from 2008. The legaleeze I found was from last fall where the bills were re-approved but with new attachments and additions. I am most likely reposting what has already gone on before, but I am new to checking all of this stuff out for myself and it raised my eyebrows. There are at least 5 Alternative plans approved with SB 375 and who knows what they really mean (my brain cannot absorb it all).

On a side note, I noticed that an enviro site listed British Columbia as having good GHG emissions action plans, along with California. I looked up a few things that way, since BC and Cali links were right on top of each other, and came across this on the Sustainable Community 'Awards' list at fcm.ca

District of Summerland, British Columbia
Zoning Bylaw Review and Update
Residential Development

Objective
To update zoning bylaws to focus on denser communities, preserve agricultural land and make the best possible use of land already serviced with municipal sewer and water systems.

Initiative
The district adopted the updated Zoning Bylaw in September 2011, along with minor updates to the Official Community Plan to allow higher densities and new intensification zones. A new Community Climate Action Plan aims to "minimize urban sprawl and promote compact, energy-efficient development with access to amenities within walking and cycling distance." These efforts aim to lower GHG emissions and land degradation related to urban sprawl, save money with less new infrastructure, and make public transit a more viable option......

Highlights
The bylaw passed with broad support — a clear indicator of a successful public process.""
fcm.ca/home/awards/fcm-sustainable-communities-awards/2012-winners/residential-development.htm

FCM is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They refer often in their site to the California laws and applaud them. It's a bit shocking really. This site isnt even afraid to say directly and out front what the cali site seems to 'get at' but not boldly pronounce. IMHO.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Thanks for posting that.

The animosity is over a radio talk show host named Alex Jones.

Some folks say he is an outlandish buffoon, an alarmist fear monger to be disregarded and dismissed as general negative on the freedom movement and Ron Paul.

Some folks are nonplussed and consider him to be, as Amy noted, a wash.

Some folks are fans and support what he does and what he publishes as much as possible.

I'm the latter.

But he's consistently one of the people or subjects around here guaranteed to start an argument.

Which is why, sadly, when Infowars runs a story or commentary, I usually post the source news first, just so half the people reading it don't dismiss it out of hand.

Unless it's a raw story, like the MIAC "terrorism" story or "Baby Cheyenne" story, that AJ breaks.

Then you have to spend the first day or two trying to convince people that, yes, it's real, and actually worse than what we're making it out to be.

I'm new here so completely unfamiliar with the animosity growing here, but I decided to venture out on my own to the california govt websites to read about what this means and if AJ or others are blowing it out of proportion. It took me less than 5 minutes to find interesting documents linked directly from the California EPA website. Such as this from the "Senate Bill 375 - Research on Impacts of Transportation and Land Use-Related Policies" page, under Land Use-Related Policies, Residential Density - Policy Brief arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/density/density_brief.pdf (www at front)....

"Policy Description
Policies that will result in higher densities have often been mentioned in the suite of land use
tools that might reduce vehicle travel, as measured by vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Such policies include direct changes to land use, such as
relaxing minimum lot size requirements, increasing the density of allowed development, and
encouraging urban infill. More broadly, officials can encourage higher density through
combinations of infrastructure, zoning, or public finance policies that, for example, focus
development around transportation nodes (including transit stations) or raise land prices and
hence encourage smaller lot sizes as a result of impact fees."

and then other parts go on to seem to suggest that it is not proven that squishing more people together would help CO2 emissions, but then it ends with a Co-Benefits section that states things like:
""Co-benefits:
Increases in density should be considered as part of coordinated land use plans, rather than
in isolation. There are many possible co-benefits from land use policies that encourage
higher residential densities, concentrations of employment, shopping, and service
destinations, and infrastructure and urban design that make non-motorized travel modes
(e.g., walking and bicycling) more attractive options.""

Then I was forced to view a huge pile of legaleeze that I am not ashamed to say I don't have a hope in hell of understanding, so I found this on the CA gov page instead:
scag.ca.gov/sb375/pdfs/FS/gen-sb375-factsheet.pdf (www at front) in which the top of the Fact Sheet states "California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) is the nation’s first law to control greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by curbing sprawl. For California to reach its greenhouse gas reduction goals, we must address how our communities grow. This law directs the ARB to set greenhouse gas reduction targets for regions of the state and work with California’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to align their transportation, housing, and regional land-use plans with greenhouse gas reductions in mind." but all of that is from 2008. The legaleeze I found was from last fall where the bills were re-approved but with new attachments and additions. I am most likely reposting what has already gone on before, but I am new to checking all of this stuff out for myself and it raised my eyebrows. There are at least 5 Alternative plans approved with SB 375 and who knows what they really mean (my brain cannot absorb it all).

On a side note, I noticed that an enviro site listed British Columbia as having good GHG emissions action plans, along with California. I looked up a few things that way, since BC and Cali links were right on top of each other, and came across this on the Sustainable Community 'Awards' list at fcm.ca

District of Summerland, British Columbia
Zoning Bylaw Review and Update
Residential Development

Objective
To update zoning bylaws to focus on denser communities, preserve agricultural land and make the best possible use of land already serviced with municipal sewer and water systems.

Initiative
The district adopted the updated Zoning Bylaw in September 2011, along with minor updates to the Official Community Plan to allow higher densities and new intensification zones. A new Community Climate Action Plan aims to "minimize urban sprawl and promote compact, energy-efficient development with access to amenities within walking and cycling distance." These efforts aim to lower GHG emissions and land degradation related to urban sprawl, save money with less new infrastructure, and make public transit a more viable option......

Highlights
The bylaw passed with broad support — a clear indicator of a successful public process.""
fcm.ca/home/awards/fcm-sustainable-communities-awards/2012-winners/residential-development.htm

FCM is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They refer often in their site to the California laws and applaud them. It's a bit shocking really. This site isnt even afraid to say directly and out front what the cali site seems to 'get at' but not boldly pronounce. IMHO.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

I looks like Angela should have just not said anything and let this person post a topic in general politics like they did.
It is a general politics issue.

This.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Who cares where he was in 08, he is supporting liberty and Ron Paul RIGHT NOW. Angelic came in with the hate first and it was unnecessary, period. If you do not like AJ then then do not click or comment on a link. Really simple, especially for liberty mined folks such as ourselves.

And this. She got called out for repeatedly trolling InfoWars threads. Nobody is making her read them or post in them.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

I'm new here so completely unfamiliar with the animosity growing here, but I decided to venture out on my own to the california govt websites to read about what this means and if AJ or others are blowing it out of proportion. It took me less than 5 minutes to find interesting documents linked directly from the California EPA website. Such as this from the "Senate Bill 375 - Research on Impacts of Transportation and Land Use-Related Policies" page, under Land Use-Related Policies, Residential Density - Policy Brief arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/density/density_brief.pdf (www at front)....

"Policy Description
Policies that will result in higher densities have often been mentioned in the suite of land use
tools that might reduce vehicle travel, as measured by vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Such policies include direct changes to land use, such as
relaxing minimum lot size requirements, increasing the density of allowed development, and
encouraging urban infill. More broadly, officials can encourage higher density through
combinations of infrastructure, zoning, or public finance policies that, for example, focus
development around transportation nodes (including transit stations) or raise land prices and
hence encourage smaller lot sizes as a result of impact fees."

and then other parts go on to seem to suggest that it is not proven that squishing more people together would help CO2 emissions, but then it ends with a Co-Benefits section that states things like:
""Co-benefits:
Increases in density should be considered as part of coordinated land use plans, rather than
in isolation. There are many possible co-benefits from land use policies that encourage
higher residential densities, concentrations of employment, shopping, and service
destinations, and infrastructure and urban design that make non-motorized travel modes
(e.g., walking and bicycling) more attractive options.""

Then I was forced to view a huge pile of legaleeze that I am not ashamed to say I don't have a hope in hell of understanding, so I found this on the CA gov page instead:
scag.ca.gov/sb375/pdfs/FS/gen-sb375-factsheet.pdf (www at front) in which the top of the Fact Sheet states "California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) is the nation’s first law to control greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by curbing sprawl. For California to reach its greenhouse gas reduction goals, we must address how our communities grow. This law directs the ARB to set greenhouse gas reduction targets for regions of the state and work with California’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to align their transportation, housing, and regional land-use plans with greenhouse gas reductions in mind." but all of that is from 2008. The legaleeze I found was from last fall where the bills were re-approved but with new attachments and additions. I am most likely reposting what has already gone on before, but I am new to checking all of this stuff out for myself and it raised my eyebrows. There are at least 5 Alternative plans approved with SB 375 and who knows what they really mean (my brain cannot absorb it all).

On a side note, I noticed that an enviro site listed British Columbia as having good GHG emissions action plans, along with California. I looked up a few things that way, since BC and Cali links were right on top of each other, and came across this on the Sustainable Community 'Awards' list at fcm.ca

District of Summerland, British Columbia
Zoning Bylaw Review and Update
Residential Development

Objective
To update zoning bylaws to focus on denser communities, preserve agricultural land and make the best possible use of land already serviced with municipal sewer and water systems.

Initiative
The district adopted the updated Zoning Bylaw in September 2011, along with minor updates to the Official Community Plan to allow higher densities and new intensification zones. A new Community Climate Action Plan aims to "minimize urban sprawl and promote compact, energy-efficient development with access to amenities within walking and cycling distance." These efforts aim to lower GHG emissions and land degradation related to urban sprawl, save money with less new infrastructure, and make public transit a more viable option......

Highlights
The bylaw passed with broad support — a clear indicator of a successful public process.""
fcm.ca/home/awards/fcm-sustainable-communities-awards/2012-winners/residential-development.htm

FCM is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They refer often in their site to the California laws and applaud them. It's a bit shocking really. This site isnt even afraid to say directly and out front what the cali site seems to 'get at' but not boldly pronounce. IMHO.

Gigantic +rep to you sir. Thank you very much

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Thanks for posting that.

The animosity is over a radio talk show host named Alex Jones.

Some folks say he is an outlandish buffoon, an alarmist fear monger to be disregarded and dismissed as general negative on the freedom movement and Ron Paul.

Some folks are nonplussed and consider him to be, as Amy noted, a wash.

Some folks are fans and support what he does and what he publishes as much as possible.

I'm the latter.

But he's consistently one of the people or subjects around here guaranteed to start an argument.

Which is why, sadly, when Infowars runs a story or commentary, I usually post the source news first, just so half the people reading it don't dismiss it out of hand.

Unless it's a raw story, like the MIAC "terrorism" story or "Baby Cheyenne" story, that AJ breaks.

Then you have to spend the first day or two trying to convince people that, yes, it's real, and actually worse than what we're making it out to be.

Truth. Then the exact same people that were proven wrong in one InfoWars thread will just move on and deny the next thread as if magically they are now right.

 

[QuickZ06]

I care. Angela might be caustic at times, but she's proven herself time and time again as someone who will stick to it. Has JFKIII?

LOL, so that gives her and others a right to troll other liberty minded members threads

Alex Jones is polarizing, and if you can't see that, then I can see why you're angry. Personally, I don't care one way or another about AJ. I think he can be a sensationalist, and I think that he puts the truth out there when other outlets aren't willing to. He's a wash.

Guess you cared enough to post on this thread and defend your friends actions.

All that is needed to be said has already been said. Back on topic.

 

[Xhin]

Personally, I find it best to research whatever AJ puts out on my own. There's definitely some sensationalism there but there's also some mind-blowing truth that other places don't report at all. AJ is very good at putting the pieces together, whether something's been blown out of proportion or not.

His stuff is always very well-sourced, so it's easy to look at the facts for myself. Usually, I'll post what I've learned here as to whether it's legit or not (aka whether I say "yeah guys you're making a mountain out of a molehill" and the thread dies, or I say "SHIT SHIT SHIT" and post it everywhere I can.)

 

[Xhin]

Also, I haven't researched this well enough yet, but jesus it's one thing to hear about UN Agenda 21 and another thing to see it in action reported by the freaking Wall Street Journal.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Personally, I find it best to research whatever AJ puts out on my own. There's definitely some sensationalism there but there's also some mind-blowing truth that other places don't report at all. AJ is very good at putting the pieces together, whether something's been blown out of proportion or not.

His stuff is always very well-sourced, so it's easy to look at the facts for myself.

Very well said.

 

[Xhin]

Oh god, guys watch this video right now. RIGHT NOW.



It seems like some kind of parody of a dystopian state, right? It's not. This shit is a real plan:

http://www.forumforthefuture.org/

And what's scary here is, go down to "Our Partners". I'll give you some examples from the list:

Johnson&Johnson, Bank of America, Kraft, HP, Panasonic, Sony, Heineken, Shell Oil, Sony Ericson, Mars (maker of pretty much all candy)

There's a lot more there though. Of course, the buzzword on that site is always "Sustainable", something coined in UN Agenda 21 in their "Sustainable Growth" plan.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Oh god, guys watch this video right now. RIGHT NOW.



It seems like some kind of parody of a dystopian state, right? It's not. This shit is a real plan:

http://www.forumforthefuture.org/

And what's scary here is, go down to "Our Partners". I'll give you some examples from the list:

Johnson&Johnson, Bank of America, Kraft, HP, Panasonic, Sony, Heineken, Shell Oil, Sony Ericson, Mars (maker of pretty much all candy)

There's a lot more there though. Of course, the buzzword on that site is always "Sustainable", something coined in UN Agenda 21 in their "Sustainable Growth" plan.

Very scary and very real. THIS is why we need to wake people up and bring them to the liberty movement.

 

[dvalukis]

Do you get paid to post the AJ stuff here?

hahaha, was just thinking something along the same lines. Seems like people listen to AJ and then automatically think it has a place to be posted here. If it wasn't so blatant and prevalent, I wouldn't care. But c'mon people. If you take Alex Jones too seriously you'll end up on a slippery slope. I listen to him too, but as entertainment. Not with a activist's mind. Please take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. That includes CNN, FOX, Drudge, Alex J... It's all partially the truth, (Some just flat out lie), but for the most part it's entertainment-truth.

Anytime somebody tells a story it becomes entertainment. Otherwise "news" would be just a reading of facts or someone quoting peer-reviewed journals. Which would be hella boring. So just keep that in mind. Alex Jones is a social genius. He knows what he's doing. If we lived in a Libertarian State, he'd be creaming for socialism. He's just one of those people.

EDIT: To support my claim about Alex being like the rest, just listen to how he sensationalizes stories. How he flat out creates his own narrative from a story without any evidence to back up his embellishments. He'll also frequently interrupt guests, mid-sentance, a lot and finishes their sentence with what HE wants to hear. I'm just pointing out what to be cautious of and the down side to his network. The upside to him is very big though and very important and I like him.

 

[Kluge]

LOL, so that gives her and others a right to troll other liberty minded members threads



Guess you cared enough to post on this thread and defend your friends actions.

All that is needed to be said has already been said. Back on topic.

I chimed in because there are others here, like AF, who've somehow managed to get along just fine with Angela all these years, even though they are on the same side as folks like JFKIII in regards to AJ.

So here's my bottom line: you guys who are new to this rodeo and don't know or don't care that someone like Angela has actually done quite a bit for this movement and don't ignore her crankiness or say things trying to force her out might just want to imagine yourselves on this message board 4 years from now, all by yourselves, agreeing with each other and speculating on why everyone else left. Though I'm sure that you'd never contemplate that it could possibly be you. And it'll also be too bad that we've lost someone with her skill set.

The great thing about AF that you guys don't get, is that AJ is seen as fringe to a lot of people--even people here, and that you'll just further alienate them if you're obnoxious, or in this case equally obnoxious back at them.

I'll take 25 cranky Angela's butting into a thread over 1 of you guys. I'll take 25 reasonable AF's over you guys. Perhaps you could step back and learn something from a "vet" here, because you guys who would throw out anyone who isn't in lock step with you & AJ are a dime a dozen.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Aww, you made me blush.

I chimed in because there are others here, like AF, who've somehow managed to get along just fine with Angela all these years, even though they are on the same side as folks like JFKIII in regards to AJ.

So here's my bottom line: you guys who are new to this rodeo and don't know or don't care that someone like Angela has actually done quite a bit for this movement and don't ignore her crankiness or say things trying to force her out might just want to imagine yourselves on this message board 4 years from now, all by yourselves, agreeing with each other and speculating on why everyone else left. Though I'm sure that you'd never contemplate that it could possibly be you. And it'll also be too bad that we've lost someone with her skill set.

The great thing about AF that you guys don't get, is that AJ is seen as fringe to a lot of people--even people here, and that you'll just further alienate them if you're obnoxious, or in this case equally obnoxious back at them.

I'll take 25 cranky Angela's butting into a thread over 1 of you guys. I'll take 25 reasonable AF's over you guys. Perhaps you could step back and learn something from a "vet" here, because you guys who would throw out anyone who isn't in lock step with you & AJ are a dime a dozen.

 

[Czolgosz]

Hey Amy, long time no see.

I moved into a forest a while ago, what's new with you?

Oh, you know, produced a new human being...moved far away from the ole homeland, did some stuff and then did some other stuff.

How's the forest treating you?

Did you two just place a hit on somebody or possibly arrange for a drop point? Lul

 

[Anti Federalist]

If we lived in a Libertarian State, he'd be creaming for socialism. He's just one of those people.

Having a bombastic, loud and overbearing style in person myself, I understand his "style".

But I don't believe that for a second, I've met the man a couple of times, briefly, and have no doubt that his commitment to freedom is real, and he, like me, would be perfectly content to fish and drink beer and spend time with the family if we lived in a free state with little injustice or tyranny to worry about.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Did you two just place a hit on somebody or possibly arrange for a drop point? Lul

Purple monkey dishwasher.

 

[FlatIron]

Why AJ? He detracts a good portion of people.