On 12/2/14 the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission held a joint hearing on the DEIR for the General Plan. The remarks I read into the record follow:
I am well aware that this overly detailed process is required by the state and that the mistaken choice of AECOM as the consultant was made before all or almost all of the present supervisors and planning commissioners took office. One look at AECOM’s web page makes it clear that they are the implementation cadre of Agenda 21 and the new world order. Their disregard for us ordinary people is blatantly apparent. Affordable housing outside of compacted cities or centers and employment opportunities determined by supply and demand seem outside their vision.
However, I live in the real world, and am fully aware of the time and money spent on this and the related documents. Therefore I understand that aside from some few feasible modifications we all may have to live with this. But putting that and the state requirements aside, I find the General Plan and the Draft EIR to be abominations. As I’ve reviewed the document I have posted my comments on both Facebook and on my blog, Outside the Ivory Tower. It will all be submitted to the Planning Department by the deadline.
But I wish to take this time to note two factors: First is the assumption that underlies all the reasoning of the DEIR. They believe that humanity is an intrusion upon the natural world and not an intrinsic part of it. The so called natural world is partly the result of human tinkering for possibly a million years. We have been, and are, in symbiosis with the environment. These are not opposing forces. I would also like to add that many in our community would consider this assumption as atheistic.
The other factor is the copious lists of mitigation measures. While the consultants are just doing their job - and it is clear that the final trade off decisions rest primarily with the Board of Supervisors - I find this to be a potential laundry list for future litigants. They could simply say it was recommended to you, and you didn’t do it. Our present outbreak of litigation fever may even be causing a paralysis of far greater danger than an overly restrictive General Plan.
You accused me of attacking you in your response yesterday to my guest commentaries. I am disappointed but not surprised. That seems to be typical of conspiracy-theory adherents.
ReplyDeleteI spent a good deal of time researching and writing them, in the sincere intent to provide some perspective to what you had to say about the General Plan Update process. The assertions you were making were nothing more than the familiar anti-Agenda 21 talking points that can be read on any Tea Party site. What you forget is that there are readers of the ACN like myself that don’t follow Alex Jones or read Glenn Beck’s books. And they don’t fear the “New World Order”.
I could take issue with many of your statements in your response, but I’ll focus on this one: “D. Norman concludes one of his two letters with the chilling undemocratic assertion that I should not be posted on Amador Community News since I don’t agree with his point of view.”
You were referring to this statement: “Mr. Bennett promises to advance additional thoughts in future commentaries. I would hope that he looks upon such future submissions as an opportunity to inform, without the unnecessary political content.”
Your interpretation of my statement is as off the mark as many of your assertions in your commentaries on the General Plan Update. I don’t believe that anyone would read that and make the conclusion you arrived at. And it is revealing that you would fail to recognize that my comments were not personal.
I have concluded that pointing out someone’s inaccuracies and misstatements is a waste of time. So rather than respond to any of your future commentaries, I am considering investing the requisite time and energy to publish some additional informative commentaries. Subjects such as sustainability and the dangerous opposition to Agenda 21 are ripe for further examination. And they are obviously of interest to you. But unlike your approach, my “agenda” will be to inform in a non-partisan and non-political way.
D. Norman
D. Norman may not read Alex Jones or Glenn Beck, but he is certainly an adherent of Saul Alinsky. His approach is to discredit my opposing point of view without any substantive answers to the serious points I have raised or my qualifications. He claims I am a conspiracy theorist for acknowledging Agenda 21, perhaps he should read it on the UN website, the American Planning Association website and also the website our General Plan consultant AECOM along with seeing its implementation in cities across the USA. He should look at the fire tax, the votes in the state legislature starving rural areas of funds or his homeowner’s insurance bill. My interpretation of his remark, which included his own concocted definition of what Amador Community News should be, is crystal clear that he expresses anti-democratic sentiments. He repeatedly attempts to take the higher moral ground with flagrantly dishonest statements. D. Norman confuses information and opinion. This is very dangerous, but he probably considers it as “sustainable” thinking. There are many people among the “loyal opposition” here in Amador County that I genuinely like and respect. He is not among them.
ReplyDeleteMark Bennett, Pine Grove
Amador County is a rural county, and therefore is Conservative in its politics. It always votes Republican. But not 100% Republican. So even though a majority of people in Amador County are on the right politically, there are a good many of the population that are not.
DeleteBut I get that not being on the right makes me one of the “loyal opposition”. Were we to live somewhere else in the state, the opposite would be true, Mr. Bennett. And not that it should matters all that much- I am an educated person with a graduate business degree.
So here’s the thing. Some time ago, in pursuing local news and information, I came across the Amador Community News site. I found it to be very helpful and I read it daily. When I first did so, I saw one of your Featured Commentaries. Right there on the front page, so to speak. I read it, and then went into your blog to read many more of them. The consistent theme running through all of them was a distinctly conservative point of view. I was frankly amazed by that, and at first thought that you were speaking for the ACN. I have since found that not to be the case, to my relief. And what ACN stands for is not my “concoction”, but is stated right on their site.
In a round-about way, you have benefited me. Your comments motivated me to research much of what has been contained in your comments. Newman Ridge, for example. And Agenda 21.
As someone “not on the right”, you might have suspected that I would be a strong proponent of Agenda 21. But, alas, I had never heard of it! Apparently I am not alone, which makes me feel better. You mention the American Planning Association. I found this in Wikipedia: “Their 2012 poll of 1,300 United States voters… found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn't have enough information to form an opinion. (my bolds). And I suspect that many, if not all, of the Planning folks in Amador County haven’t either. Or at least their actions haven’t been driven by it. The publicity about it has been generated mainly by the right.
And look, you must realize that nothing I have written has been personal. I never said that you follow Alex Jones or read Glenn Beck. And I have heard the name Saul Alinsky, and promise to do my research about him. I alluded to you being a conspiracy-theory adherent, which I regret. People who read your comments should make up their own minds about whether or not that is so.
It was in response to much of what you had written, and the language used. As time permits, I will address the sustainability issue in future commentaries. Who opposes Agenda 21, and the language that is typically used in their arguments, which I have also seen in your comments. One example: in referring to the Amador County planners, you state: “They believe that humanity is an intrusion upon the natural world and not an intrinsic part of it.” I wonder- have you heard that sentiment from any of them, or is that just your assumption?
It is true that I don’t agree with most of what you have written. But I don’t know you as a person. And I am not attacking you as a person. My comments speak for themselves. I invite you to read them in that context, as an intellectual and not an ideologue. I really am a very likable and agreeable person. Your views run counter to mine, but I respect your right to have and voice them. I just will not respond to them any longer, as long as your reaction remains as it has so far. There is nothing constructive about that, in my opinion.
D. Norman