Santa Fe County Zone Map

We are sorry for the short notice, but we did not receive this from Santa Fe County until last evening

Santa Fe County Zoning Map Adoption Draft Public Hearing Schedule
Santa Fe, NM – May 27, 2014 – Santa Fe County would like to remind residents the first Public Hearing for the Santa Fe County Zoning Map Adoption Draft will be held at a special Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners meeting on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 at 5 p.m. in the Board of County Commission Chambers, 102 Grant Ave.  The Special meeting agenda and packet material is available on the County website at under the event item.  This is the first of two scheduled Public Hearings on the Zoning Map Adoption Draft, the second public hearing is Wednesday, June 25 at 5 p.m. in the Board of County Commission Chambers, 102 Grant Ave.
All properties have been assigned a zoning classification in accordance with the Sustainable Land Development Code (SLDC).  Santa Fe County released the Zoning Map Adoption Draft on March 27, 2014 and held a Public Review and Comment period from April 14 through May 2 as part of the Zoning Map Adoption Process.  The Zoning Map Adoption draft and an interactive Zoning Map are available on the County website under Hot Topics. Notifications to property owners of the proposed zoning map were sent on April 4, 2014. During the Public Comment and Review process Santa Fe County staff hosted office hours in each Growth Management Area in Santa Fe County to review the map with residents and assist property owners in locating their property on the map. During this time staff also provided information on the assigned zoning classification and applicable section of the SLDC.
The SLDC will not become effective until 30 days after the County Zoning Map is adopted. The Code was approved by the Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners by Ordinance at the December 10, 2013 Board meeting. The SLDC provides a legal framework for implementing land development and growth management policies of the County’s Sustainable Growth Management Plan adopted in 2010.
For more information on the Sustainable Land Development Code and Zoning Map Adoption Draft adoption process visit

United Nations Decade of Education for Sustain...

United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jim Crawford has provided information about Senate Bill 315 … a so-called comprehensive planning bill. Here’s one you really should oppose. 

I oppose SB 315 Comprehensive Planning. This bill seeks to change present community planning. Present planning has been if effect in this country for many, many years and dealt with efficient ways to deal with simple ways for neighbors to get along such as water use, waste disposal, and separating residential and commercial/industrial uses.

SB 315 is merely a covert attempt to enact “sustainable development” planning prescribed by the American Planning Association (APA) where humans take a back seat to any and all nature. The “sustainable” planned community will collectivize living spaces, hinder privacy and private property ownership, limit choices of home plans, limit mobility and commerce, and deny individuals a choice of housing densities.

According to the APA, the findings of a Survey reveal that: Only one-third believe their communities are doing enough to address economic situations; Very few Americans believe that market forces alone (the free market) improve the economy or encourage job growth; 84 % feel that their community is getting worse or staying the same; Community planning is seen as needed by a wide majority of all demographics; and of course, that 85% of Americans just don’t know enough to hold an opinion about Agenda 21.

Those are pretty astounding findings. Looks like these “honest” planners have their fingers on the pulse of the nation. And as the APA constantly reminds us in their materials, “there is no hidden agenda,”(as in Agenda 21).

Astounding perhaps, until you look at the actual questions asked in the survey. For example, Finding #4: Community planning is seen as needed by a wide majority of all demographics (79% agree; 9% disagree; and 12% don’t know). Wow!

But here is the actual question that was asked: “Generally, do you agree or disagree that your community could benefit from a community plan as defined above?” The definition provided in order to answer the question was this: “Community planning is a process that seeks to engage all members of a community to create more prosperous, convenient, equitable, healthy and attractive places for present and future generations.”

Asking the question in that manner is akin to holding up a picture of Marilyn Monroe along with one of Rosy O’Donnell and asking which one would they want to date. Give me the pretty one please – says 79%. In fact, in some actual planning meetings they do just that – hold up a picture of downtown depicting decaying, dreary buildings verses one of a shining, beautiful utopia, and they literally say, “which one do you want?” If the answer is (of course) the pretty one, then, YES, the community supports planning! Talk about a “dumbed down” process.

Moreover, as the American Planning Association adamantly denies any connection to the United Nations’ policy of Agenda 21 and its planning programs, how strange it is then, that the APA definition of planning is almost identical to the definition used by the UN to define Sustainable Development. Compare: “Development that meets the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The UN further defines Agenda 21: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.” Such a forced policy would certainly “engage all members of a community” whether they want to be or not. The UN calls it a “redeployment of human resources.” Other than semantics, there is no difference in the APA’s and the UN’s definitions of planning.” The planners’ definition uses an interesting term, “equitable.” The UN also uses such a term in describing Agenda 21 – “Social Equity.” And that is translated into another term: “Social Justice.” It means “redistribution of wealth.” Is that what the “local” planners have in mind for their community development?

It’s obvious that the APA is playing word games with its surveys and definitions of planning. No wonder such an overwhelming majority answer in the affirmative to such questions.

And, yes, maybe a lot of Americans don’t know what Agenda 21 really is. However, if the APA asked real questions that gave a solid clue as to the planning they actually have in mind, I’m quite sure they would get a much different response – whether the person answering had ever heard of Agenda 21 or not. For example, here are some sample questions that could help the APA take the real pulse of the community – if they wanted to be honest:

How do the citizens feel about planning policy that dictates the size of their yard and forces high density developments where one practically sits on top of their neighbors? Do they still support such “Planning?”

How do the citizens feel about planning that enforces the creation of public transportation with a limited number of riders – yet could cost taxpayers so much money that it would be literally cheaper to buy each potential rider a brand new Rolls Royce, even when the chauffeur is thrown in for good measure? Do they still support such “Planning?

How do they feel about planning that enforces limits on energy use and forces up energy costs? What if that included forcing residents to replace their appliances with more energy efficient ones to meet “Planning Standards?” Do they still support such “Planning?”

How do the citizens feel about Planning that forces cars to “share the road” with bicycles and foot traffic, even as Planners narrow the streets, deliberately making it harder to drive? Do they still support such “Planning?”

How do the citizens feel about Planning that forces tax payers to pay for plug-in stations for electric cars that hardly anyone wants or uses, for the specific purpose of forcing people to buy them? Do they still support such “Planning?”

How do the citizens feel about Planning that creates non-elected boards, councils and regional governments to enforce their policies, which actually diminish the power of the officials they elected, severely reducing citizen input into policy? Do they still support such “Planning?” See

This planning will end up curtailing energy use, increasing costs, hinder private property rights, insert government into every aspect of our lives.

Please do not pass this bill. Our current planning policies are plenty adequate.

Thank you

James Crawford




Related articles


Indiana May Get Rid Of The Albatross, “Agenda 21”

The information posted below was sent to us by Ralph Hill.  Ralph has asked if there is any chance any of our legislators would craft and submit a similar bill to our state legislators:

Indiana Introduces Bill Nullifying UN ‘Agenda 21′

Indiana State Representative Tim Neese has introduced a bill that would block implementation of UN “Agenda 21″ policies  in the state.

HB 1021 would amend the Indiana Code concerning state and local administration.

An Indiana governmental entity may not adopt or implement: (1) certain policy recommendations relating to the United Nations’ 1992 ‘Agenda 21’ conference on the environment and development that deliberately or inadvertently infringe on or restricts private property rights without due process; or (2) any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana.  Provides that an Indiana governmental entity may not enter into any agreement with, expend any sum of money received from, or pay any money to, an ‘Agenda 21′ organization.’”

This bill, if passed, would nullify the UN’s resolution, which could have scary potential. “Agenda 21” was created to be an action plan for sustainable development worldwide.  This agenda, makes a stronger UN, and may be another step closer to a single world government.  A section from this agenda reads:

Agenda 21 stands as a comprehensive blueprint for action to be taken globally from now into the twenty-first century-by Governments, United Nations organizations, development agencies, non-governmental organizations and independent-sector groups, in every area in which human activity impacts on the environment”.

It can also be argued that UN “Agenda 21” may be laying out plans for population control.  One of the programme areas in the agenda is listed as “improving human settlement and management.”  Clearly, this power of the UN has dangerous possibilities, strengthens their role, and brings us closer to a “one-world government.”

HB 1021 will be assigned to a committee when the House reconvenes on Monday, January 7, 2013

Related articles



Water, The United Nations And Agenda 21

Please have a look at this article.  Not only does it address water shortage across the globe, it also assigns some of the potential schemes to the United Nations and their Agenda 21:

water warsThe powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences…”

Professor Carroll Quigley, Mentor to President Bill Clinton

Very soon, America will be forced into water wars in order to secure the precious asset of water for our people. This will force our people into more wars of occupation in a search for water. Meanwhile, every nation that America conquers, is one less country that the bankers have to worry about taking over. At the end of the day, if America wants water, someday, Americans will have to go to war to obtain water.

As any aware person knows, Agenda 21 is being used as a front for the purpose of increasing the bottom of line of select global corporations. Bolivia is being exploited to this end and is serving as the canary in the mine with regard to what lies ahead for the United States and the coming water wars.

The United States sits upon a fiscal cliff. Economic devastation is in the cards for the US. Many wonder what will happen when the country defaults and cannot pay its bills. The answer is simple, our country will enter receivership. Once receivership is thrust upon our country, the bankers will begin to take control of our assets. Among the prize assets coveted by the globalist bankers will be our water supply.  Soon, very soon, our water supplies will become the most expensive in the world. Obtaining water for many Americans will soon be a life and death struggle.

Global consumption of water is doubling every 20 years, more than twice the rate of human population growth (United Nations Development Program, 2007). Also, according to the United Nations, more than one billion people already lack access to fresh drinking water (United Nations Developmental Program, 2007). If the current trend continues, by 2025 the demand for fresh water is expected to rise by over 50% more than the amount of water that is currently available. Multinational corporations recognize these trends and are trying to monopolize water supplies around the world. Monsanto, Bechtel, and other global multinationals are seeking control of world water systems and supplies. The World Bank recently adopted a policy of water privatization and full-cost water pricing. The World Bank’s policy of privatizing the world’s water supply conveniently coincides with the United Nations Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is actively promoting the privatization for the world’s water supplies through a “water for profit” scheme. “…(i) At the lowest appropriate level, delegation of water resources management, generally, to such a level, in accordance with national legislation, including decentralization of government services to local authorities, private enterprises and communities…” (United Nations Environment Program, 2007).

Agenda 21 further addresses the looming water crisis in Chapter 18 (.35) which states that “…water is a unitary resource. Long-term development of global freshwater requires holistic management of resources and a recognition of the interconnectedness of the elements related to freshwater and freshwater quality. There are few regions of the world that are still exempt from problems of loss of potential sources of freshwater supply, degraded water quality and pollution of surface and groundwater sources….” (The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2007). After reading the comforting manner in which Agenda 21 addresses the coming water crisis, we should all be able to sleep soundly at night. Unfortunately, this does not prove to be the case when one considers what has happened to Bolivia ’s indigenous peoples’ access to fresh water.

Agenda21isEvilAgenda 21’s strategy for privatizing the world’s water is quite simple: The United Nations financial partner, the World Bank, and its associated set of central banks around the planet, cripples a nation’s economy, largely through the use of fiat currency and forced assumption of banker’s derivative debt. Subsequently, the World Bank attempts to resuscitate that nation’s economy through a series of regime saving loans. World Bank loans offer the hope of staving off massive human suffering resulting from a lack of basic necessities, staggering unemployment and all the other accompanying variables which could lead to a violent overthrow of a nation’s political power structure. However, the terms of a typical World Bank loan would make the most adept loan shark green with envy. Often, as a precondition to receiving the loan, the World Bank imposes some very draconian conditions, such as the privatization of the basic necessities of life (e.g. water) from which their corporate partners derive great economic benefit.

Nowhere has this scheme been played out more directly than in the late 1990’s and the early 2000’s in Bolivia . The first large scale, dry run of Agenda 21’s plan to privatize water, took place in Bolivia when someone at the World Bank flipped a switch and demanded the privatization of Bolivia ’s water supplies as a precondition for massive debt relief.

In 1995, the government of Bolivia owned nothing. However, Bolivia did owe the World Bank enormous sums of money. Like a heroin addict, the Bolivian government became dependent on its financial “drug dealer,” the World Bank. Predictably, repaying Bolivian debt, to the World Bank, was plunging the Bolivian people and its government into the abyss of abject poverty and despair (Watson, 2003).

In Cochabamba , Bolivia , a city of 800,000 people, the public water system of El Alto and its neighbor La Paz , the nation’s capital, was privatized in 1997. In a classic conflict of interest case, the private consortium that took control of the water, Aguas del Illimani, is a subsidiary of Bechtel, and a set of minority shareholders that includes, among others, an arm of the World Bank (Watson, 2003). Within weeks of taking over the city’s public water company, Bechtel hiked up rates by as much as 200%, far beyond what the city’s poor could afford to pay. The Bolivian poor, with a lack of access to clean water, have nearly one in ten children die before they reach the age of five. Adding insult to injury, families living in El Alto’s outskirts rely on well water in which community representatives say are contaminated with industrial waste (Watson, 2003).

When all legitimate avenues of securing fresh water were blocked by Bechtel, including the prohibition of collecting rain water in homemade pots and pans, the Bolivian people took to the streets and an ongoing pattern of street violence ensued until Bechtel exercised the better half of discretion and exited the country. Mark my words, when we do this in America, follow our coming contrived water shortage, Americans will be met with 44,000 drones and DARPA killer robots.

Bolivia’s past is America’s future. Why the American people have only heard a whimper about these corporate abuses at the hands of the San Francisco based Bechtel Corporation, the World Bank and the United Nations Agenda 21. In order to answer that question, one has to ask: Who is Bechtel owned by? Bechtel is a subsidiary of General Electric. General Electric owns NBC (Media, 2005). Perhaps this is why the reporting of this tale of human abuse so sparsely reported in the United States .

How interconnected are the global corporations to the United States Government, the United Nations and Agenda 21? Consider the following list of Bechtel employees who have moved into major policy making positions both in the United States Government and the United Nations.

  • Bechtel’s CEO, Riley P. Bechtel, served on the President Bush’s (43) Export Council (4/24/03)
  • George Schultz. Shortly after assuming his new position in Bechtel, President Reagan recruited Schultz to Washington to serve as Secretary of State.
  • Reagan’s Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinburger was a former Bechtel general counsel.
  • W. K. Davis was a Bechtel vice-president for nuclear development before he was appointed as Reagan’s Deputy Secretary of Energy      and administrative head of the Atomic Energy Commission.
  • William Casey a former Bechtel consultant served in a number of government positions including chairman of the SEC under Nixon,      head of the Export-Import bank under President Ford, and director of the CIA under Reagan.
  • Richard Helm, who later became a ‘consultant’ to  Bechtel, had earlier been a CIA director under Nixon.
  • William Simon, Nixon’s Treasury secretary, was hired by Bechtel as a consultant.
  • Ross Connelly, CEO of Bechtel Energy Resources  Corporation (retired), was appointed by George W. Bush (41) in June of 2001 to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). The OPIC has  strong connections to the United Nations privatization projects.
  • Stew Burkhammer, a current Bechtel executive, is  presently a member of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s  (OSHA) Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (Cooperative  Research, 2006).
  • Marie-Françoise of Bechtel (France), Conseiller d’Etat, From 1979 to 1980, she was Consultant of the United Nations Asian and Pacific Development Center (United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration, 2007)
  • The connections between these groups can be further exemplified by the following: United Resolution 1483 (UN Security Council, 2003), approved the occupation of Iraq by American and British forces, thus making Iraq into a de facto colony. As such, this opened door for a corporate feeding frenzy by companies such as Bechtel as they lined up to “repair” Iraq following Gulf War II. Subsequently, Bechtel received a $1.03 billion contract to oversee major reconstruction of Iraq ‘s water and sewage. In spite of Bechtel’s promises, Iraqi families continue to lack access to clean water. The company made providing Southern Iraq ’s potable water one of its top priorities in which Bechtel promised delivery within 60 days following the commencement of the project. Within a year, Iraqi people still were suffering through epidemics of water-borne illnesses (e.g., cholera, kidney stones and diarrhea). Bechtel failed to live up to its word, but they did make a lot of money (Weston, 2003). And some people think that the United Nations is merely a benign and benevolent organization which is essentially neutral on all areas of politics and finance. Today, the stock holders of Bechtel have the United Nations to thank, in large part, for that extra vacation, their kid’s braces and the addition to their homes.
  • Bechtel is a major player in the evolving struggle to control the world’s future water supply. Bechtel and its peers have quietly been securing the rights to control the production and distribution of this essential resource and fully intend to make huge profits in the future when, as experts predict, water becomes a significantly scarce ‘commodity (Watson, 2003). As a footnote, in the face of 52 civilian deaths of Bechtel personnel, at the hands of insurgent terrorists, Bechtel did not withdraw from Southern Iraq . However, when its infrastructure projects came under fire from the insurgents, costing the corporation millions of dollars, Bechtel ceased operations in Southern Iraq . By the way, it was Bechtel which sold Saddam its chemical stockpile of weapons in his 1980’s war with Iran . This was followed by invading Iraq because it possessed weapons of mass destruction. I also found it interesting that Hillary Clinton was on the Board of Directors for Bechtel at the time of the sale of the weapons of mass destruction to Iraq (August 6th Coalition, 2006). Before the fall of the Shah of Iran, under President Jimmy Carter, Bechtel was contracted to build Iran ’s first nuclear power plant. As was the case with Saddam Hussein, Iran ’s government is still standing in the way of unfettered investment by the global corporations. Iran , the only Middle Eastern oil-rich country which will not likely capitulate to President Bush’s plans for a Middle East Free Trade Area, is now being threatened by the United States military, And remember, free trade is the one of the cornerstones of the UN’s Agenda 21. This makes one wonder who former President Bush really worked for.
  • I could have chosen any number of global corporations (e.g., Monsanto, Halliburton, etc.) to illustrate this abuse of humanity. The Bechtel Corporation is but one small corporate example of this disturbing trend.
  • In the era of globalization, flying under the banner of Agenda 21’s policy of “global sustainability,” transnational corporations circle the globe looking for opportunities for profit, putting people’s livelihoods, survival and the environment at risk. Too often the global corporations victimize unsuspecting and impoverished people who can least afford to absorb the brunt of these profit generating schemes. These actions severely undermine national sovereignty and individual determinism. However, this process is not inevitable; or infallible, successful resistance is possible. However the clock is ticking and time is quickly running out.
  • Do we think that this only happening in Bolivia? Similar projects are underway in Manilla, Pakistan and San Francisco. Yes, this is correct; Bechtel now has a contract with San Francisco ’s city government to upgrade the city’s water system. Bechtel employees are working side by side with city workers in a privatization move that people-in-the-know fear will lead to an eventual take-over of San Francisco ’s water system and create a fiasco similar to the one in Bolivia (Chatterjee, 2000). The wolf is at the door.
  • As the Roman Empire declined in influence and power, Feudalism replaced the nation-state government. The feudal lord was one of the few employers in the fourth and the fifth centuries. The feudal lords owned most of the land and nearly all the resources. Today, the specter of feudalism has shape-shifted into a global corporatocracy headed by the United Nations and Agenda 21. The global corporations are constructing this brand of neo-feudalism right before our eyes. Unfortunately, the people (i.e., Americans) who still have the power to stop it seem to possess the same vision-impairing flavor of glaucoma and refuse to see what is really happening. This is the same Agenda 21 plan which wants to use the power of behemoth banks and corporations, under the guise of United Nations sustainability rhetoric, in order to blackmail nations into allowing companies like Bechtel to assess a surcharge upon poor people and their at-risk children for daring to collect the rain water in homemade pots and pans. In the early part of this decade, Bolivians were asking each other, “have you seen the rain” in their unending search for fresh water.
  • Much like a teenager being lured into financial devastation by being enticed to own their first credit card, national governments cannot resist the addiction of seemingly infinite credit which is made available through the use of unsecured, fiat currency. Through the reckless spending of various governmental entities, tremendous debt is created. As the debt reaches critical levels and financial catastrophe looms, the World Bank rides in on its black horse and offers a nation financial salvation. However, that financial salvation comes at a steep cost which usually includes the selling their national soul to the devil. All too frequently, this “salvation” involves the imposition of the political and financial agenda of the United Nations and its partner, the World Bank. And with an Obama QE4 looming on the other side of the fiscal cliff, America is close to being the next Bolivia.

How long will it be until America becomes the next Bolivia ?  With regard to Agenda 21, this is only the tip of the iceberg. When this country is bankrupted by the bankers, America will be leveraged into seeking water in foreign countries and we will be all to happy to invade countries that plenty of the resource that we no longer have.

As the reader will discover in the second part of this series, the reader will discover that we don’t just have to worry about a banker takeover of our water assets. we are being invaded from within.  George H. W. Bush and T. Boone Pickens are buying up major water sources inside of our country as America is about to get hit on two fronts. I can see no other purpose behind this madness except that our military will be leveraged to invade, yet another set of countries.


August 6th Coalition (2006). Why Bechtel? (retrieved June 14, 2007).

Chatterjee, Pratap (May 31, 2000). The Earth Wrecker. San Francisco Bay Guardian Cooperative Research (2006). UN Rubber Stamps Iraq Occupation. (retrieved May 11, 2006).

Fogerty, John (1975). Have You Ever Seen the Rain? Chronicle: 20 Greatest Hits. Credence Clear Water Revival

Global Environment Facility (GEF). (2007). A Joint Initiative with UNEP and the World Bank. (retrieved Jun 17, 2007).

Marrs, Jim (2001). Rule by Secrecy. Harper Collins Publishers: New York.

Media (2005). Who Owns the Media? (retrieved June 17, 2007).

United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration (2007).

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2007). Protection of the Quality and Supply of Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches To the Development, Management and Use of Water Resources. – 124k.

United Nations Division for Sustainable Development – Agenda 21, (2007)

United Nations Environment Programme (2007).Protection Of The Quality And Supply Of Freshwater Resources: Application Of Integrated Approaches To The Development, Management And Use Of Water Resources

United Nations Security Council 2003 Resolutions (2003).

Watson, Connie. (February 4, 2003) Sell the rain. How the privatization of water caused riots in Cochabamba, Bolivia. CBC Radio.

Weston, Fred(May, 2003). UN rubber stamps US-UK occupation of Iraq .

World Bank (2007). About Us.,,contentMDK:20040610~menuPK:41691~p

Related articles

Copyrights and the Fair Use does not claim any copyright ownership to the websites or other links on this website. – The only purposes for featuring these websites on Sandia are (a) to expand the collective human knowledge base by sharing important information, and (b) to enhance our country by highlighting important issues. We believe we are doing this in the spirit of the copyright owners’ original public upload, which was made to a major global video-sharing website, and which was enabled for embedding on external websites such as you own the copyright reflected on this website, and would like us to remove it, please email us.17 USC 107 ? FAIR USE DOCTRINE: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or photo records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include?(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Thanks From Santa Fe County Regarding SLDC

Seal of Santa Fe County, New Mexico

Seal of Santa Fe County, New Mexico (Photo credit: Wikipedia) The information found below is self-explanatory to those involved with the Agenda 21 and other “sustainability,” issues inside the unincorporated portions of Santa Fe County.

Dear community members,

On behalf of the County, thank you for taking the time to provide comments on the County’s Sustainable Land Development Code, Public Review Draft of September 2012. We received over 1,200 individual comments, all of which have been published to our website for public viewing at:

These comments reflect an incredible amount of thought and commitment. The County is in the process of evaluating the comments and will make recommendations on where edits to the draft code may be warranted. The County is still working on determining exactly how we will provide responses to public comments and when a new draft of the Sustainable Land Development Code will be available for public review. We will notify you all soon as this information is available.

Thank you again and we deeply appreciate all of the time, energy and thought you all have invested in this effort.


Penny Ellis-Green

Santa Fe County Growth Management Director

Related articles

The United Nations Craves It All

Hardly a day goes by that we don’t see the United Nations’ desire to take more power and leave this sovereign nation with less freedom and control over its destiny.  If it isn’t Agenda 21, then it is a plea for more money to support despots, communist regimes and those government masquerading as supporters of civil rights..

The latest scheme involves taking control of the Internet. If we have a single brain cell, we will fight such nonsense with all the muscle we have left. Don’t count on your national administration to do anything effective to prevent such a takeover.

Read from the link below to fully understand what might be in store:

The United Nations Insatiable Appetite

English: Emblem of the United Nations. Color i...

English: Emblem of the United Nations. Color is #d69d36 from the image at (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles


More Agenda 21

Another Agenda 21 piece sent to us by Jim Crawford along with his comment:

For all you A21 groupies here is one that came in today from the Blaze.  It is kind of an intro to Glen Beck’s program on A21 scheduled for 3PM Monday.  We think it will be on Blaze TV as well as Glen’s program on Dish Network Satellite.  This covers a lot of the same ground we have seen a number of times but with the added discussion of national security implications that we have not heard about before.

International Land Grab

Imagine waking up in a country where a high-ranking government official stands in front of citizens and rails against personal property rights:

The American system of justice must be changed to conform to that of the rest of the world, and there must be a shift in attitudes. Individual wants, needs and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of government planners. In the process of implementing Sustainable Development, individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.”

The shocking line that individual rights should be relegated to the rear has actually been attributed to an American high-ranking, public official: Miami-Dade County Clerk of Courts Harvey Ruvin.

The powerful Mr. Ruvin reportedly delivered that statement in 2002 at the 10th Anniversary of Agenda 21’s roll out (UNCED Rio+10 Summit-Johannesburg).

Curiously, Ruvin’s profile on the Miami-Dade website says nothing about his association with Agenda 21 or the controversial International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), a collective of local governments and national and regional local government organizations committed to radical environmental policies to eliminate private property rights. However, ICLEI is quite proud of Mr. Ruvin. From the ICLEI website:

Harvey Ruvin, distinguished member of ICLEI’s Advisory Group, has been named to the Florida Energy Commission. After serving 20 years on the Miami-Dade County Commission, chairing its Environment and Energy Committees, Mr. Ruvin now serves as Miami-Dade County’s Clerk of Courts, where he has implemented technologies that both save money and are good for the environment. Mr. Ruvin helped found ICLEI in 1990, and now chairs the County’s efforts on Climate Change.”

Ruvin was honored to comment about his association with ICLEI—but apparently only on their website: “I am honored by this opportunity to serve. The Florida Energy Commission can be a key player in shaping a climate and energy policy that would put Florida in the forefront as our state, nation and world face up to these critical challenges.”


While Ruvin seems to believe that America and Americans must change to follow the will of the rest of the world, the opinions of the Founding Fathers were very clear on the topic of private property rights.

George Washington stressed the importance of private property when he said, “Private property and freedom are inseparable.”

And John Adams was also adamant on this issue, having affirmed, “Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.”

Considering the creeping threat to property rights, Americans should ask themselves some practical questions about real-life situations:

Can the government shut off your air conditioning or cut back your heat?

Can you be forced to move from a sprawling property with your own water and enough land to grow what you need into a high-density urban setting where everyone lives and works inside a small area?

Can the government tell you what kind of car to drive and where you can travel on your vacation?

Some would argue that the answer to all three of those questions is already leaning towards a resounding “yes.”

So-called “smart meters” are being installed at a blinding pace around the country with the potential to curtail energy use based on the decision of someone other than the customer. The possibility exists for appointed government officials to impose their standards of power use over individuals based on their perceived view of what is best for the collective.

Restrictions are worming into regulations all around the country via non-elected officials intending to change the way Americans own and use property.

Government-imposed fuel-economy standards and other regulations are forcing car manufacturers to alter the kinds of cars they can build, eliminating the free market and giving the government control over what kind of cars consumer can buy.

And all of this can be tied back to something called Agenda 21.


The seeds for Agenda 21 were planted back in 1987 when the writings of Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, first vice president of the Socialist International, caught the eye of the United Nations.

Brundtland wrote an environmental extremist U.N. report titled, “Our Common Future,” which the global body used as a springboard for using environmentalism as a tool to control the world’s people and establish a global government.

The resulting U.N. program, Agenda 21, is a grand plan for global “sustainable development,” which President George H.W. Bush (and 177 other world leaders) agreed to in 1992. In July 1993, President Bill Clinton brought the global scheme directly into the U.S. government when he signed an executive order creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, which avoided any review or discussion by Congress or the American people.

Sustainable development” sounds like a nice idea—that is, until you scratch the surface and find that Agenda 21 and sustainable development are actually cloaked plans to impose the tenets of social justice and socialism on the world.

The Agenda 21 plan openly targets private property—which should surprise no one. For more than 35 years, the United Nations has made their stance very clear on the issue of individuals owning land. A report from a 1976 U.N. conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, on human settlements contains lays out the position:

Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.

Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.

The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.”

As if the United Nations’ role in creating Agenda 21 weren’t enough, consider also that the major international organization pushing for this radical program, ICLEI, has received millions of dollars from George Soros’ Open Society Institute, including a $2.1 million grant in 1997.

This relatively unknown but massive network has managed to embed itself into cities and counties all across the country, likely because many cities do not understand exactly what ICLEI is and how it operates.

Headquartered in Bonn, Germany, ICLEI is an international organization that offers training and support to municipalities that want to enact Agenda 21’s programs.

A global plan the size of Agenda 21 could not be implemented without the large, well-funded ICLEI. And ICLEI is already quite deeply entrenched in America. They proudly announce their history and plans on websites tied to member cities:

ICLEI USA was launched in 1995 and has grown from a handful of local governments participating in a pilot project to a solid network of more than 600 cities, towns and counties actively striving to achieve tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and create more sustainable communities. ICLEI USA is the domestic leader on climate protection and adaptation, and sustainable development at the local government level.”

Austin, Texas, is one of the hundreds of local governments that seems to have fallen for the ICLEI arguments for Agenda 21 and has been heavily consuming the “Communitarianism” Kool-Aid. An Austin political action committee called Texans for Accountable Government (TAG) saw what was happening and attempted to stop the Austin City Council from adopting some Agenda 21-friendly initiatives.

Prior to a council vote on some of the initiatives, one of TAG’s members, John Bush, delivered a succinct presentation on ICLEI and Agenda 21 that was virtually ignored by the city officials. Bush’s appeal to the council attempted to sway the opinions of the voting members by appealing to a traditional Texas value—land ownership—and showing how that would be threatened by Agenda 21:

Among the stated objectives of Agenda 21 is the ‘re-wilding of America’ under the Wildlands Project. This project would remove human beings from over half of the land in America and deem these areas core wilderness zones. Regardless of where you’re family farm once was, human beings will not be allowed to set foot in these areas. There would also be highly controlled and monitored buffer zones around these areas where travel would be severely limited.”

Bush’s short argument against the proposed local law was immediately followed by a lopsided 7-0 vote adopting the United Nations-backed plans.

In California, proponents of Agenda 21 are working to implement plans to create schemes for sustainable management of “open spaces.” The definition of what will be considered an “open space” has sparked heated exchanges between those directing the planning meetings and citizens who want private property rights to be respected and protected.


Agenda 21 also appears to have received a significant endorsement from the Obama administration in early June of 2011.

On June 9, 2011, President Obama signed Executive Order 13575, establishing the White House Rural Council (WHRC) and taking control over almost all aspects of the lives of 16 percent of the American people. The media and the public missed it thanks to the focus on the Anthony Weiner scandal.

Section 1 of E.O. 13575 states:

Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.”

Warning bells should have been sounding all across rural America with the use of the phrase “sustainable rural communities”—code words for the true fundamental transformation of America. And the third sentence also makes it quite clear that the government intends to take greater control over “food, fiber, and energy.” The last sentence in Section 1 further clarifies the intent of the order by tying together “access to the capital necessary for economic growth, health care and education.”

One might expect that the WHRC would be populated by experts in the various fields that might prove helpful to the folks who live and work outside of large urban areas. Well, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will chair the group, but the 25 members appointed to serve on this very influential body are the heads of the executive branch departments, offices, agencies and councils, not leaders in rural development.

Not only was nary a single department in the federal government excluded from the WHRC, but also the administration inserted a wild-card option, leaving a membership spot open to anyone the president and the Agriculture secretary might want to designate to serve on this powerful council.

Within the 25 designated members of the council are some curious ties to Agenda 21 and the structure being built to implement it:

VALERIE JARRETT: From the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, Jarrett served on the board of an organization called Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC). LISC uses the language of Agenda 21 and ICLEI as their website details their work to build “sustainable communities.”

MELODY BARNES: The head of the Domestic Policy Council, Barnes is a former vice president at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress.

HILDA SOLIS: Labor Secretary Solis received an award in 2000 for her work on “environmental justice.”

NANCY SUTLEY: White House Council on Environmental Quality chief Sutley served on the board of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District and was one of the biggest supporters of low-flow toilets that are now credited with costing more money than expected while causing some nasty problems.

Is it possible that concerns about E.O. 13575 are just typical anti-big-government paranoia? Consider the “mission and function” of WHRC as laid out by the president:

The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities.”

Economic prosperity” and a better “quality of life,” that all sounds fairly innocent and well-intentioned. But continuing deeper into the order, one finds the council is charged with four directives, the first two of which pose the greatest threat of growing federal influence over private property in rural areas.

DIRECTIVE NO. 1: “make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America.”

The vague language here also sounds non-threatening. There is a hint of a “rural stimulus plan” in the making. Will the federal government start pumping money into farmlands under the guise of “creat[ing] economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America”?

DIRECTIVE NO. 2: “coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America.”

Virtually every aspect of rural life seems to now be part of the government’s mission. And while all of the items in the second directive sound like typical government speak, Americans should be alarmed when they read the words “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs). NGOs are unelected, but typically government-funded groups that act like embedded community organizers. And NGOs are key to Agenda 21’s plans.

In the world of business, Agenda 21 is not a free-market friend, preferring private-public partnerships where the government decides which companies will receive tax breaks and are allowed to stay in business. In light of this, the cozy relationship between the current administration and GE (a company that earned billions of dollars and paid no tax in 2010) should raise eyebrows. Additionally, White House efforts to tell Boeing in which state they can operate bolsters the image that Agenda 21 ideals are already making serious headway in America.


In addition to the potential for restricting personal property rights and removing basic freedoms to choose how and where one lives, Agenda 21 and ICLEI may also present a significant security risk to America.

Charles Winkler, a retired Defense Department analyst who worked as a specialist in Russia and the Middle East, has studied ICLEI and Agenda 21. In November 2011, Winkler publicly discussed the potential national security problems with ICLEI’s presence in America.

At one meeting in Virginia, Winkler offered some surprising information about one high-ranking ICLEI representative, regional officer Jie “Megan” Wu:

  • Wu, who as recently as last summer was leading seminars for ICLEI, has a history as an official for the People’s Republic of China, an official member of the Chinese delegation dealing with foreigners in multi-lateral negotiations;
  • she studied in a university that was subordinate to the People’s Republic of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and where, according to Winkler, linguists are trained for government service;
  • she appeared to still be a citizen of China and trained in dealing with foreigners by a state school; and
  • at one point, Wu, an apparent Chinese national, was charged with overseeing a territory for ICLEI from Georgia up to Maine and inland.

Winkler explained at the meeting that a retired officer for the Russian GRU (Moscow’s large foreign military intelligence operation) told him that any Chinese national trained in “dealing with foreigners” has a counter-intelligence association or an official link back to the government.

Winkler says that his immediate concern with Wu is related to national security—specifically: Why does ICLEI have a representative for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast region that is a citizen of China and one that may be trained in counter-intelligence?

Some claim Winkler is paranoid. But his worries about a Chinese national acting as the main representative for ICLEI and having access to potentially sensitive information about hundreds of Defense locations do not seem far-fetched when one considers:

  • The Defense Department operates at least 200 facilities within the territory once covered by Ms. Wu (and still covered by ICLEI);
  • ICLEI gathers data on utilities, ports, rail and airport operations, as well as planning for additional development of these areas; and
  • the information is compiled locally and sent to ICLEI’s foreign headquarters.

Winkler also reports that within the past two months, Russia arrested a Chinese national trying to get secret government documents on missile systems while posing as an interpreter—just as Wu was doing.

combine this and the reality that all of ICLEI’s data is sent to the group’s world headquarters with the fact that nobody in our government seems to know who has access to all of the potentially sensitive intelligence being gathered, and security officials in America have legitimate serious concerns about ICLEI.

Curiously, in June 2011, Wu was replaced by a new regional director named Eli Yewdall. Yewdall’s Internet-accessible history shows ties to far-Left groups such as Climate Justice and various other “direct action” climate movement organizations. He has also worked as a local organizer in New York and was arrested in a protest at the IRS. As a student in 2002 he declared that the United Nations is the “only democratic body in existence.”


In recent months, citizen groups across the country have organized and become involved in the removal of towns and cities from membership in ICLEI. There are several Facebook groups working to illuminate the real purpose of Agenda 21 and ICLEI, including “Wake Up Call to Agenda 21,” “Resist UN Agenda 21” and “Stopping UN Agenda 21”; plus, many city and county Facebook groups have dedicated themselves to dismantling ICLEI’s substantial network.

While the awareness of Agenda 21 seems to have increased significantly in the past year, there is still much work to be done by those interested in blocking the redistributive social-and environmental-justice intentions embedded in both Agenda 21 and ICLEI.

The fight for property rights will continue this summer when advocates for Agenda 21, ICLEI and various global governance schemes will gather to mark the 20th anniversary of the initial announcement of this plan to create a global government through the subterfuge of environmentalism. The event is seeking “to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assess the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and address new and emerging challenges.”

Without the continued vigilance of freedom-loving Americans, this movement threatens to overwhelm private property rights that our Founders knew are central to our liberty.

Cogs And Agenda 21

Following is a YouTube audio on Agenda 21 and Council Of Governments and how they connect.

Again, Ralph and Susan Smith and Jim and Donnalee Crawford sent the information along:

Agenda 21: Still Trying After All These Years

The following was sent by Ralph & Susan Hill & Jim and Donna Crawford.  More to follow tomorrow.
Those who have been opposing the onslaught of Santa Fe County’s implementation of UN Agenda 21 (though County planners try to hide the connection) should take inspiration from this speech by Tom DeWeese.  It is rather lengthy (30 minutes) but in the middle he talks of success of a number of states, counties and towns that have defeated Agenda 21/ICLEI and how it was achieved, especially in the legislature.  I seldom watch anything over 3-4 minutes at most, but was intrigued with it.  Wonder if we could get Mr. DeWeese to New Mexico.  Ralph Hill
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
The RNC Failed – Not You!

Hello James,

I know, as a result of the elections, you are feeling down and perhaps not ready to jump back in the battle. I know how you feel. Sometimes it’s just hard to get up in the morning after being kicked like that.

But let me give you some uplifting news and insight.

First, I want to share with you video of a speech I gave a few months ago to the John Birch Society’s Executive Council. This talk focused on our victories over Agenda 21/Sustainable Development forces. Now, you may say, Tom, your views just aren’t realistic – especially in view of what happened Tuesday. We’re done. We’re defeated.

Well, the fact is, everything I say in this talk is absolutely true – just as much today as it was before the election. We have scored some major victories. And no matter what happened on election night, the Left is terrified of us because of those victories. We are now learning new ways to fight. We are training grassroots activists.And we can win more. In the state legislatures, in the local communities. And even on the international level. Take a look at my video and see why.

Click here to view the video

Second, for the most part, the Republican defeat Tuesday was a defeat for the old guard establishment that leans more to the left than the right. In fact, they fear us “crazies” from the Right. We’re just too radical, they say. So, in the past 4 years they have forced on us candidates like John McCain and MItt Romney as cannon fodder against a committed Marxist like Barrack Obama. You can’t beat someone like him by being nice, or hesitant to speak out. Both McCain and Romney found that out the hard way. So don’t take the election results as a defeat of the ideals and principles you and I hold so dear. These ideas didn’t lose –because they weren’t even in the debate.

Third, OUR ideas did win – big. For example, in Virginia, there was a ballot measure to amend the state Constitution to protect private property rights against the use of Eminent Domain. Voters in a state that ultimately gave its Electoral votes to Obama, voted 82% in favor of protecting private property rights. THAT is OUR victory! More states are ready for such legislation. I am helping to write sample legislation that will have teeth and meaning in protecting your property rights.

We must not give up. We must believe in our principles and fight for them. Specifically, if we focus on the local and state level, we can, in many ways, stop federal (Obama) efforts.

You and I have circled the wagons tightly enough – now it’s time to charge!


Tom DeWeese
American Policy Center

Carroll County Trashed Agenda 21 — Can Santa Fe County Citizens Do The Same

Come to the Sandia Tea Party meeting this evening as advertized:

Valley View Christian Church @ 6:30 PM

Jerry Powers, a well-known activist against Agenda 21 will be the speaker on this issue (Agenda 21).

Meanwhile enjoy the video just below:

The Agenda 21 for culture is the first documen...

The Agenda 21 for culture is the first document with worldwide mission that advocates establishing the groundwork of an undertaking by cities and local governments for cultural development. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles