Hanging By A Thread

Our society is never more than one minor event away from mass chaos.

Last night it took 2-1/2 hours to get home from work. A bus caught on fire on the highway, and all lanes shut down. I was near an exit and got off in Burtonsville, MD. It turned out that the neighborhood had only one entrance and exit, and the exit was blocked by a fire hose for 90 minutes. By then, there were at least 500 cars trapped in the neighborhood.

Why would our government geniuses allow a neighborhood to be built with only one exit?


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Hanging By A Thread

  1. Because fewer options make it more of a headache to drive?

    • It’s like Nutrisystem for alarmist energy consumers: “I know I have to drive less, but it’s so hard, so I’ll pay you to make it harder for me to drive the amount that I’m used to. That will cause me to do what I ‘want’ to do anyway — plan ahead, combine trips, carpool, etc. And then all my friends will agree that I’m as cool as they are! Hooray, I’m living cool! Now I can die happy.” RTF

  2. Password protected says:

    There is a community around here like that. RR tracks, the ocean and a bluff dictate access.

    • Gail Combs says:

      My street has three exits. All have bridges that are too low and if we get too much rain the roads flood. Another reason to drive a diesel.

  3. James Anderson says:

    Because government loves to control human behavior. They do it all over town in the city I live in.

  4. John M says:

    There are innumerable subdivisions and neighborhoods around the country that have only one entrance/exit.

    Why didn’t the developers put in a second entrance/exit?? Well, umm, most often, because the property doesn’t provide the space or place for it.

    It’s not a government issue, it’s not a conspiracy.

    • You have no idea what you are talking about.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Of course he does.

        But whats not to like if you are a developer if ..Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house…

        That translates to five times the profit for the developer. Of course any planner/developer is going to defend ‘Sustainable Development’ like a grizzly mama defends her cubs.

        • John M says:

          Gail, it’s just just the opposite. I can’t stand the sustainable development crap. Nor do I like small lots with people living on top of each other.

          You’re missing the bigger picture on these issues and development constraints with many properties. Like I’ve said things always depend on property layout, and the surrounding properties’ layout. But you are correct on one point.

          Yes a profit must be made!

        • Gail Combs says:

          John I am well aware of development constraints. I grew up with a Mom who was a real estate broker and by age twelve could easily do accurate real estate appraisals.

          It is the city or town or county planning board NOT YOU who makes the decisions. In the last town I lived minimum road frontage was 50 ft. Where I live now it is 100 ft and 2.5 ac minimum lot size.

          If the planning board says a minimum of three access roads to each development are required then that is what you do period.

          Think Coconut Grove 1942 in Boston. link

          One disaster like that where the one access road gets clogged or worse cut off causing many unnecessary deaths and you will see the rules change just as the did after Coconut Grove.

        • John M says:

          Gail, a few points:

          1: City/town planning boards vary tremendously. And there is rarely a one size fits all solution that doesn’t have exceptions.

          2. These exceptions must exist, bc no two properties are the same. As I mentioned, development and access constraints are more often dictated by the adjoining properties these days. Which means that even if you want more access points, you can’t have them bc of the adjoining constraints.

          3. Planning commissions are normally going to reflect the will of the local people. So whatever those people want, they usually get. If not there is typically an uproar of some type within the local community. I know bc I’ve sat on them.

          5. I’ve been speaking ab raw land development in this thread. Private property development. If you don’t give people what they want, you don’t have success.

          6. Most people these days want restricted access to their neighborhoods.

          7. My main point in responding to this original post was to point out that single entrance subdivisions are very common, and have been for 50 years, and there are a myriad of reasons why this occurs. And that trend is only getting stronger, and most people like that for security reasons.

    • John, come off it. If it’s happening all over, then surely it must be intentional?

      • When I was a little boy, the family visited my grandparents, about a hundred miles away, driving on a two-lane (one lane each way) state highway. When the interstate was later built (yes, I am older than the interstate highway system–so what?), it followed that state highway. This happened all over the country, and the older, parallel highways or county roads came to be called frontage roads–and they could, and did, over time, increase the interstate entrances along those frontage roads as needed, or as they were able. But there were also innumerable “one-horse” towns that didn’t lie next to a frontage road, and got only one access point to the interstate. So you see it was a conspiracy of the founding fathers who just started up towns anywhere they liked, without regard for the future interstate and how to connect with it. If Goddard had known the “interior” road to the next town, he could have used it to get to the interstate from that next town. probably in less than 30 minutes. But the damage to his psyche would have been done nevertheless. There are a million such stories in the naked city…this has been one of them.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The problem is not access to the interstate. (I run into that problem all the time — Bennett, NC)

          It is ANY access aside from the one road and when that road got blocked there was no other method of leaving the area except on foot.

        • Harry, I’m talking about brand new planned communities that have “limited access” whether or not they are anywhere near an interstate. There is a developer posting on this page who is strongly defending the choice to limit brand new communities to only one access point, no matter how large they are, and no matter how inconvenient that makes it for people. I despise this, and I assure you I have plenty of company in that regard. And yes, it is a conspiracy, as attested on this page by one of the conspirators.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yes it is a government issue. Ever heard of the City/County PLANNING DEPARTMENTS or of ZONING?

  5. John M says:

    Actually, I misspoke somewhat in my previous statement.

    These days, it often is a govt issue regarding a development’s layout, with all the green space requirements, etc., that you don’t have the room or ability to add secondary access.

  6. John M says:

    Yes Steve I know what I’m talking about. It’s not like I do this for a living or anything!

    • This neighborhood had three or four easy options to connect to other neighborhoods. The setup is a threat to the safety of everyone. A chemical accident on the freeway or large fire would leave no escape route for residents.

      • Gail Combs says:

        In my case we have a nuclear plant within visible sight (and warning sirens all over the place) Yet the community PLANNED and built next to me in the last ten years is not only on the river flood plain (Darn fools) but access is ONE dirt road.

        I would be a heck of a lot more worried about the dam upstream having to release water and flooding the entire area than a nuclear problem, but having one access road is still foolish.

        Oh and they have a covenant on these ten ac lots restricting the types of animals allowed despite all the cows, chickens, goats, sheep, llamas, horses and pigs in the area. Go figure.

      • emsnews says:

        They build ‘one entrance only’ housing developments to prevent crime. See, no thru traffic=fewer criminals roaming about and escaping quickly. Seriously.

  7. B says:

    Neighborhoods are designed with one way in and one way out for two basic reasons.

    1) People living there don’t want strangers driving on their street(s). It’s deliberate to keep other people from driving through. So developers build it this way and government allows it. It’s for the children. It wouldn’t be safe for them to play in the street otherwise.

    2) It’s an anti-driving measure to force all traffic on to arterial roads. This is also for the children and keeping them safe. Then the arterial roads need to be road dieted and have protected bike lanes so they too are safe for children and people who don’t know how to ride a bicycle in traffic.
    2b) Interesting side effect, it makes people’s mobility much easier to control.

    Following transportation issues as I do I find it’s another place progressives are a source of amusement. They will make fun of suburbs because two neighboring properties are miles apart when driving on the road system as it is designed. Two different subdivisions right next to each other on rare occasion are impossible to drive from one to the other without going out on to arterial roads and then circling around. Then in the big cities they’ll demand streets be blocked off so to drive from one neighboring property to another requires going blocks or miles out of one’s way. Driving out on to an arterial road and then circling around. They say the former is wasteful and stupid but the later encourages bicycling and walking and safe streets.

    • I think that in both cases, the primary reason for encouraging this design is to discourage the prevalence of single-occupant automobiles. They sell it to people as a safety measure, because if they admitted the truth which is that they want people to greatly reduce their driving, and that outdoor safety is achievable by other means (for example, cracking down on playing in the street), many more would boycott such communities.

      To put it another way, the ultimate goal is to get people feeling more comfortable about having an extremely limited set of choices that they can make on a daily basis. (Oops, can’t do that, that’s too hard. Can’t do that, either, also too hard.) Then they are less likely to resist when their choices are taken away completely. They will have been conditioned to think of it as normal that everything is always so inconvenient.


    • John M says:

      As B said, these things are thought through and designed with a purpose. This isn’t rocket science.

      Many people, especially these days, want highly controlled access to their neighborhoods.

      But the layout and land features also dictate things. Of course the size of the development typically is a factor too.

      Designing small to medium subdivisions these days with more than one entrance is difficult in suburbia.

      • “Thought through and designed with a purpose”, but it’s not a conspiracy, huh? You’re a real piece of work.

        • John M says:

          For god sakes Richard, this is private property development!!! You have this stuff ass backwards!

          And as I’ve already said, most people, especially these days, desire security and privacy over anything else.

          I’m a limited government free market guy.

          Do you want to deny people what they want?

        • No, but if you make each development with one entrance and all the other things because “that’s what the majority wants”, then eventually you’ll be forcing people who don’t want it to live in it! Don’t you see? It’s folks like you who are doing the forcing. I’m just demanding that you offer other options. You are conspiring to deny people who don’t want what you want with options that they’re more comfortable with. I’m glad to hear you consider yourself a free-market capitalist. But there is a conspiracy to constrain the market and you’re defending it by saying it’s what the majority wants. planned communities I see that date since the 80s are very disconcerting to me because they are so inconvenient. But around my neck of the woods, if you don’t want to live in the city, it’s getting increasingly hard to find anything else. I am thankful that up to now, I’ve never had to. But I’ve known a lot of people who felt like they had no choice, and were very unhappy with it.

        • Oh by the way. Courts have ruled (and I agree) that deed-restricted communities are not 100% private but are quasi-public or quasi-governmental organizations. I think this was under Florida law, but I don’t know if similar precedent exists elsewhere. RTF

        • Gail Combs says:

          I too absolutely HATE the new developments where you can not put up a fence or own more than two vehicles or own a pick truck or have a trailer or a chicken or a goat or a sheep for a pet. (All three are great pets for kids.) You might as well be living at home with Mother!

          That is why we are sitting over a quarter of a mile from the road in the middle of no where and if I want to walk out side in the buff to get my vitamin D there is nothing stopping me.

        • mjc says:

          “…and if I want to walk out side in the buff to get my vitamin D there is nothing stopping me.”

          Other than all those extremely ‘hot’ days we’ve had this summer…

    • Well described. The Progressive concepts carry through in changing traditional open neighborhoods and city sections. Traffic engineering in the People’s Republic of Boulder has been replaced by social engineering. The system is not optimized for efficiency in handling safely the highest throughput. It is completely driven by other criteria.

      • John M says:

        Colorado, there is no”traditional” design for subdivisions and neighborhoods to be wide open with thoroughfares running thru them.

        That’s the exact opposite and defeats the purpose of what most people want in subdivisions and neighborhoods: Privacy and Security!

        • John, I’m not arguing any such general point. Look at the map of Boulder. The downtown neighborhoods are a typical open western grid. You should see what the geniuses are building in top of it. And yes, some of it is under the same resident pressures you describe, but many of the solutions are outright idiotic—unless you assume that social engineering and social outcomes are the primary drivers.

          You should also know that I always consider common incompetence and stupidity before evil intent and malice. In the specific cases I have in mind, stupidity or necessity don’t explain the city planners’ actions too well.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Yeah, Drag out the “It’s for the Children” excuse.

      Sorry it does not fly.

      Nor does the “there isn’t any room” If there is room for the development there is room for additional access roads even if you have to buy a house in the neighboring area. (Remember the US Supreme Court decision on eminent domain ?? link)

      There is a really simple set of solutions:

      #1 The easiest is to make the last 300 feet of the secondary access road dirt and over grown with trees/shrubs so it is not known to outsiders.

      #2. If there are problems with #1 place a simple chain across that can be removed (or cut) in times of emergency.

      #3. Speed Bumps.

      #4. Provide a safe place for children to play that is not in the street.

      • John M says:

        Gail, the discussion is regarding neighborhood/subdivision design and layout.

        And as I said above, space considerations are of course a huge issue in designing second entrances, as well as privacy and security for residents. The green space requirements these days are a huge problem.

        Property layout, again, also always plays a role. But to deny that people would want to restrict access to their neighborhoods for safety reasons defies reality.

        I’ve been involved in many developments, most people want to live in places with much more controlled access, than not.

        • The main point I was trying to make was that having a single access point doesn’t keep anybody out, and there are other ways to slow down traffic and provide safety without having only one access point. Having a single access point for a four or five square-mile community that is 15-25 miles from a city center is idiotic and benefits no one Nor does it keep any undesired people out. The only conceivable reason for it is to discourage the use of private vehicles. If that’s not enough for you, I had an urban geography professor who happily taught that the reason for making the main roads in such communities curve all over the place is to make it take longer to get in and out of the community. In other words he admitted that to make it harder to get from one place to another was considered by government planners to be a feature rather than a drawback for a community. He also stated that a primary goal of prevailing suburban design practices was to encourage more of the residents to use transit. This was seen as being a hard sell for the suburbs, and thus requiring lots of new design features to subliminally encourage the collectivist behaviors that they were looking for.

          Now maybe when developers are sitting around planning a community, they don’t think along these lines. But for me, I see subliminal programming at work in things like this. Give people a “legitimate” reason to believe in the idea, so that they won’t ken to the real reason. Getting them to control themselves can be easier than imposing involuntary controls on them.


        • Gail Combs says:

          And speed bumps are not about “neighborhood/subdivision design and layout?”

          I do birthday party entertainment with as many as 5 or 6 per weekend and have been doing so for close to 30 years both in Boston MA and NC. Believe me I am very very well acquainted with the various layouts of neighborhoods and subdivisions because I am hauling a long trailer into them on a routine basis. I am also well acquainted with speed bumps, basket ball and soccer setups in the roadway and children playing in the street and dead ends with no space to turn around.

          We are NOT in the EU where space is a premium but we have been saddled with the EU concepts of space conservation. link

          The worst example I encountered was a development with EXPENSIVE houses built to within 6 ft of each other back to back and 3 ft on the sides. There was maybe 4 ft to the sidewalk with high curbs on the street. There was NO garages and NO off street parking and NO room to park on the street. I darn near got trapped because of the parked cars on either side of the street leaving zero room to get through with a wide pkup and trailer. I managed to scare a car into not parking and backing up. This atrocity was not in a built up area or a city but on the edge of forest and farmland.

          This is not “What people want” it is what they have been brainwashed into thinking they want so they can show their friends they are ‘Politically Correct’

          The National Multifamily Housing Council used to have an article: “Apartments the core of sustainability” but it was a bit too explicit so it got pulled. Local Governments for Sustainability USA, a.k.a. ICLEI, is a non-governmental organization (NGO) sponsored by the UN to implement Agenda 21 in America. The planning you are encountering was likely written by ICLEI and not by the people of the town.

          By their own mission statement, ICLEI is designed to “build, serve, and drive a movement of local governments to advance deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and achieve tangible improvements in local sustainability.” They are the ones responsible for the coercion and “consulting” that manifests in the micro-apartments, sustainable living, that is altering American living to conform to the UN’s global plans.

          Rosa Koire who works for the bureaucracy in California explains what is going on in this talk.

        • I couldn’t have stated it better myself.

      • stewart pid says:

        U obviously don’t play road hockey … game on!!!

      • B says:

        I’m only repeating why people say they have things built this way. Not that I believe them. What I wanted to add to the conversation was the weird double standard of progressives in transportation politics. They champion and jeer the same thing. Now I have a couple theories how this came about, but it’s amusing in and of itself without my theorizing.

        Anyway in either case it’s driven by irrational emotional thinking and intentionally removes redundancy from the road system.

  8. “Halt! Ihre Papiere, bitte!”

  9. omanuel says:

    Our society now hangs by a thread because
    Government science hangs by a pipeline of public funds
    Controlled by US National Academy of Science (NAS) reviews for Congress
    Of budgets and programs of agencies (NASA, DOE, etc)
    That grant funds to NAS members and friends!

  10. John says:

    Hey I grew up in Burtonsville MD. Originally our neighborhood had one way in but once the other neighborhoods went in they connected them and now that same neighborhood has four ways in and out.

  11. rah says:

    Ah heck that ain’t nothing. I’ve bee stuck in back ups due to fatal accidents for 10 hours before. Just got caught earlier this year on the PA turnpike when some drunk jerk got on the interstate going the wrong direction and hit another vehicle. Then he told his drunk girlfriend he was going to get help and ran off. The drunk girl friend got run over by an 18 wheeler that just kept on going.

    A couple years ago I just got through before the worst of a snow storm in your area hit and people abandoned their cars right on 695 and walked away.

    And I’ve been pretty lucky compared to some truckers I know.

  12. Gail Combs says:

    And just in case you think Rosa and I are nuts:

    State of New Jersey
    Department of Transportation
    Chris Christie Governor


    . What is a designated Transit Village?
    A. A designated Transit Village is a municipality that has been recommended for designation by the interagency Transit Village Task Force. These municipalities have demonstrated a commitment to revitalizing and redeveloping the area around their transit facilities into compact, mixed-use neighborhoods with a strong residential component.

    A municipality can be designated a Transit Village only after much of the planning and background work has already been done on the municipal level. It may only be designated a Transit Village after the Transit Village Criteria have been met….

    • B says:

      Most people I’ve encountered pushing aspects of agenda 21 are useful idiots who never heard of it or think it’s a conspiracy theory made up by paranoid people who don’t understand how they are building a better tomorrow. It’s quite literally being implemented by compartmentalized people who have no idea of the greater overall plan.

  13. Gail Combs says:

    Kevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter) over at Jo Nova’s site had a comment that is linked to this issue of Planing and ‘Planners.’

    Communism always failed because they misunderstood the nature of markets, and the role of prices as an information mechanism. The information is unknown to any one mind, and even in each person is often only held in the vaguest terms. For instance, could you express your indifference curves between a new piece of furniture and a replacing your car in a year or two?

    There is a further problem. To generate the price information requires that the planners let the markets work. But the planners are opposed to that. They know better that the ignorant masses on the wants to be satisfied. They have notions of just prices, fair labor rates and soundness of business. That will lead to a surplus of the planner’s preferences and shortages of the things they dislike. The biggest thing that will be in short supply are people with the drive and energy to get things done. It is no accident that planned societies end up being being sclerotic, intolerant and drab.

  14. Anything is possible says:

    While Steve was in England, he clearly missed out on the joys of trying to negotiate the Hammersmith and Shepherds Bush one-way systems on a Friday evening.

    It once took me 4-and-a half hours to travel 2 miles.

  15. u.k.(us) says:

    “Why would our government geniuses allow a neighborhood to be built with only one exit?”
    Might not the larger question be, why would someone drive deep into a subdivision, without knowledge of the exits 🙂
    Stuff happens.

  16. manicbeancounter says:

    In Britain there is a greater hazard. When there is an obstacle on the motorway, or a major accident the Police often close the road for hours at a time. For instance, there are those horrible occasions when somebody decides to end it all by jumping off a bridge. The carriageways beneath can be closed for several hours, meaning hundreds of thousands of people can be delayed. In total hours, it can be more “lost lives”.

  17. tom0mason says:

    “Why would our government geniuses allow a neighborhood to be built with only one exit?”

    Because then you are controlled.

  18. pinroot says:

    Q: “Why would our government geniuses allow a neighborhood to be built with only one exit?”
    A: For easy containment.

    A better question would be, “why would anyone live in a neighborhood with only one exit?”

    • Gail Combs says:

      For the same reason they will live on a river flood plain. They are DARN FOOLS!

      Heck if the guy next door doesn’t come over and dig out my beaver dam on the creek on a regular basis the beavers flood the three houses up stream. That is the chronic problem. The next inland hurricane NC has and there will be three feet of standing water in their houses.

      • B says:

        People live on flood plains because in this society the prudent are punished and the risk takers rewarded by socializing the losses.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Take it a step further. WHO skimps off a percentage of all the money? The INSURANCE COMPANIES!

          If you live in an area that will flood then you are required to have flood insurance and you pay though the nose to get that insurance. The insurance company not only skims a percentage but gets the use of that money until a flood happens.

          If there was NOT MONEY TO BE MADE then towns would never allow houses on flood plains.

          Always follow the money and it will explain the politics. No politician EVER did anything out to the goodness of his heart without an eye on what it would get him.

          Ever hear of any Congress critter retiring poor?

          The 50 Richest Members of Congress (2011)

          All 50:

          Seven out of the top ten are DemiRats. Thirty out of the fifty are Rebooblicans.

  19. Gail Combs says:

    John M says:
    “…Gail, a few points:

    1: City/town planning boards vary tremendously. And there is rarely a one size fits all solution that doesn’t have exceptions…..”

    That is just it John. A couple of decades ago before 1992, you would be correct but you are no longer correct because of Local Governments for Sustainability USA, a.k.a. ICLEI and other interfering groups (NGOs) from the UN who are now running our local governments.

    ICLEI is going from town to town and imposing UN (socialist) planing on cities. My city now has an ICLEI plan where my farm will to be part of a riverside park/wildlife corridor. No one ever talked to me about the takeover of my farm. No money has ever changed hands. This of course is straight out of the UN Bio Diversity Treaty (aka The Wildlands Project) that was shot down and therefore is being implemented piecemeal instead.

    THIS is where your 20 houses to an acre and “Apartments are the Core of Sustainability’ is originating.

    …in the last five years, The Wildlands Project [ UN Bio Diversity Treaty] has moved forward at an unbelievable pace. Much of the advancement, however, has been through federal and state agencies, NGOs, and international organizations that claim no connection with The Wildlands Project. At the heart of the project, is a land management system that seeks to restore and preserve ecosystems in core reserves of wilderness at the landscape scale — vast areas, 50-100 times larger that the average natural disturbance regime (fire, flood, etc.).1 These vast “core wilderness” areas are to be connected by “corridors” of wilderness which would be off-limits to humans, except for “benign” uses such as selective hiking, “ecological research and environmental education.” The core areas and corridors are surrounded by “buffer zones” in which human activity is severely limited and managed for conservation objectives. The buffer zone is surrounded by an outer buffer zone, or “zone of cooperation,” which serves as a transitional zone for the expansion of the buffer and core zones……

    ….. All 328 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, including the 47 in the United States, are committed by agreement to this land management concept.

    The concept gained global stature when the Global Biodiversity Assessment endorsed The Wildlands Projects as “central” to the basic design necessary to conserve biodiversity as required by Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.3 One of Al Gore’s first acts as Vice President was to establish an Ecosystem Management Policy, coordinated in the White House, and implemented throughout the various resource management agencies of the federal government. Workshops convened by the federal government for agencies of state governments have effectively transmitted the concept of land management to the state agencies, who often do not realize that their land management plans are essentially The Wildlands Project.….

    Just in case you think the Bio Diversity Treaty is dead, here is the current UN page:
    (Note the media side bar) – this is where the propaganda to implant the idea of ‘man is destroying nature’ is coming from.

    Luckily some folks are waking-up and not drinking the koolaid.

    <a href="http://www.varight.com/news/agenda-21-iclei-update-138-iclei-members-quit-iclei-in-18-months-we-got-em-on-the-run/"The War on ICLEI and Agenda 21 – the One World Group of United Nations Globalists who want to decide everything you think, do and say is progressing well!

    In the past 18 months, 138 Cities and Counties have seen the light and that number will likely grow by 19 more to 157 as laws in Tennessee, Arizona and Alabama go into effect outlawing Agenda 21 / ICLEI in those states.

    Sadly, 63 new members have signed up for the stealth anti-property group that uses pretty words and phrases like “Smart Growth” and Sustainability to trick localities into giving up these rights and submitting to Agenda 21 and the will and law of the United Nations.

    It seems that for every locality ICLEI tricks into joining, two more look behind the curtain and drop out. Which means we are winning the war to keep America free and her property rights intact!

    The following list was compiled from a November 23, 2010 snapshot from the ICLEI website using the Internet’s “Way Back Machine” and a snapshot of their current member list.

    • omanuel says:

      Yesterday Pointman elegantly asked, “Why does such selfish evil happen?”


      Common conclusions of science, religion, philosophy and spirituality suggest an answer: Our Creator is the source of good and evil, misfortune and good fortune, unlike the “Santa Claus” concept of God.

      Evil and misfortune contribute to our spiritual advancement as much or more than good fortune.

      1. God is “A force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together …” Max Planck concluded [1], “We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

      2. “The Sun is the Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of every atom, life and world in the Solar System” [2].

      3. The right of humans to self-governance is an expression of free-will, . . . and the foundation of democracy.

      4. “Humans were endowed with free-will”, according to religious teachings, “that they might advance spiritually on the journey of life and gain wisdom from the freedom to react selfishly or selflessly to the good fortune or misfortune that each moment brings on life’s journey.”

      Selfish evil helps us advance spiritually.


      1. Max Planck, “The Essence of Matter,” from a speech Dr. Planck presented in Florence, Italy in 1944, entitled “Das Wesen der Materie” (The Essence/Nature/Character of Matter) Quelle: Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797:


      2. “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

      • Gail Combs says:

        At least some people are waking up to the global evil that is stalking us. With luck enough will wake up before the descent into another Dark Ages but I am not too hopeful.

    • John M says:

      Gail, I’m well aware of these issues, I deal with them every day, and have addressed some of these “requirements” as part of the reason why it can cause havoc with access creation.

      But the local boards can be replaced, and rules rewritten, etc. It happens every year in various townships across the country.

      In most places, locals still rule the roost. Getting a new president with a commitment to get EPA, COE, etc out of local affairs will fix most of the issues presently encountered, and sanity returns.

  20. Gail Combs says:

    More on The UN Convention on Biological Diversity

    Until you understand that all LOCAL planing is now subject to UN orchestrated pressure groups (NGOs) you will not understand who is actually in control of city planning. It is NOT the wishes of the Majority of Americans as John seems to think but the wishes of our future overlords who are consolidating their human resources into dense, more controllable units with limited freedom of travel. Feudal estates if you will.

    This is a listing of all the newer legislation introduced that imposes the Biodiversity Treaty piecemeal.

    Morel info: link

    Agenda 21 Course
    Understanding Sustainable Development and How It Affects You
    LESSON 3: Wildlands Project

    The Biodiversity Treaty has gotten such a bad name that they are now doing a name change. This is classic Marxism/Socialism. Steal the good name and accomplishments of someone else (such as liberal or NASA) and attribute you failures to the enemy. For example the ‘ National Socialist German Workers’ Party’ (NAZI) aka as .Fascism is labeled ‘Right Wing. It would be laughable if so many didn’t believe it. I am sure they are working on how to label the USSR as right wing too.

    After 18 years, Biodiversity Project is changing its name to Bluestem Communications, a name that better reflects our dedication to inspiring environmental action through compelling communications and strong coalitions.

    How the Biodiversity Treaty was defeated at the 11th hour link

    ….at the height of the Health Care debacle, the treaty was very quietly reported out of committee, with a recommendation to the Senate for ratification. For a treaty environmentalists had repeatedly claimed to be the most important ever, almost no mention was made of it in either environmental literature or in the popular press. The silence for such an auspicious occasion was deafening…

    ….Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell scheduled the ratification vote for Monday, August 8, Helms only had four other Senate allies….

    Senator Mitchell had expected no opposition to the treaty and doubtless he and other Senators were stunned when the Senate was buried in an avalanche of letters, faxes, and phone calls to Senators protesting the treaty. The staggering response was the result of an awesome fax campaign lead by the Maine Conservation Rights Institute through the Alliance for America…..

    Only one Senator in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms (R-NC), opposed the treaty. His concern centered on the troubling fact that the actual enabling and binding protocol for the treaty would be written after the Senate had ratified it. Furthermore, the treaty had no provision for additional Senate review once the protocol was written. The Senate would be, in effect, signing a blank check.

    The extra time permitted the National Wilderness Institute to commission Constitutional lawyer Mark Pollot to write a legal brief on the treaty’s implications. Although the brief was conservative, the implications were horrifying. Not only would the Senate be signing a blank check, the treaty would open a Pandora’s box of litigation and legislation by environmental groups and federal agencies seeking to use the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution to meet the provisions of the treaty’s as yet unwritten protocol.

    Pollot’s brief made it imperative to define what form the enabling and binding protocol would take. The United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) was supposed to provide this information. The United States had already contributed $430 million for the treaty, so it was only reasonable for the Senate to want to see what it had paid for. But the only response the Senate received from the UN was a curt reply that the GBA did not exist.

    Senators still had no supporting documentation when Senator Mitchell rescheduled the ratification for Monday, October 3. So once again the fax machines were put into action and once again Senate phones were jammed with calls from citizens outraged by the threat this treaty imposed.

    The smoking gun surfaced on Thursday, September 29 when the American Sheep Industry covertly got a copy of Section 10 of the United Nations GBA. Copies were forwarded to the Senate Republican Policy Committee the following day.

    As suspected, Section 10 of the GBA detailed an incredible set of plans to reorganize western civilization around nature. Property rights and other civil rights would be limited to only those activities that would do no harm to biodiversity. Political jurisdictions would be defined by bioregions. Unbelievable oversight powers were given to NGOs.

    Worst of All
    Worst of all, the basis for protecting biodiversity and ecosystems was to be centered on what is known as the Wildlands Project. This draconian plan calls for setting aside vast areas (about 50 percent) of America into reserve wilderness areas, interconnecting corridors, and human buffer zones where human use would be eliminated or severely restricted…

    • omanuel says:


      I agree. The UN and Agenda 21 now epitomize selfish evil in the world.

      Evil expands when the good remain silent, but the UN cannot lead society back to the Dark Ages if people will speak out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s