More Fraud and Deceit Masked by New 2014 Terminology

The architects and supporters of the Sustainable Development movement both abroad and at home are routinely in the process of changing terms to define their initiatives and agenda. In fact, the early implementers of Agenda 21 in America knew better than to call this whole life plan for living in the 21st century, Local Agenda 21 (as it is known throughout the rest of the world.) Instead, they promoted this paradigm shift in planning as ‘New Urbanism’, ‘Smart Growth’, and ‘Sustainable Development’. Then they redefined the meanings of sustainable and smart growth. Later, when these terms encountered resistance by the public, these same central planners changed the terms—again.

As we move into 2014, new terms are emerging.  Climate change (formerly global warming) is now being referred to as ‘acute shocks’ and ‘chronic stresses’. Leaders in government and non-governmental organizations are pushing the public to accept new programs that they say will create ‘resilience’ to these ‘acute shocks’ and ‘chronic stresses’. Please make a mental note that all plans, programs or initiatives labeled ‘resilient’ are part of the Sustainable Development/Agenda 21 plan.

‘Resilience’ initiative on the move

On November 1, 2013, President Obama signed an Executive Order entitled “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change.”  This executive order empowers federal agencies to address ‘climate resiliency.’ Some of those directives include “identifying, then removing barriers to resilience-focused actions/investments in current policies and programs, managing lands and waters for climate preparedness and resilience, and providing information, data, and tools for climate change preparedness and resilience.”

On December 3, 2013, the Rockefeller Foundation announced the names of the first 33 cities to be awarded a 100 Resilient Cities grant. Of the 33 cities, 11 are in North America, and of the 11, 5 are in California. Those cities include Alameda, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco. The cities selected will receive four kinds of support including “the support to hire and empower a Chief Resilience Officer, a central point of contact within each city to coordinate and oversee the resilience activities, coordinate stakeholders, and ensure resilience is a city-wide priority.”

On November 20, 2013, UT San Diego announced that Bill Fulton, The City of San Diego’s new planning director (appointed by Bob Filner), submitted a grant application to the Rockefeller Foundation for a piece of the 100 Resilient Cities pie. If San Diego is awarded this grant, Bill Fulton will fulfill his promise to “turn San Diego into the most sustainable city in America.”

The time is NOW to engage with your local and county elected officials to inform them that ‘Sustainable Development’, ‘Resilient Cities’, ‘Smart Growth’ and ‘New Urbanism’ are nothing but socialist centralized planning schemes  that destroy the American Dream of life, liberty, happiness, and the right to private property.

[Read The American Smart Dream Part I and Part II]



More Central Planning on the March: HUD Set to ‘Further Fair Housing’

In 2009, President Obama created the Partnership for Sustainable Communities (PSC) and brought together three federal powerhouses—EPA, DOT, and HUD—all regulatory agencies that were tasked to coordinate their goals of implementing Sustainable Development in America; the United Nations prescribed whole life plan for the 21st century.

Financially strapped US cities and counties searching for funds to pay for regulatory mandates can opt for PSC’s Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grants. However, these grants come with mandatory sustainability criteria like affordable and equitable high-density housing, transit oriented development, and mixed-use zoning.

HUD’s latest rule and amendment to the 1968 Fair Housing Act, seeks to “foster the diversity and strength of communities and regions by improving integrated living patterns.” To achieve this, HUD proposes to put cities through an examination that measures six indices—poverty, school proficiency, labor market segment, job access, health hazards exposure, and transit. According to HUD, “program participants will submit assessments on a regular schedule and HUD will review them.”

In other words, HUD wants to force social and economic integration. Presently, regional MPOs like SANDAG and SCAG are mandated by Sacramento to survey affordable housing inventories in the county—city by city—and require that each city set aside adequate zoned lots for this type of housing. If approved, HUD’s new rules would clearly move us ‘further’ toward central planning. In the future, HUD will have the authority to coerce cities to build low-income housing in high-income neighborhoods to “overcome historic patterns of segregation.”

California MPOs like SANDAG, SCAG, and ABAG are regional boards that have governing power. When the appointed members of these boards enter into Joint Powers of Authority with other public agencies like transportation and environmental NGOs for example, the people lose. Why? Because these boards, agencies, and NGOs are not elected and therefore are not subject to elections and oaths of office.

President Obama considers his vision of a centrally-planned never-never land, a life-time achievement of social, economic, and environmental justice. We know better. This is just the latest in a series of initiatives by Obama’s Partnership for Sustainable Communities to socially engineer our neighborhoods.

Ed Pinto, of the American Enterprise Institute states: “It started with public housing and urban renewal, which failed spectacularly back in the 50’s and 60’s. They tried it again in the 90’s when they wanted to transform house finance, do away with down payments, and the result was millions of foreclosures and financial collapse.” (Source)



The public comment period for this proposal ends on September 19, 2013. Please submit your comments here.

Read Stanley Kurtz’ article in National Review for more in-depth analysis.


“Fascism” Is the Best Way to Implement SE Florida SEVEN50 Plan: Just Do It And Trust Us!

Yesterday I posted an article by Mimi Steele, President of Citizens Alliance for Property Rights, SF Bay Chapter, that describes the disastrous consequences to the future economy and quality of life in the San Francisco Bay area after a vote by ABAG and MTC to approve the One Bay Area Plan despite the opposition of hundreds of local residents who would be impacted by the plan.

To read article click here: San Francisco Regional Politburo “Votes” To Become Detroit.

In August of last year, Greg Decker and I co-authored Soft Despotism, Regionalism and the Future of the Suburbs. In this article we describe what regionalism is and expose why regional governance will strip away local control and therefore the citizen’s power of elected representation.

Florida SEVEN50 is another plan devised by a large metropolitan planning organization in South Florida. Watch the video below to witness a meeting where Andre’ Duaney, the architect of SEVEN50, sets the stage for how this plan should roll out. Props to American Coalition 4 Property Rights for pulling these segments together.

Watchdog Wire has an excellent overview of Florida SEVEN50. Click here.



San Francisco Regional Politburo “Votes” To Become Detroit by Mimi Steele

By, Mimi Steel, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views,   7/21/13

On July 18, 2013, the city of Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. On that same day, just before midnight, a group of unelected, regional bureaucrats in the San Francisco Bay Area voted to follow the same path the led to Detroits’ deterioration and eventual destruction when they voted to implement the Sustainable Communities Strategy under the name of Plan Bay Area (PBA).  PBA is a 25 year plan that combines housing, transportation, and land use for all 9 counties and 101 cities in the Bay Area.  It is a top down, central plan that will force the future development to be high density housing near mass transit, all in the name of saving the planet through the magic elixir of “sustainable development”.  It was approved through the arrogant conceit that governments can predict the future and that a handful of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats can make decisions 7-9 million people in the Bay Area.

Detroit once had a thriving industrial base, the best in the world.  Yet through a series of misguided policies they killed the goose that laid the golden egg.  Through regulation and taxation, they drove businesses and productive taxpayers out of the area.  The greedy politicians in conjunction with greedy union thug leadership,  wrote labor contracts that were financially irresponsible.  The city officials in conjunction with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) implemented wealth redistribution policies such as affordable housing schemes. One party rule left these policies virtually unchallenged for 50 years, yet despite the obvious deterioration, there was no course correction to the disastrous “Progressive” policy missteps.

The parallels between Detroit and the SF Bay Area-Silicon Valley are disturbing.  The San Francisco Bay Area relies heavily on the high tech industry of Silicon Valley.  Yet businesses are starting to leave the area because of the high taxation and regulations.  Even long established technology companies are choosing to expand outside of the Bay Area.  Potential employees are reluctant to relocate because of the high cost of housing which is only going to get worse.  Unemployment in the area is high.  The roll of dependents who cannot compete for good, high paying jobs is increasing so those with high paying jobs are being taxed to subsidize the gardens, housekeepers, and nannies of the elites.  Plan Bay Area will only accelerate the pace of the rot.  The Plan purports to bring in more jobs and improve the economy.  The bureaucrats never got the memo that government does not create jobs, government does not invest.  Government just spends and in the case of Plan Bay Area, the spending will be focused on high density housing where most people don’t want to live (remember Casini Gardens in Chicago) and mass transit systems like light rail that no one wants to ride.  The anti-business attitude is astounding in an area that once was the jewel in the crown of high technology innovation.

The whole premise of Plan Bay Area is that a handful of unelected bureaucrats can predict the future for the next 25 years and plan for it. When private, taxpaying citizens got involved in the process and started raising objections to the waste and fraud that the Plan represents, the bureaucrats dismissed them and ignored their comments.  Several groups enlisted that aide of three credible think tanks (Cato Institute, Pacific Research Institute, and Demographia) weighed in against the Plan.  Yet the tone deaf bureaucrats approved the Plan.  They are looting the future to provide for the present.

SF Bay Area buckle up.  You are on the way to becoming Detroit.  Congratulations

1 Comment

Common Core and The Global Citizen

The philosophy in the school room in one generation will become the philosophy of government in the next. ~Abraham Lincoln

Progressive social engineers in America and abroad have stated that one of the obstacles to achieving a sustainable 21st century utopia is education. A common outcome-based education standard like Common Core changes that.

In free nation-states like the US, the child is still considered a member of a family under the tutelage and authority of his parent(s).  The values and attitudes that parents teach their children at an early age form the foundation of their beliefs and opinions and the role they play as future citizens. National patriotism, individualism, self-reliance, religious values, strong morals and ethics are all values and attitudes that most parents teach their children; and they have an expectation that schools will reinforce this.

What parents do not realize is that for the last 20+ years, the values and attitudes that made America exceptional are not being promoted in schools today. Sustainable development is the new vision for the world and in order for our children to be prepared for the 21st century, they are being taught that they have to adopt and embrace new values and attitudes. For example, “A steady recognition and pursuit of the public good at the expense of all purely individual and private ends” supports more the communitarian idea that an individual should subordinate his rights and needs to that of the community; both locally and globally.

With outcome-based education and Common Core, we now see that it is a priority to lead all children away from the teaching they receive in the home toward a common set of state determined values and attitudes. A national education standard that parallels a global common standard would ensure that these future change agents, our children, will be the ones who will secure the administrative state and the global managed economy that progressives seek.

The destruction of a child’s love of country and patriotism is the first step in educating that child for world citizenship. ~Julian Huxley of UNESCO

National education standards bring us closer to global education. Eighty-five percent of the Common Core Standards are copyrighted and cannot be amended at a local or state level. The state adopted SBAC and PARCC state assessments, the state adopted English Language Arts and Math textbooks and materials, new teacher credentialing by CTC, the GED and the SAT/ACT /AP are ALL being aligned to the Common Core Standards. By removing local control of our children’s education we lose all systems of appeal and choice.

The inevitable consequence of not challenging the adoption of Common Core State Standards will be a fundamentally transformed America. Expect data tracking to point students to career clusters at an early age. Expect these adaptive computerized assessments to remediate children to answer the ‘correct’ way; to answer with the right global values and attitudes.

Our government wants global citizens who will become the 21st century worker that will support the goals of sustainable development (social, economic, and environmental justice). An administrative state that can identify and manage ‘human capital’ will support a managed global economy. Big industries like Microsoft, GE, Exxon Mobile, and Pearson Publishing are driving the change in ‘human capital’ so that they can better compete in the global market.

Submitting to national education standards will result in the full and complete indoctrination of America’s future generations. A common outlook does not provide for sovereignty and “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”.


The United Nations Civil Society Initiative in America

The United Nations civil society initiative in America  is the elevation of the NGO as a superpower. The members of civil society are to be actors outside the structure of government and through its organizations operate at the same power stratum as the most powerful nations though it is itself not a nation.

Laced in and throughout the tapestry of our American culture, are the ethics of our civil society. Civil society in America is supported and shaped by the fundamental Godly truths and rights we are entitled to as individual members of society and as declared in our founding documents, The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States.

American civil society as such upholds and supports the individual’s interrelation within the family, the religious institution, business, and the rule of law. These institutions of civil society have created prosperity, charity, and liberty. The civic virtues of volunteering and voting are fundamental examples of how our civil society is exceptional.

Within the last fifty years however, the purpose of civil society has been thrown off balance. Inconspicuously and without great fanfare, the mainstream practice of individual civic virtue has diminished and been gradually replaced by ‘stakeholders’ or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that seek to advance common interests for the common good. When these NGOs influence public policy, we describe them as ‘special interest groups’.

In the realm of Sustainable Development, extremist ‘environmental justice’ NGOs such as the Sierra Club, and Nature Conservancy, or  a ‘social justice’ NGO like Build One America are exercising enormous influence and are demanding a restructuring of our society. These new members of civil society diminish our inalienable rights and elevate themselves as progressive arbiters and judges of the course for humanity. These NGOs are often funded by wealthy corporations and individuals who want to expand their sphere of influence. Taxpayers unwittingly fund these NGOs when States offer grants and agree to enter into public private partnerships with them.

To implement Sustainable Development via the Agenda 21 blueprint, the United Nations and its American proponents, use this new breed of civil society to its advantage.

In a relentless effort to implement global governance, the United Nations elites understand that to succeed, they have to reorient the values and ethics of all nation states toward a common global civic ethic. They also recognize that reform must occur at the local level.

Building on the 1987 Brundtland Commission Report, Our Common Future, which introduced the world to the concept of Sustainable Development, the UN elites, in 1994, unveiled their new civil society initiative in The Earth Charter. The values within The Earth Charter were to be the new global covenant that all nation states would embrace. The 1992 Agenda 21 blueprint for living in the 21st century along with Our Global Neighborhood (1996) provided the strategies and the structure for the implementation of this global civic ethic.

The recommendations within Our Global Neighborhood advanced the idea that if the UN elites could harness the civic virtue of NGOs and elevate their status to a ‘qualified member of civil society’ then they could redirect the values and ethics of a nation state. Each NGO member of the UN Civil Society Organization has signed a global compact, pledging to support the ten principles prescribed and “express […] intent to advance these principles within [their] sphere of influence…” [read a letter of commitment]

The UN Global Compact Overview page explains the type of ‘participants and stakeholders’ they are looking for:

The UN Global Compact is the world’s largest corporate citizenship and sustainability initiative. Since its official launch on 26 July 2000, the initiative has grown to more than 10,000 participants, including over 7,000 businesses in 145 countries around the world. It is a network-based initiative with the Global Compact Office and seven UN agencies at its core.

The Global Compact involves all relevant social actors: companies, whose actions it seeks to influence; governments, labour, civil society organizations, and the United Nations, the world’s only truly global political forum, as an authoritative convener and facilitator.

The UN Global Compact website features an extensive database of participants that include by category, UN Agencies, Business Associations, Labor, Civil Society, Academic Participants, Public Sector, and Cities. The city and county of San Francisco is a participant as well as many U.S. college level institutions such as Berkeley College, Harvard Business School, MIT, and the State University of New York (SUNY). Business associations like the American International Chamber of Commerce, the San Francisco Carbon Collaborative, and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce are listed as well.

In America, these UN accredited and/or U.S. sponsored members of civil society organize the local, boots on the ground members who are prepared to lobby on policy issues related to environmental, economic, and social justice.

The 20th century suffragette movement is a positive example of how a NGO within civil society can garner support at a grassroots level and effect change. However, a majority of today’s ‘stakeholder’ civil society NGOs presume to know and represent the will of the people and act on its behalf to redirect America’s core values to support a global civil society that inherently subsumes our inalienable rights.



Sustainable Development and Orwellian Newspeak

Sustainable Development, fabricated by the United Nations Brundtland Commission and global elites, is a new livability and religious paradigm that seeks to entrench its core values into every person, business, and locality in the world. Imminent global environmental catastrophe is being used as a catalyst to precipitate a change in human behavior for the good of the planet and the survival of future generations.

When researching Sustainable Development it is important to study the words and understand the ‘newspeak.’ The connotations behind Sustainable Development terms deviate significantly from our Judeo-Christian culture. If more Americans understood this, they would admonish it.

Globalists state that for development to be sustainable it must “ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This sounds reasonable but it is vague and wide open for interpretation. In fact, practitioners spend more time defining what is not sustainable than what is.

 “…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”~Maurice Strong

Sustainable Development is actually social engineering and is supported by the following three pillars: Social, Economic, and Environmental Justice. What does this mean?

Social Justice means equal outcome, not equal opportunity.

Environmental Justice means all humans should have access to land and the state manages it for everyone, not all humans have the right to own land.

Economic Justice means wealth redistribution ranging from local tax revenue sharing to global tax revenue sharing, not free-markets and economic class mobility.

Using the United Nations as their platform, globalists are pushing for the world to embrace a standard global civic ethic or religion and they are extremely frustrated that Americans are not willing to abandon their Constitution and rule of law and their Judeo-Christian values and rights.

The United Nation’s global civic ethics were published in 1998 in Our Global Neighborhood. Their ‘newspeak’ value system is incompatible with American values.

Respect for Life means equal respect for all life (including humans, organic creatures, and inanimate objects found in nature); all life is equal and has equal rights.

Justice and Equity means a more “balanced distribution of opportunity around the world”; especially inter-generationally.

Mutual Respect means that individual achievement and personal responsibility are not values. Rather we should “promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centered objectives leading to a group consciousness.”

 Caring means the United Nations would implement “policies and mechanisms that facilitate co-operation to help those less privileged or needing comfort and support in the world.” The UN wants to know who you are so that it can foster a personal relationship with you.

Secure Life means that the United Nations would not only assign itself the duty of protecting its member states but would also include the individuals within the borders of those member states.

Fair Living does not mean fair opportunity. According to their value system, “it is not fair, for example, for the developed countries, which contain 20% of the population, to use 80% of the natural resources. It is not fair for the permanent members of the Security Council to have the right of veto. It is not fair for one segment of the population to be rich while another segment of the population is poor.” [source]

The UN wants this ‘newspeak’ to be the ethical standard—the new global covenant. Americans believe all humans are given free-will; to preserve it we must act, engage, and resist those who wish to usher in this kind of fundamental change.


Pacific Legal Foundation is facing down the Obama Administration — in defense of property rights

Pacific Legal Foundation is a property rights advocate bulldog. They have won many legal cases on behalf of property owners all over the country. More importantly, the cases they take on are ones that will set precedence for future cases.

This is their latest high profile case as published by PLF Sentry. To read more click here.

(Other cases by the PLF are mentioned in this Exurbia Chronicles article.)

We’re facing down the Obama Administration — in defense of property rights

Published on January 9, 2013 by Rob Rivett, President at Pacific Legal Foundation

One sign of the nationwide importance of the Koontz case: The Obama Administration has weighed in against us. The Administration has filed a friend of the court brief for the bureaucracy that tried to extort the Koontzes — and against PLF’s fight to protect property owners from government arm-twisting.

 The saga of this case begins more than 15 years ago, when the now deceased Coy Koontz, Sr., asked for permission to commercially develop about four acres of land in Orange County, Florida.

The St. Johns River Water Management District set a price: Mr. Koontz would have to dedicate 11 acres for conservation and pay up to $150,000 for improvements on the district’s own property.

Mr. Koontz was willing to dedicate the 11 acres, but he objected to paying for work at the government site, which was miles away, with no connection to his property or project. So, his permit application was denied.

A family’s commitment to constitutional rights brings them to the U.S. Supreme Court

Coy Jr. and Linda Koontz

The Koontz family sued over this payoff demand. After Coy Koontz, Sr., passed away, Coy, Jr., continued the fight, and, represented by PLF, the case has been taken by the nation’s highest court.

We’re building on our landmark victory 26 years ago in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, where the Supreme Court first held that the permitting process can’t be used for shakedowns. We’re urging the Supreme Court to tell bureaucrats everywhere that the Fifth Amendment bans extortion of money and other resources, not just real property.

Just how arrogant is the bureaucracy that tried to coerce money from the Koontzes? Coy Koontz, Jr., and his wife, Linda, relay a story of being in an elevator with one of the government’s witnesses who had just testified during one of the hearings in the case. When asked why the agency hadn’t just purchased the property outright, the witness stated, “why would we buy the property when we can get it for free?” This kind of calculated, callous disregard for Americans’ property rights is why PLF fights so vigorously to defend our Constitution — and the rights of all Americans to be free from government abuse!


1 Comment

Are Bike Lanes a Good ROI for San Diego Right Now?

KPBS’s article Are Cycle Tracks a Better Way to Bike? published today weighs in on alternatives to bike lanes such as cycle tracks and in doing so presumes that the bike modal share in U.S. cities must be significant enough to warrant this discussion and that the public coffers must be full of discretionary funds for such investments.

Though most people are not adverse to bike lanes and making San Diego a more bike friendly city, there is a concern about the larger trends of committing and spending funds (that we don’t have) for alternative modes of transportation in lieu of committing and spending funds to repair the road and freeway infrastructure that already exists.

Bike lanes, walkable communities and mass transit are new trends in the sustainable development agenda that are being lauded by planning departments and elected officials as solutions for reducing our vehicle miles traveled in order to lower GHG emissions.

Non-profit bike coalitions like Bike San Diego are taking advantage of these new trends toward multi-modal transportation and are doing a good job of getting their voices heard despite the fact that they represent a minority. “Slate magazine wonders why “cities like Los Angeles or San Diego, with their minimal precipitation and moderate temperatures, can barely manage to break a 2 percent bicycle mode share.”” [Source]

Building bike lanes, walkable communities and light rail are an essential part of what advocates of sustainable development would consider a successful smart growth plan. In 2006, The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy evaluated the effectiveness of smart growth policies in four states that had well established smart growth programs and in four that offered a range of other land management approaches. When evaluating bike commute usage they found that “while the bike/walk share was generally higher in the smart growth states, its share declined over time…” [Source]

In 2007, at the Trails and Greenways Conference, they found that “overall biking/walking made share [was] in decline, with 600 of the 692 jurisdictions experiencing percentage decreases in this mode of travel between 1990 and 2000…” [Source]

“Biking and walking paths/trails (though desired amenities) are being proposed at a construction cost of around $26,000/mile plus $1600/year for maintenance. Meanwhile, roads used for shipping of goods and getting people to work need repairs averaging “$78.9 Billion over the next 10 years.”” [Source]

Smart growth experts make claims about the anticipated benefits and outcomes their strategies (such as bike lanes for commuting) would have upon sustainable growth management and how they would affect housing affordability, transportation, and GHG emissions. Unfortunately the data they use to support their claims are often skewed, outdated and contradictory.

Spending billions of tax payer dollars on bike lanes or removing car lanes for the purposes of street equity (cars, public transportation, pedestrians and bikes sharing equally) is not financially sustainable. For an economy to thrive, commuters need well-maintained roads, commuter lanes, van pools, and easy access to these roads so that they can get to work quickly, efficiently, and safely.

Cities/town should budget for the creation of bike lanes without sacrificing maintenance of existing road infrastructure. If they cannot do this, then bike infrastructure expenses should be placed on the list of items “to do” when the budget is able to afford them. Like most places in life and business, a ‘Return on Investment’ (ROI) should be a strong component of any investment decision. The data results do not support the benefits of bike lane infrastructure at the expense of traditional means of transportation.


The Plight of the Drake’s Bay Oyster Company

The following story is another good example of what I wrote about in The Green Agenda: Do the ends justify the means?

[Please see below for an update on the fate of the Drake's Bay Oyster Company]

What is the priority agenda behind the green movement? Is sustainable development really about balancing environmental protection with economic development? Has the environmentalist movement been hijacked by wilderness junkies?

The Framing of an Oyster Farm – Drake’s Bay Oyster Company

In a campaign to drive a small family oyster farm out of business, the National Park Service and environmental groups have leveled many charges of serious environmental harm against the Drakes Bay Oyster Company in Marin County. A video produced by an independent production crew sheds light on the bogus data a nationally-known scientist discovered upon investigation and the effect this campaign has had on this family farm.

The federal government has spent millions on the effort to oust the oyster farm from the spot on Drakes Estero it has occupied for decades. The Secretary of the Interior is scheduled to decide the oyster farm’s fate in the next few weeks. The video shows incredible evidence of a smear campaign, a small business in peril and a family reeling from accusations the National Academy of Sciences concluded have no basis in fact.

From the desk of Kirk MacKenzie of Defend Rural America ~

The Battle To Save Drakes Bay Oyster Farm

On November 29, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar made the decision to destroy jobs, 40% of California’s oyster production, millions of oysters, a beloved business that has been in operation since 1934, and make working families both jobless and homeless victims of his decisions. The Lunny family and their employees have only 90 days to remove everything, including 8-10 million oysters from the bay, and get out.

It is an outrage.

Like Siskiyou County, it is based on the intentional falsification of science and circumvention of the agency’s own policies, in order to justify Salazar’s pre-determined outcome.

It has become a national story.

Become one of the first to watch the first documentary video of Kevin Lunny exposing the truth about this ongoing saga.

The Battle To Save Drakes Bay Oyster Farm – Kevin Lunny speaks out

1 Comment