LAWSUIT AGAINST UN AGENDA 21 UPDATE!

LAWSUIT UPDATE FROM FREEDOM ADVOCATES
Plaintiff/Appellant Reply to ABAG

Michael Shaw of FreedomAdvocates.org and GlobalizationofCalifornia.com and Rosa Koire of The Post Sustainability Institute and Democrats Against U.N. Agenda 21 (the “Plaintiffs and Appellants”) filed the Reply Brief in the Appeal in their California state court case against the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The lawsuit seeks the negation of ABAG’s Plan Bay Area - the $300 billion dollar plan to remake the San Francisco Bay Area. 

The One Bay Area/Plan Bay Area program is the prototype Agenda 21 restructure of local government to change how Americans are expected to live. For information on ABAG and the One Bay Area Plan, see a List of Resources here.
ABAG is an extra constitutional layer of government. It is unelected and unaccountable. It is a Council of Governments (COG), a national format designed to “transform” America. ABAG has planned to direct over $300 billion to the One Bay Area/Plan Bay Area ‘smart growth’ program. California state's commitment to ABAG’s Plan Bay Area will lead to:
• the restriction of individual mobility
• the control of and limitations on single family housing
• a gigantic commitment to a high concentration of stack and pack housing

The Reply Brief, the third and final document in the One Bay Area/Plan Bay Area Lawsuit Appeal was filed in the California Appellate Court on February 16, 2016. The Brief lays out several powerful arguments that dismantle ABAG’s response and demonstrate that Plan Bay Area is in fact, unfeasible. In conclusion, we request that the trial court judgment be reversed, and that a peremptory writ of mandate be issued directing ABAG to rescind their approval of Plan Bay Area.

Below are two key points from the Reply Brief:

1. The mandates of S.B. 375 are clear and unambiguous:  
   California S.B. 375 unequivocally requires ABAG to adopt a plan that “will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks....” The Legislative mandate of S.B. 375 is plain and unambiguous, yet the trial court effectively rewrote this Legislative mandate to require only that the Plan can bereasonably expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to CARB’s (California Air Resources Board) targets. This reinterpretation of the direct language of S.B. 375 allows something closer to what ABAG has actually adopted. However, ABAG tacitly admits that Plan Bay Area will not meet the reduction targets. ABAG engaged the services of an independent consultant, Economic & Planning Services, Inc. (EPS), to assess the feasibility of Plan Bay Area. According to the Feasibility Report produced by EPS, Plan Bay area falls well short of the statutorily required CARB greenhouse gas emission targets.
   
   
2. The Court is not in the business of fortune telling:  
   The myriad political, legislative and financing assumptions built into Plan Bay Area render it unfeasible as the mechanism to achieve CARB’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Plan Bay Area rests on assumptions about future legislative actions and cannot succeed without seismic shifts in California’s political and economic landscape, including the repeal of Proposition 13. [California Proposition 13 is an amendment to the CA Constitution enacted in 1978 that reduced property tax rates and restricted annual increases of the assessed value of real property. It has been called the "third rail" (meaning "untouchable subject") of California politics.] The EPS Feasibility Report commissioned by ABAG documents that Plan Bay Area cannot achieve the emissions reduction required by S.B. 375 unless redevelopment agencies or their equivalent are reinstituted; Proposition 13 is repealed or substantially weakened; and new statewide infrastructure financing is provided. ABAG fails to acknowledge that, as is highlighted in the Feasibility Report, the existence of Proposition 13 is not just an obstacle to the Plan’s achievement of its objectives, it is a “major” obstacle. Any assertion that the Plan is “likely” to achieve its objectives, or “can reasonably be expected” to do so rests on a major upheaval in California’s long-standing property tax structure occurring in the foreseeable future. ABAG provides no evidence to support their assumption that the “major obstacle” presented by Proposition 13 will go away, and thus fail to demonstrate that Plan Bay Area will achieve the objectives required for compliance with S.B. 375.

We (the Plaintiffs/Appellants) evaluate 5 other reasons why the Appellate Court should reverse the Trial Court’s ruling.  Read the entire Reply Brief here, and review the court history of the litigation at GlobalizationofCalifornia.com.

If ABAG gets what it wants, Southern California will be subjected to a similar plan primarily though the COGs 'SCAG' (Southern California Association of Governments) and 'SANDAG' (San Diego Association of Governments), and so on across the state and country....
​
HELP STOP One Bay Area/Plan Bay Area! As the battle continues, be forewarned that additional funds will be necessary, as the case will need to proceed beyond the California Appellate Court. Certainly the case will be presented to the State and/or Federal Supreme Court by the losing party, and we must be ready! For information on methods for contributing funds toward the lawsuit, click here.