Re: Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen in Peterborough County, Ontario
The phrase “undue” / “unnecessary” “hardship” is mentioned several times in the Draft Official Plan. So the Plan admits that some of its policies could cause hardship to residents. Isn’t it logical to think that more rules and restrictions will lead to more hardship. So if there is a lot of unemployment or large household debt for example, then why would anyone want to put more restrictions on residents? Wouldn’t more restrictions, fines and penalties on top of taxes cause them to move out of their homes? But isn’t their home their property? Are taxes going to be reduced? Are electricity bills going to go down? No? Burdens should be reduced instead of increased.
The term “endangered species” is not mentioned in the 2004 plan, but now they are mentioned prominently as possible excuses for governments to interfere in property rights, along with other older terms such as “Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest”. I know these concepts come from higher levels of government, but these are not human centered concepts. These areas restrict development or site alteration in the name of protecting animals or because some nameless bureaucrat takes an interest. They arbitrarily restrict what someone can do with their property, and these areas could be expanded and assigned anywhere for all we know. We don’t decide what happens to our own property.
I don’t accept the anti-human concepts in the draft plan. There is a lot of concern about animals and wetlands. Where will that put the human beings? I think we should all be focused on human rights and needs. And the basic human right in this context is property rights. This means the right of each person to live as they please and not be interfered with.
To quote from 22.214.171.124, it says “Council will respect the environment will follow the principle of sustainability … Council will place high priority on the protection of lands with significant environmental features and their associated functions.” So this priority, this formula of “sustainability”, whatever it means, I believe, is just an excuse to pile restrictions on us. I can see where more restrictions are going to take us. It leads to the poorer people tossed out of their homes eventually. It leads to less employment and everything else. All sorts of restrictions, including new restrictions, and arbitrary restrictions, on what we can do with our property. Zero growth. No growth at all. Where is that going? Austerity. There are people who actually think zero growth is a good thing, that austerity is a good thing. They’re brainwashed.
To quote from 1.2.5 “1.2.5 Sustainability. The policies of this Plan are founded on the premise that a sustainable community is composed of the following three principle elements in balance: a) The Environment:…; b) The Economy:…; and; c) The Socio-Cultural Fabric:.
It sounds nice, but it’s a cover story. It covers up the fact that we’re going into a new type of authoritarian system were property rights and individual freedoms determine nothing. This terminology – these three parts of so-called Sustainability are Environment, Economy, Socio-Cultural Fabric – this formula is repeated in slightly different ways on all over Canada and all over the world – this site for example: http://www.sustreport.org/issues/sust_comm.html. Professional tax-funded planners and NGOs – funded by the provincial government and the federal government – go into action to obscure and undermine individual freedoms and property rights.
This agenda is called Agenda 21 and it is all over Canada and the United States, and the world (see ICLEI.org) – implemented by the major governments gradually since it was signed in 1992. You can read it online at the UN website. It has the same terminology: “Sustainable Development” and it’s all about managing the world’s resources: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
The point is that this plan has huge sections of it that come from the provincial and federal governments, and they adopt it from the United Nations. So it is not a local plan, it is not homegrown from the people, it is not developed democratically. It is predetermined even when these groups ask for public input. The ideas in it are part of a global clique’s agenda to undermine property rights. And this is why we have the Clean Water Act and the Greenbelt Act and Smart Growth and intensification policies and water conservation in the Havelock draft plan – and everything else. Because a bunch of people privately want to take away the decision making ability of individuals and families, and tell them were to live, how to live and what they can and can’t do with their resources.