CIty Council Meeting Promises Fireworks: Resolutions Placing IDA Under City Council Control, Placing New Rochelle Under United Nations Control, Drug Testing for Taxi Drivers, Redistricting

Written By: Robert Cox

NoamBlows2The The New Rochelle City Council will meet this afternoon in the first public appearance between Mayor Noam Bramson and Council Member Richard St. Paul since Bramson lashed out at St. Paul, presenting an image of the Mayor seldom seen in public but widely known in City Hall — a petulant young man who throws fits when he does not get his way.

The Committee of the Whole Meeting kicks off today at 3:45 PM. Citizens To Be Heard is scheduled for 7:30 PM.

A number of controversial topics are on today’s agenda:

  • Resolution by Council Member Richard St. Paul to place the IDA Under City Control
  • Resolution by Mayor Noam Bramson to place the City of New Rochelle Under United Nations control through a plan devised by a U.N. organization called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives or “ICLEI”.
  • Drug Testing for Taxi Drivers

Other agenda items of interest are:

  • Appointment to Board of Assessment Review
  • Permission to post signs on North & Quaker, North & Huguenot to promote the New Rochelle Opera production of Die Fledermus from June 23-26
  • Police Commissioner Carroll report on CrimeMapping.com

NRCrimeMap 2011 0301 0307Talk of the Sound has led the way in calling for the adoption of CrimeMapping.com. We first began promoting the idea in June 2009. The New Rochelle Crime Map can be viewed here.

Talk of the Sound strongly opposes the adoption of GreeNR, a terrible plan developed directly by a U.N. organization with the goal of advancing Agenda 21 at the municipal and county level in the United States. Talk of the Sound Radio on WVOX dedicated an hour last week on GreeNR, ICLEI, Agenda21 and the Mayor’s plan to place the City of New Rochelle under United Nations control.

You can learn more about Agenda 21 here but the following quote from the Secretary General of the 1992 Earth Summit Conference in Rio de Janeiro, where Agenda 21 was born should tell New Rochelle residents all they need to know:

Secretary General Maurice Strong addressed the gathering and said the following:

“…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class ‐ involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

If that is not clear enough, Agenda 21 has as its primary founding goal to eliminate single-family housing and automobile ownership, it is a direct assault on the lifestyle which the majority of New Rochelle home owners sought when moving to New Rochelle in the first place.

We are going to try a little experiment here and see if we can “livestream” the video from the meeting on Talk of the Sound (see the UStream block in the right column of the home page).

29 thoughts on “CIty Council Meeting Promises Fireworks: Resolutions Placing IDA Under City Council Control, Placing New Rochelle Under United Nations Control, Drug Testing for Taxi Drivers, Redistricting”

  1. The Truth about GreeNR
    Bramson’s GreeNR plan is nothing but a way of turning the downtown into a congested area of the city. He hopes to see 95% of new housing built around mass transit. What exactly does that mean for the middle class people in the south who struggled to buy their homes in this once quiet NYC suburb? If the city has a goal to build 5000 new homes does that mean that 95% of these will be jammed into high rise buildings in the downtown?

    This plan is vague and is nothing more than Bramson’s attempt to preserve open space and the quality of life for the wealthy areas of NR–i.e., the north–and elimiate middle and lower class society as we know it. The middle class have now lost hope of achieving the American Dream in NR and now at best will be forced into little condos in high rise developments. They will have to deal with the noise, crime and overcrowding that typically comes with big city life.

    If Bramson is truly interested in making NR Green, maybe he should start with city hall and it’s employees. Require all city employees to live in NR so it cuts down on the amount pollution from their cars when they travel into the city. Let all city employees deal with the Mayor’s new vision of NR and live in the cubicals he would like to build. He won’t do this because HE knows he will lose votes from the civil service unions. Instead, he wants to shove his plan up the backside of south and west enders. He knows that the elected represenatives in these areas can’t defeat it because they will be out-voted by Sussman, Fertel, and Tarantino.

    Maybe the Mayor ought to think about this: Susatainabilty doesn’t equall density in the form of high rise or attached homes. He can develop smaller houses on smaller lots that would fit into the American Dream and preserve the quality of life in NR. Hate to say it, but Bramson is more of a dictator than a democrat.

    BTW, I invite him to correct me if I am wrong. Guarunteed he will not.

  2. And how much money have we saved on the hybrid garbage truck?
    Nothing, in fact its costing us money, $120,000 for the retrofit but its off the road most of the time so I’d say that’s $120,000 of good money out the window.

    And what about all the bike lanes? Again this cost us money to put up signage that directs you nowhere. And it’ll cost money to take all those signs down someday. More and more waste.

    1. Let me tell you, Bramson has
      Let me tell you, Bramson has sucked the enviromentalists into the thing. He paints the picture of NR with the trees, the parks and the birds singing. Sure, if you want to give a few acres of valuable real estate to Forest City we MIGHT get open space by Echo Bay. But at what price to the taxpayers and the single family home owners that surround this area? His plan equates to high taxes, more police and firefighters, more money spent on infrastructure, and more congestion.

      Look at Avalon. It brought a cathouse to the downtown. New Roc brought a riot. Bramson’s plan is nothing more than a waste of time and money. He spends money on a consultant when a fifth grader could tell him what types of things he should to do to NR to make it GreeNR. He wastes councils’ time debating this proposal when all the issues putforth in this plan could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

      The lack of transparcy with this plan is certainly suspect. It is vague with undefined goals and one can only wonder where Bramson is trying to lead us and if this plan is just a cover. My guess is that it is an attempt to continue with more Avalon-like developments and a rubber stamp for him to pursue Echo Bay.

  3. Return on Investment
    When the return on investment for Green Building product and techniques makes sense then the products themselves will fly off the shelves. Until then its just feel good fu fu Liberals who want to mandate them upon others. Global warming or no global warming people look at the cost to build green and what it offers in terms of reduction of operating costs. Until the economy of scale catches up and the products come on line at an affordable price they won’t reach the main stream. Mandating them won’t work either. The only thing the States and Federal Government can do is write energy codes that force people into a direction and the local utilities can offer rebate advantages thus shortening the return on investment. The progress will come but it can not be forced by Bramson or anyone within New Rochelle’s feel good fu fuf Liberal bunch. When you can afford the product and withing 36 months it pays for itself it will fly.

  4. Everyone in this country has
    Everyone in this country has the freedom to conserve or alter their lifestyles. Very few have. Drive around areas like Pelham Manor and take a look at the size of the homes. I can’t begin to imagine what they are using every month in oil.

    Fact is, that no one is going to change the landscape of America. What we need is an affordable alternative to gas and oil. We need something the average person can buy in order to conserve and save money. That has yet to happen in this country. Like I said in my other post, the government needs to ration gas and oil in a way that benefits everyone. I don’t see GreeNR as anything more that a fancy way of kicking the can down the road so our Mayor can score brownie points with the voters.

  5. UN / ICLEI / Environment
    Robert Cox:

    Do you believe in gloabl warming?

    Do you believe that fossil fuels pollute?

    Do you believe our foreign policy is too much about obtaining fossil fuels?

    Do you believe there are limited amounts of fossil fuels, and that we need to prepare for alternate energy sources?

    What is the problem?

    Is it your lack of concern for the environment?

    Is it your dislike of the UN ?

    Is it your dislike of ICLEI ?

    Is it some or all of the above?

    If Secretary General Maurice Strong addressed the gathering and said the following:

    “…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class ‐ involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

    Aside from New Rochelle, isn’t that a rational, sensible goal for the whole world?

    Obviously, everyone in New Rochelle believes in suburbs, but perhaps the ICLEI philosophy is more nuanced than it appears from the brief description in TOTS.

    Other than that, which part don’t you like?

    Reduction of high meat intake?

    Reduction of fossil fuels when use is not necessary?

    Reduction of appliances, home and work air conditioning when use is not necessary?

    Robert Cox also makes the following statement, without citing a factual basis or quotation:

    “…Agenda 21 has as its primary founding goal to eliminate single-family housing and automobile ownership…”

    Reduction maybe, but elimination? I find that hard to believe, and would like to see that assertion backed up with facts or at least quotations.

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

    Certainly, reducing automobile ownership, at least cars that use fossil fuels, is an admirable and necessary goal.

    Personally, I think our economy and environment would be greatly improved if there were more teleconmuting. Among the many advantages would be reduction in driving to commute to and from work.

    1. The concern is that all this
      The concern is that all this “Green” stuff is going to bankrupt us all not to mention that some people find this more than a little intrusive on the part of government. And I don’t think the UN should have much say in the handling of our local affairs.

    2. Let’s talk about waste and
      Let’s talk about waste and what we are prepared to give up.

      I am in the lower middle class and don’t have the luxury of doing my work by telecommunicating.

      Now, why don’t you personally go to all the well to do residents of NR and Westchester and tell them that their 10,000 square foot plus homes use too much fossil fuel and they need to move into smaller houses. While you’re at it, tell them to sell one of their full-size SUVs and get a compact car.

      I have news for you Mr. Sussman, it is the rich who are killing both NR and the planet. They don’t mind wasting because they can afford it. Those of us who need to conserve fuel and electricity and the like because of our small salaries can afford to buy into the high tech “green” plans that will benefit us. For example, we can’t afford a $24,000 Prius or a $40,000 Chevy Volt. Nor can we afford to replace all the windows in our homes or upgrade the insulation or heating syatems.

      You want to “save” the planet, tell the federal government to close the borders so we don’t have to support the millions of illegal immigrants in this country. Tell your rich friends to tear down their large, fancy, oil guzzzling homes and move into small apartments.

      Oil prices are high because of demand. The poor don’t drive up the deamand. The rich do.

      1. To Truthertz2 re: Let’s talk about waste and
        There are three things driving up Oil Prices: China, our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and speculator-driven paranoia regarding Libya and other Oil producing Arab nations where their People are demanding freedom and hopefully get democracy.

        Actually I agree with much of what you have stated, except for the part about immigrants, which I consider irrelevant. I had immigrant grandparents and great grandparents all of whom might well have died in WW1 or by the holocaust, had they not immigrated here.

        I must point out that my current 2008 Honda Civic gets about 32 mpg, and my previous car, a 1996 Nissan Sentra got 45 mpg. At 150,000 miles, that Sentra still gets 45 mpg for my friend’s son who bought it from me in 2007. Most of my friends and relatives, whatever their wealth, also have fuel efficient Asian cars.

        I live in a small apartment in downtown New Rochelle. As a computer programmer, it is quite easy for me to telecommute, but as I live a few blocks from the train station, I can also cut pollution by taking the New Haven line to NYC. My idea of a great vacation is camping out in a tent in the mountains. I am doing my part.

        Many of the very wealthy people with the gas guzzlers that you complain about, are the very people who can telecommute. Wouldn’t you prefer they telecommute than drive their polluting cars?

        But clearly, if New Rochelle has a ‘Green’ policy, it cannot much affect ones property rights. Certainly it can’t compel a family to move from their large home.

        Actually, if ICLEI ideals were the goal of NR City Hall Development policy, wouldn’t that mean a complete reversal of current New Rochelle policy, and prevent further massive development as Avalon and Trump? Wouldn’t NR adherence to ICLEI mean that New Rochelle should limit its future population to approximately that of the 2010 Census? Wouldn’t that be a good thing for New Rochelle?

      2. I applaud you for all you are
        I applaud you for all you are doing to conserve. That said, I disagree with you on two points.

        First, demand DOES drive up oil prices as well as the things you mentioned. Before the unrest in Eygpt and Lybia, the oil companies were blaming the spike in gas prices on China’s increased consumption. A couple of years before that, the spike was blamed on not enough refineries to keep up with increased demand. So as far as I am concerned we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels. All of us–rich and poor,

        Second, the things you mentioned that NR SHOULD do are easily done on a case by case basis. There is no need to enter into contracts with anyone. This plan is like Echo Bay–it is on the Mayor’s to do list so he can score points with his wealthy constituents.

        Brian, if you look at our roadways and see how many people are driving gas guzzlers and driving well in the excess of the speed limit; look at how much gas is wasted sitting in traffic; how much oil is wasted heating large homes that people don’t need.

        The poor already learned how to conserve. The problem is that you are never going to get the upper class to give up their luxuries. I personally would be in favor of a gas rationing system controlled by the government. Everyone should have a government issued gas card that allows them to buy a certain amount of gas and oil at an affordable price. If the use up the amount that is on the card, they should then be required to pay a premium for gas and oil. We need to come up with a plan that benefits the poor and middle class NOW–not years from now. I would be in favor of anything that did this.

      3. Reply to Truthertz2’s Reply to Me
        I appreciate your reply, titled ‘I applaud you for all you are’. Thank you.

        I think your reply had it right, except for the following:

        “This plan is like Echo Bay–it is on the Mayor’s to do list so he can score points with his wealthy constituents.”

        I disagree your assertion that the Mayor scores with his wealthy constituents regarding either ICLEI or Echo Bay.

        Probably there are very few people in New Rochelle, outside of readers of TOTS who are aware of ICLEI or New Rochelle’s advocacy of ICLEI, nor do I see how the Mayor scores with his wealthy constituents regarding ICLEI, if they are the main ones targeted against by ICLEI philosophies. As such, Mayor Bramson’s advocacy of ICLEI is more likely politically counter-productive for our Mayor. It seems to me that Mayor Bramson is putting himself out on a limb because he is willing to risk voter displeasure in order to advocate something he thinks is morally correct. I applaud his courage here.

        I need to be diplomatic but truthful, regarding Echo Bay. I have long told Noam Bramson, Barry Fertel and Marianne Sussman that the Echo Bay project was a bad plan, shouldn’t happen, and probably won’t happen. My main complaint with it, is that I think they should maintain the Armory building and use it for civic purposes, perhaps as a concert hall. Likewise, I think the perfect place for City Yard is where it currently is, next to the Sewage Treatment Plant. It would be very wrong, and anti-environmental, and politically impractical to move City Yard to Beechwood Ave.

        I have no idea why Noam’s so-called wealthy constituents would care at all about the Echo Bay project. Perhaps those folk at Sutton Manor, might like to see City Yard moved away from their neighborhood and into mine. But I doubt they want to see all that construction on Main Street in their own neighborhood.

        Noam’s so-called wealthy constituents in the North End are even less likely to have any interest in the Echo Ave project. As we all know, most North Enders rarely visit downtown New Rochelle, so why would they care about Echo Ave?

        I am uncertain who it is Noam is trying to please with the Echo Ave project, but I think it has no great popularity with voters. As most voters in New Rochelle don’t follow local politics closely, Noam probably doesn’t have to worry about the Echo Ave project being unpopular either. As far as I know, the Echo Ave project is the policy of Noam Bramson, Barry Fertel, Marianne Sussman, Al Tarantino, Chuck Strome and the NR Dept of Development.

      4. I can agree with you on most
        I can agree with you on most of this. I still see the Mayor as someone who caters more to northenders than the south and west. His goal is to bring large amounts of people with disposable income into the downtown in order to generate the need for retail. He is unconcerned about how all the density he creates in the downtown will affect the people in the south. I have watched as my once quite middle class neighborhood has become noisy and overcrowded.

        Both this mayor and the former one have been pushing this downtown desity philosophy for about 20 years now. It obviously isn’t working as we still lack any desirable retail and the bill to fund it all has been pushed onto the taxpayers.

        Remember, it was the Mayor who was eager to see the Armory go. His whole concept of tearing down old NR to replace it with modern high-rise developments or the tearing down of the old Mall never sat well with me. The old Mall was only about 30 years old and I have never heard of a building that young needing to be torn downtown. Furthernore, the tearing down of old buildings that could be preserved runs counter to this GreeNR intiative. It adds more, good recyclable items into our landfills.

        Likewise, Mount Vernon managed to build retail on Sanford Blvd without adding density or people with disposable income. The Mayor’s plan is a farce. GreeNR sounds real good to the wealthly liberals up the northend but creates a more oppressive government in the south. There is no need for this plan and if the Mayor and city council would use commonsense when it comes to development they could easily accomplish the goals of GreeNR without the aid of outside agencies.

    3. ICLEI
      The issue is not weather you agree or disagree with the concept of global warming. The issue is weather the people of New Rochelle should subject themselves to the mandates of a non elected international body. An international organization which intends to impose how the residents of this community will allocate their personal financial resources and how they will organize and maintain their households. I agree with Mr. Cox and reject this idea. If implemented this program would represent a form of enslavement. If additional taxes are imposed on the community it would represent a form of theft. Mr. Sussman if you wish to organize your household along the ICLEI guidelines you are free to do so. By contrast, I have no interest in doing so. I suggest that you and ICLEI take this oppressive, arrogant and elitist worldview and look elsewhere.

      1. ICLEI UN & USA
        It would seem ICLEI is a voluntary model for the city government to follow, and certainly not a compulsion.

        New Rochelle is an entity existing under the color of NY State Law. NY State is compelled by the US Constitution to maintain a republican form of government. Therefore, neither the USA, nor NY State, nor New Rochelle, can be compelled to do anything by ICLEI, except under the authority of the US government itself, by legislation or treaty approved by the US Senate, if not also by the House of Representatives. Outside of Federal law, the US Constitution would certainly limit New Rochelle’s obligations to ICLEI as being voluntary.

        I am always amazed by those rare Americans who see the UN as some plot against the USA or American sovereignty. This is an absurd concept considering the USA basically invented the UN during the 1940’s, and UN headquarters have always been in the USA, just to remind the rest of the world. If anything, the UN is an extension of American policy and not the other way around. As the USA is one of five countries with arbitrary Veto Power on the UN Security Council, we always have the power to maintain our sovereignty from any encroachment by the UN.

      2. Off base
        Although in its’ inception, the UN was created to insure an international watchdog, designed at safeguarding the world from global warfare, it has evolved into something far different.

        True it was created to resolve issues between countries through diplomacy before countries resort to military force and before conflicts escalate. Unfortunately, the U.N. has consistently failed this goal and will continue being useless for these several reasons.

        Primarily, the UN is a forum for debate. As a result, the international organization’s agenda is for countries send representatives to argue for or against issues. These representatives are typically just platforming puppets for their nation’s agendas and are relatively powerless domestically.

        Furthermore, countries headed by totalitarian regimes typically use these debates as smoke screens until issues flip toward their favor. Over their history these debates alone have not resolved a single issue.

        Military actions, back room negotiations, and threats, not “endorsed” by the UN, have had the only real positive affects for change.

        Furthermore, the UN is unable to take direct independent actions without support from its members making them essentially a powerless pacifistic entity.

        Considering that this world is full of anti-western/anit-American hate mongers, where does this place a once noble ideal?

        We have enough of our own corruption rampant in this city. Thanks, but no thanks UN!

      3. To FedUPinNewRo re: Off Base
        Your whole post indicates, it seems your complaint with the UN is that it is not effective enough as a basis for world peace.

        Consistent with that, shouldn’t you be advocating that the UN’s powers be enhanced?

        Regarding your perception of corruption in New Rochelle, I don’t see how the UN has any bearing on that.

        But New Rochelle does benefit from the UN because a number of diplomats live in our city, and presumably spend some money here.

      4. Unfortunately all the
        Unfortunately all the dipolmatic properties are tax exempt so I don’t know how much of a benefit they provide (they actually claim a tax exemption and NR in all its wisedom tries to collect the money anyway). We recently had the Somali’s diplomatic residence torn down because it had fallen into such disrepair.

      5. Corruption is corruption
        My point being, the UN has failed tragically in its’ history to do the job it was established to do. It is known as being the pinnacle of corruption. So why allow them any type of influence in the Queen City.

        As per the corruption locally, look no further than city hall and the puppet master chair of the majority political party.

        I believe that the “benefit” issue has been addressed.

      6. ICLIE
        I do not believe this is a “vast conspiracy”. I am sure that those who work for ICLIE believe in what they are doing. However, their beliefs are not MY beliefs. I am unwilling to allow those who I have not selected infringe on my personal liberty. I am unwilling to allow those who I have not selected oversee how I organize and administer my personal property. If ICLIE would like to provide me with a “green evaluation” of my home, at no cost to me, great. So long as the offered suggestions can be implemented on a purely voluntary basis. Please review the video link below of the philosophy of liberty.

        “Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth, and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTQqvDtPzY0

      7. ICLEI
        I do not believe this is a “vast conspiracy”. I am sure that those who work for ICLEI believe in what they are doing. However, their beliefs are not MY beliefs. I am unwilling to allow those who I have not selected infringe on my personal liberty. I am unwilling to allow those who I have not selected oversee how I organize and administer my personal property. If ICLEI would like to provide me with a “green evaluation” of my home, at no cost to me, great. So long as the offered suggestions can be implemented on a purely voluntary basis. Please review the video link below of the philosophy of liberty.

        “Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth, and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTQqvDtPzY0

      8. Critique of YouTube Slideshow: ‘The Philosophy of Liberty’
        NR Objectivist posted a link to a YouTube slideshow called ‘The Philosophy of Liberty’.

        It would seem to advocate a Libertarian philosphy, but after watching it, I believe it actually advocates anarchy.

        It was a bit difficult to watch, because it was much too slow. The music was annoying, so I had to mute that. But with patience, I was able to watch the whole video.

        On some level, the video is super-rational, but so much so, that its extremist philosophies actually makes it irrational and unworkable. This is to say its fine as philosophy but impossible to put into practice, except in very small elements of society, such as in a commune in the middle of nowhere.

        Based on the video ‘The Philosophy of Liberty’, we must return all of North and South America to the American Indians and their descendents, because their property was taken against their will. Therefore, as most Mexicans are largely descended from American Indians, Mexicans have a greater right to live in the USA than those people descended from Europeans. Thus, to accept the beliefs of ‘The Philosophy of Liberty’, it is the people descended from Europeans who are the true illegal aliens. As true as that might be, its too late to turn back the clock, but I believe we should be allowing greater immigration to the USA from Mexico.

        ‘The Philosophy of Liberty’ also seems to advocate every man for himself, when it comes to protecting ‘property’, and seems to advocate vigilante action. That is abhorent.

        ‘The Philosophy of Liberty’ also seems to advocate against democracy and all forms of government. It indicates you can vote for your government officials, and allow that government official to govern oneself. But it also advocates that anyone voting against that elected government official cannot be governed.

        ‘The Philosophy of Liberty’ also advocates against all taxation, except those taxes one is willing to pay.

        ‘The Philosophy of Liberty’ also advocates against all war. While I agree in general with that philosophy, I disagree when it comes to wars necessary to prevent genocide, such as WWII or 1990’s Bosnia.

        ‘The Philosophy of Liberty’ also advocates a person has control of their body. Therefore it is Pro-Choice regarding abortion, and against laws against victimless crimes. This one part I agree with.

      9. youtube video
        You are over reaching. The video is a broad overview and an introduction to the concept of individual rights.The prologue to the book “The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible: A Free Market Odyssey”, by Kenneth Schoolland served as the basis for this presentation. Milton Friedman (a nobel prize winner in economics just like Paul Krugman) said the following of Schoolland book.

        “It certainly presents basic economic principles in a very simple and intelligible form. It is an imaginative and very useful piece of work.”

        The video defines the intimate connection between liberty and a free market society, nothing more. Your claims that the video is anti democratic, promotes vigilantism and advocates the return of the western hemisphere to Native Americans are absurd and nothing more then rationalizations on your part. You do this as a means to push your agenda and establish your perceived intellectual superiority. Do you have any clue how arrogant and self-righteous you are?

      10. The Video Said No One Can Take Another’s Property
        The video said no one can take another’s property.

        I referred to the historical fact of the USA being derived from stealing the property owned by American Indians. The fact of that theft cannot be disputed. Therefore, that video’s logic perceives as illegal, anyone whose private property was derived from theft of American Indian property.

        It is that video that was full of impractical rationalization, and it is that video that is arrogant and self-righteous.

        I have merely demonstrated the Video’s foolishness, by citing rational examples of that video’s philosphy.

        I did enjoy the arguments of the video as pure philosphy, but philosophy can be very harmful when applied to the real world.

      11. What an amazing video
        Thank you for posting it. This powerful video clearly illustrates what it is to be an Ameican which includes respecting the rights of fellow citizens as spelled out in the US Constitution written by the founders of our great nation.

        This video should be required viewing, especially by our City leaders. Something for them to keep in mind.

        I agree:

        “Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth, and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences”

        Thanks again.

      12. What an amazing video, hope our leaders take the time to view it
        I agree with your unwillingness to allow infringments on personal liberty. This is an amazing video and should serve to remind those who may have forgotten, what makes America a great nation.

        If I may reprint the quote from your post:

        “Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth, and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences.”

        One can only hope that our political leadership view the video and act in the best interest of the citizens who elected them to serve.

        Thank you for posting.

    4. GreeNR
      I initially was unabashedly in favor of GreeNR. I still agree with most of the underlying principles. I also think that New Rochelle is already (at least the South End) planned along those general principles, so the plan is a little redundant at best, and deceptive and intrusive at worst. Bob has succeeded in worrying me enough about the plan as a waste of taxpayer money that I am not as enthusiastic as before. So kudos to Bob about that.

      That all being said, I continue to take exception with Bob’s characterization of the plan. I’ve gone through all of his posts, I’ve waded through all of the ICLEI literature and the UN website. I am also quite familiar with the RPA – leading early lights of the RPA, Clarence Stein and Lewis Mumford were far-sighted and erudite thinkers. Mumford’s City in History is a required reading in basically every urban studies college course. Clarence Stein’s Radburn plan elegantly introduced the concept of the cul-de-sac to the United States (the standardized watered-down version popularized by developers really caused most of the planning problems we now deal with). So I have done my due diligence on the plan.

      Even after all of this, I just don’t see how this is a vast left-wing conspiracy aimed at turning New Rochelle into a socialist republic. Maybe I’m drinking the Kool-Aid but I just don’t think that staffers at these UN agencies are conjuring up ways to deprive people of their property rights. This is a generalization, but my experience with the people who staff and control these organizations is that they are genuinely concerned with trying to make the world a better place — no secret agendas involved. If you disagree with what you think a better world looks like, or you don’t like some what you think are the ramifications on certain rights — entirely fair. But I do not believe that there is this ill-willed nefarious conspiracy.

      1. never said that
        Andrew,

        I have never said there is a “conspiracy”. What I have said is that few New Rochelle residents have any idea what ICLEI or Agenda 21 is and that before adopting a 20-30 year framework based on both, New Rochelle residents should be better informed on both.

        The Mayor’s claim that ICLEI and Agenda 21 represent mainstream thinking is entirely and provably false. Agenda 21 is, at its core, the polar opposite of what the mainstream believe to be “the American Dream” — a single-family home, two-cars in the garage, meat on the table, air-conditioning and all the modern conveniences — basically what is known as a suburban lifestyle.

        As I have noted, just 600 out of 60,000 counties, cities and towns are members of ICLEI. That is NOT mainstream. Noam wants to point to Bloomberg and PlaNYC. The two major initiatives of PlaNYC so far — congestion pricing for cars going into Manhattan and requiring all taxi cabs to be hybrid vehicles — have been shot down, the first by the NYS legislature, the second by the U.S. Supreme Court.

        As my guest on the radio said the other day there is small-s sustainability and capital S-Sustainability. It seems to me you are confusing wanting to see good municipal planning and environmentally sound projects and initiatives with imposing an alien belief system which shares SOME elements of what most Americans (including me) support. Anyone who lives in a single-family home and supports GreeNR is a hypocrite. You want to embrace GreeNR then sell your cars, move into the Avalon and start taking public transit everywhere you go.

        There is no mystery to any of this. All of this information is readily available from ICLEI, the United Nations and the Agenda 21 web sites.

        Surely you are not disputing that ICLEI exists? Or that Agenda 21 exists?

        Rather than reply with vague generalities, let’s make it simple. Since you say I am wrong why don’t YOU explain Agenda 21. Then put that in context of the relationship between Agenda 21 and ICLEI and ICLEI, the RPA and GreeNR.

  6. Mayor Crybaby
    Mayor Bramson reminds me of my 5 year old boy when he does not get what he wants. A part-time mayor with a full time salary and the temper of a five year old when the ice cream man passes and he dosen’t get any ice cream.

Comments are closed.