In Response To Michael Nicastro's Criticism of Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theorists

On August 1, 2014, former President of the Central Connecticut Chamber of Commerce, Michael Nicastro, wrote an article in the Bristol Observer where he criticized those residents, and elected officials, of the city of Bristol who are calling for a referendum, or a public vote, on the Renaissance proposal for the redevelopment of the downtown area.  As a Bristol resident, I have my own views on referendums, as well as what I would like to see happen in the downtown area, however, I would like to use this posting to address another issue that Nicastro brought up in his article: United Nations Agenda 21.

In the article, Nicastro denounces an unnamed group of Bristol residents, who are opposed to the Renaissance proposal, calling them "conspiracy theorists", for their concern about Agenda 21:

"One of the more vocal anti-investment in downtown groups is born out (and now tries to downplay or hide) of the UN Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists.  You know the ones where the government of the world (code the UN) is trying to steal our homes, force us all to live in dense urban environments, take away our cars, and mandate that we all use public transportation"

Nicastro suggests that this group "seriously find a different hobby", "stay off the internet", and concludes by calling Agenda 21 "bunk", or nonsense, saying "it has no place in the discussion about our downtown".

It is important to point out why Agenda 21, and its associated programs, and organizations, do have a place in the discussion of major redevelopment projects taking place across the state of Connecticut, including Bristol's downtown.

Ohio Judge Calls Red-Light Camera Operation A "Scam That Motorists Can't Win"

A judge in Hamilton, Ohio, called the red-light-camera operation being run in the village of Elmwood Place a "scam that motorists can't win", comparing the system to a "high-tech game of 3-card Monty."

In his decision, Judge Robert Ruehlman decided that the operation failed to provide due process.  The judge also exposed the many corrupt practices involved with the red light camera operation, being run by the for-profit company Optotraffic, in the village of Elmwood Place.  Judge Ruehlman noted that the cameras are calibrated only once per year, as well as criticizing the administrative hearing process involved with the operation, when a person wants to challenge the allegation made by the camera.  "If the owner of the vehicle wants to contest the liability, he or she must pay $25.00 to the Village of Elmwood and request a hearing before a hearing officer and there is no assurance that the fee will be returned if the appeal is successful.  However, the hearing is nothing more than a sham!", says Judge Robert Ruehlman.

Also discussed in the judge's decision was the effect that the red-light-cameras had on the community. "Businesses have lost customers who now refuse to drive through Elmwood.  Churches have lost members who are frightened to come to Elmwood and individuals who have received notices were harmed because they were unable to defend themselves against the charges brought against them."

Optotraffic, like most of these red-light-camera operators, has come under heavy criticism for their role in this highly profitable scheme.  In the case of Elmwood Place, which is capable of collecting over 2 million dollars, in a period of six months, Optotraffic receives 40 percent of that revenue.  In the state of Maryland, there have been reports that Optotraffic cameras have shown to be inaccurate, as well as a class action lawsuit involving Optotraffic and the town of River Park, challenging the town to refund citations bearing the forged signature of a police officer.  Also in Maryland, a representative of AAA, Lon Anderson, said he believes that the red-light-camera operation being run is "not being used primarily for safety" but instead is "about making money for the city and camera producer Optotraffic."

There are legislators in the state of Connecticut that are attempting to change the law to allow red-light-cameras to go up, throughout the state.  I have written about this push for red-light cameras in Connecticut involving corruption, United Nations Agenda 21, and the Rockefellers Brothers Fund, and I will continue to document, and expose, this scam, and do my best to prevent it from taking hold in Connecticut.

Related Stories:

• Red Light Cameras In Connecticut; Corruption, Agenda 21 & the Rockefellers - March 01, 2013 (link)

The Push For Red-Light Cameras In Connecticut; Corruption, Agenda 21 & the Rockefellers

There are three bills proposed this year in the Connecticut legislator, that deal with installing red-light cameras throughout the state.  The three bills are as follows:

•  House Bill 6056 - AN ACT CONCERNING THE USE OF MUNICIPAL AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SAFETY DEVICES AT CERTAIN INTERSECTIONS --Introduced by Rep. Angel Arce
• House Bill 5554 - AN ACT ENABLING CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES TO INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS-- proposed by Rep. Roland J. Lemar, Rep. Juan R. Candelaria, Rep. Patricia A. Dillon, Rep. Toni E. Walker, Rep. Gary A. Holder-Winfield, Sen. Toni Nathaniel Harp, Sen. Martin M. Looney
• Senate Bill 634 -  AN ACT ALLOWING MUNICIPALITIES TO OPERATE AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SAFETY DEVICES AT INTERSECTIONS --Introduced by Sen. Gary Lebeau

These three bills were discussed at a Transportation Committee Public Hearing this week.  Using information that I gathered from watching hours of testimony regarding red light cameras in the state, as well as other resources, I will show that this is just another tactic being used by government, to take more money from tax-payers, to make it more difficult to operate a vehicle, to lower the standard of living, and other effects, designed to make more people dependent on the state.