Soros Influencing CT Affordable Housing Laws

(This is a video of the following analysis.)

The state of Connecticut has a statute (8-30g) that requires at least 10 percent of a town or city's housing stock to be considered "affordable".  If a town in Connecticut does not meet this standard, as most do not, a developer looking to build high density housing that gets denied by the towns zoning and planning commission, can appeal to the state and essentially override the local towns decision.  This battle has taken place and is taking place across Connecticut, including in Simsbury where the local planning commission recently denied a proposal for a high-density affordable housing subdivision.  The developer is appealing the decision with the state citing the 8-30g statute.

There are two bills proposed in the state legislature this year (HB 6880 & HB 7057) that, according to supporters of affordable housing who are opposing these bills, would weaken the 8-30g statute. Without getting into all of the details of the proposed legislation, the bills would seemingly make it harder for developers to override local planning and zoning commissions using the 8-30g statute.

By examining the testimony of the groups that oppose this legislation we can learn a lot about the motivations behind the push for "affordable housing".

One group's testimony that I found particularly interesting was that of the Open Communities Alliance, which is "a non-profit civil rights organization that focuses on ensuring that low-income families of color have access to the wealth of opportunities in our state through a balanced approach to affordable housing creation."  In the testimony of Erin Boggs, executive director of Open Communities Alliance, she says that municipal zoning has "exclusionary roots" meant to keep non-whites out of white neighborhoods.  Boggs says that "[w]e as a state and a country still struggle with the historical legacy of [that] kind of racist sentiment" therefore supports the state using 8-30g to override a town or cities decision on development:

"It is the concern of many communities that CGS Sec. 8-30g takes away local control over zoning. It does, when reasonable affordable housing development proposals are rejected by towns that do not have sufficient levels of affordable units. There is a way to address this – proactively work to generate suitable housing within your town to reach a moratorium or surpass the 10% threshold."

In other words, communities can make their own decisions as long as they do what they are told by people not in the community.

The Open Communities Alliance not only lobbies for changes in legislation but organizes coalitions, produces "research" to support their policies, engages in public outreach, and more.  One example of their work to subvert local sovereignty can be seen in a case in Westport last year where a developer, Richard K. Freedman, submitted a proposal for a 48-unit, 30 percent affordable housing project but was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).  Freedman, citing the 8-30g statute, said he will file a lawsuit against the town because it has a pattern of denying affordable housing.  In his proposal, Freedman submitted a letter from the Open Communities Alliance supporting the development using what seems to be veiled legal threats and dubious racial statistics.  One part of the letter states "Westport is a high opportunity area, meaning that it is thriving with high-performing schools, access to jobs, and safe neighborhoods. Unfortunately, Westport does not reflect the racial, ethnic or economic demographics of its geographic region or state as a whole" and goes on to say that Westport lacks 'people of color' and single parents, proportionally speaking.  To an outsider it may seem that this lack of "diversity" could possibly be a reason why Wesport has high-performing schools, access to jobs, and safe neighborhoods but anyone capable of making that connection would never dare as they know it would surely lead to them being derided as a racist, misogynist, or some other form of ad hominem attack.

Anyway, I decided to look a little bit further into this Open Communities Alliance, and after seeing who funds the organization, the propagation of racial conflicts and attacks on local sovereignty all made sense.  They receive money from the Ford Foundation, an organization that I previously written about in regards to their push for world government, population control, and other policies that align with United Nations Agenda 21.  They also receive money from Open Society Foundations, an organization founded by the infamous billionaire George Soros.  In a previous video I showed how Soros money was being used to fund other groups in Connecticut causing racial and political conflict.

Another organization that submitted testimony against the bills currently in the state legislature regarding statute 8-30g is the Regional Plan Association.  The Regional Plan Association is another tax-free organization funded by the Ford Foundation, as well as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, two foundations that I have written extensively on in the past in regards to their subversion of local sovereignty, among other topics.

While I do not pretend to understand all of the intricacies involved in the proposed legislation, and rarely ever endorse bills, judging strictly by who is against these bills, I would venture to say that these are genuinely good pieces of legislation, in the sense that they would increase local decision making power.

Related Stories:

• George Soros, The Ideal Globalist - March 13, 2017 (link)
• What They Didn't Tell You About The Protests In New Haven, Connecticut - Thursday, February 9, 2017 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• Toll Roads, Gas Tax Increase, and Other Schemes That Connecticut Is Mulling Over To Force You Onto Public Transportation - January 29, 2015 (link)

Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut

According to many "experts", such as the World Health Organization, and the United Nations, 70% of the world's population will be living in cities, by 2050.  Usually left out of the reporting of this statistic, are the determining factors that will be causing people to move off of rural land, and into the crowded cities.  What would make so many people leave their quiet, rural community, to go and live in a city, that is becoming evermore crowded, or what would stop someone that is living in a crowded city, from moving to a more quiet, rural community?  Surely more than 30% of the people in the world will want to have their own piece of land, with a house, away from the city, in 2050.

What these organizations are not telling you is that a massive shift of the population into cities is not a random projection, but a planned goal of many of the world's top "leaders", and leading organizations.  By causing an increase in the cost of owning, and living on, property in rural areas (property tax, car tax, utilities, etc.), governments will cause a shift of population from rural communities to the city.  This is one of the goals of United Nations Agenda 21.  Agenda 21 is a massive plan, or program of action, for the 21st century, developed by the United Nations, and connected organizations, that would require every resource in the world, including humans, to be collectivized, and controlled.  If you have never heard of, or are looking to become more familiar with, UN Agenda 21, I have read, and analyzed, the document, and have written a report titled, A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action, which I highly recommend.

In the following report I will be attempting to convey to the reader, the reality that Agenda 21 has made its way into our local communities, pushed using friendly-sounding terms like "livable communities", "complete streets", and "resilient cities", and is being used to cause a demographic shift, away from rural communities, and into cities, as envisioned, and planned, by the United Nations.

Terminology

Important to understand is that the specific terms used in Agenda 21 like "human settlement", and "Local Agenda 21 (LA21)", are usually not used by organizations pushing Agenda 21 in your local communities.  This change in terminology is because of the negative publicity the plan has received since its conception.  We know the promoters of Agenda 21 have had to use different terminology, from what J. Gary Lawrence has written.  J. Gary Lawrence has served as an adviser, under President Bill Clinton, on the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), as well as being a Director of the Center for Sustainable Communities at the University of Washington, and Chief Planner in the City of Seattle.  Lawrence gave a presentation in London, England, June 29, 1998, titled, "The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium", where he explained how the terminology of Agenda 21 must be changed, when attempting to influence local legislation, to prevent conspiracy theories about a UN takeover, or a one-world government, from arising:

"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth."

Now that we understand that the people implementing Agenda 21 do not necessarily use the same terminology as the actual document when looking to push their Agenda in your local community, we can more easily begin making connections to things occurring in our local community, with Agenda 21, and the organizations behind it.