The Town of Locke, NY is considering adopting a new Comprehensive Plan* prepared by professional consultants from the MRB Group. This Plan, dated February 2025, was the second draft released and placed on the Locke website for public viewing on April 16. A public hearing will be held on April 24. The Town Board will vote on whether to accept or reject after hearing public comments. The plan raises concern because normal private property rights will likely be diminished if not sometimes prevented.
My concern about the Comprehensive Plan drafted by MRB Group focuses mostly on threats against citizen freedoms and rights to control their own property unless it is compatible with some arbitrary Comprehensive Plan for the town's development. Furthermore, the Plan identifies goals including sustainability, climate control, and green environmental goals of the United Nations Agenda 30. Implementing such goals will likely have harsh social and economic impacts in relation to the intensity of their implementation and enforcement. Such thoughts may seem hard to believe, but if true, ignoring the risks could have dire long-term consequences on our uniquely American special rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution -- the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will all be threatened. Overall, the United Nations goal for world governance will work to destroy our nation’s sovereignty, our Constitutional rights, economy, prosperity, and property rights – by lessening our individual control of our own property. The United Nations envisions ‘democracy without borders’ in which we transfer our governance to foreign powers, stakeholders, NGOs and other world elites. That is totally unlike our Constitutional Republic in which we democratically vote for local representatives to govern our own town, our own state and nation.
George Ketola
STILL IN PROGRESS.... MORE TO COME
Last update 2025-05-12
*The Comprehensiver Plan may simply be referred to a the Plan in this website.
First letter to Town Board, 2025-03-24
Flier to Locke Citizens (Shopper 2025-04-22) about Public Hearing on 24th.
DeWeese Report: Sustainable Development
Brief History of UN Agenda and Responses in the US (also see 'More information,,,,')
Public Hearing on April 24 notes: What happened...
More information related to UN goals in USA
If you trust AI (artificial intelligence)
Quotations about Freedom and Property Rights
NYS Grants connected to Smart Growth (UN?)
Comprehensive Plan, draft 3-26-25 by MRB Group
More to come...
To: Locke Town Board Members 2025-03-24
As written, the proposed Comprehensive Plan for Locke (January 2025 draft, called Plan) raises many concerns and questions. I understand that the Plan is intended to help the Town’s ability to obtain grants or funds to improve the hamlet’s water supply, which we all know is essential and important. While the draft Comprehensive Plan may help our Town government achieve its immediate objective, it ought not commit or guide some future Town Board to diminish our property rights, individual freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
My initial understanding of the Plan is that it seems to focus on increasing the power of government to achieve perceived ‘community wishes’ while giving little or no attention to possible loss of our individual Constitutional freedoms and rights and property rights. While I have not fully studied the Plan and all its connecting programs and organizations, two likely related things below suggest trouble to me about the promotion of sustainability, and the green or climate action goals, could lead to something like the following, or worse:
1. Moravia’s Comprehensive Plan’ (adopted March 28, 2022) includes the Climate Smart Community Program (page 3) which calls for inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, setting goals, and planning for climate action and a shift to clean, renewable energy and other activities defined by the state. The future of which could lead to costly and unproductive energy regulations – all based on debatable ‘science.’ Such plans could greatly increase the cost of heating our homes, fuel for travel, types of vehicles that are permitted, and make other necessary activities or pleasures in life more expensive and possibly unaffordable.
2. An article in the February 22 issue of the Cortland Standard entitled “March 13 Hearing for Dryden Rail Trail Bridge”– describes a proposed $3.1 million bridge over NY State Route 13 near Varna which is described by Dan Lamb (NYS -DOT) as a ‘labor of love’ for outdoor enthusiasts who hike between Dryden and Varna while also providing a cross-town route for alternate transportation. $1.5 million came from a NYS-DOT grant, while Senator Gillibrand obtained another $0.7 million for the project. To me, this is an extravagant way for environmentalists to push ‘sustainability’ and ‘climate action’ through an alternative mode of transportation, which is an example of great waste of public money for a project of dubious need resulting in very little public benefit.
Our current Comprehensive Plan (which was prepared by outside professional consultants) already makes (in my opinion) too many restrictions based on possible ‘open space’ and other arbitrary restrictions on the use of private land and personal freedoms. However, I believe that the new draft of Comprehensive Plan (January 2025) represents an even greater loss of our individual freedoms and personal and property rights by guiding future development gradually to implement Agenda 21 and 30 goals of the United Nation’s global governance that promotes ‘community’ visions and plans that may overide the cherished ‘individual’ Constitutional rights and freedoms. I believe that home rule is very important and the ‘oath of office’ makes paramount the protection of the rights of its individual citizens. I realize that many local government officials are unaware the diminishing of Constitutional freedoms of individuals while focusing on ‘community’ visions and goals of sustainability, climate and environmental protection (see attached report by Tom DeWeese about subtle and possibly deceptive loss of freedom while implementing UN Agenda goals).
I believe that you board members are determined to make the needed improvements in the domestic water supply as economically and effectively as possible. However, I ask that you exercise great caution in obtaining any grant that could erode our precious individual freedoms and property rights. This draft Comprehensive Plan opens the door to guiding and possibly perceived as directing future town planners and government officials to slowly implement Agenda 21 and 30 goals of the United Nations to achieve global governance. I believe that any comprehensive plan (with elements such as the promotion of sustainability, and the green or climate action plans) is anti-American and harmful to our Constitutional freedoms and property rights and should be avoided.
The new Comprehensive Plan, though previously online for a while, has not been available since soon after the February 27 meeting. The public needs to have a chance to have a close look at the Plan and all its implications and its references to several other documents that give more details about its implementation. Therefore, the Plan needs to be online for a while with public notice of its availability and hopefully a well-advertised schedule for special public meetings or workshops for citizen discussions and input.
Locke is a small town. It is my belief that the Town should make plans as needed for funding and managing of its own property and responsibilities and leave the management of private lands and property to their respective owners – thereby respecting and protecting the property rights and freedoms of its citizens. The fact that other towns make plans to control private properties does not mean we need to follow their ways. Home rule is important-- especially to the citizens.
My wife and I moved to Locke in 1973 because of the freedom we had when we built our home. Those freedoms have since been diminished by increased landuse control by local government, codes that require permits, delays, fees or even some prohibitions to normal use of private property for building or development. Please don’t further erode our freedoms for grant money with strings attached or guidelines that could diminish our rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness protected by the Constitution – the freedoms and rights that I know you also cherish and wish to protect.
My final thought: why should we or any group of people make choices and plans for how other people (either now or in the future) may or may not choose to live, work and use their property to prosper their lives as they believe best for them – as long as they injure no one else or others’ rights? Some people’s choices may seem not to be best or risky to town planners, but yet we don’t prevent brave men and women from risking everything in the military to protect our precious American way and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.
Thank you for your consideration.
George Ketola
1143 Main Road
QUOTE by Tom DeWeese (American Policy Center):
‘Most local and state elected representatives do not understand representative government. They are elected by YOU - but they are then pressured to surrender their responsibility [to YOU] to govern for non-elected, appointed boards that then dictate policy to THEM.’
Notes: See Moravia’s Comprehensive Plan’ --- Adopted March 28, 2022 at
TOWN OF LOCKE -- THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING on Thursday April 24 at 7PM
by George Ketola, Tom Chappell and Karynn Kilts
A Comprehensive Plan proposed for LOCKE.
A copy of the Plan was posted on the Town’s website on April 16:
The Plan can be found on the Locke website: https://www.cayugacounty.us/891/Locke-Town
at Locke Comp Plan Final DRAFT 3-26-25
or at https://www.cayugacounty.us/DocumentCenter/View/28733/TLocke_Draft-Plan_32625
Please attend the hearing on Thursday (April 24, 2025) to make your views known.
SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE PLAN TO CONSIDER:
The Plan is 48 pages long – and was drafted by paid consultants with the MRB Group.
The Comprehensive Plan was drafted 21 days before it was posted for public view. Why so much delay? If we were made aware, we still would have little time to read and study its 48 pages.
SOME QUOTES FOUND IN THE PLAN (based on a short time of review):
Community Goals in the Comprehensive Plan--
Locke’s new Comprehensive Plan talks much about improving community on page 23 and elsewhere (pages 3, 8, 17, 19 and 31).
But what does the Comprehensive Plan have to offer to improve any community?
Obviously, almost nothing -- unless improvements are measured by the appearance of the streets and properties. Implementing the Plan may even encourage conflicts between people of different external values and taste in order to increase hopes of having their own standards or values enforced upon their neighbors or others.
Many of us think a desirable community is where we:
have neighbors and friends that can borrow a cup of sugar or a tool when needed,
where we can call our neighbor to ask if they could check to make sure you turned the iron off before you went to work.
where we have relationships that enable us to ask our neighbor to feed our pets or water our flowers, etc. when we go on vacation,
where we have the confidence that our neighbor will meet our children after school because we are late getting home because our car broke down or some unexpected problem.
we have kind regards for our neighbors and hopefully they for us.
I think most people agree, that being a good neighbor and having a good neighbor or several good neighbors is the kind of community that everyone wants - regardless of external appearances. The Comprehensive Plan ignores these desires and hopes of the individual citizens and promotes governmental or top-down managing groups that focus on accomplishing their arbitrary goals.
Page 32 (QUOTES):
“Future Land Use, Where & How Do We Want To Develop?”
“Future land use should follow Smart Growth principles to ensure land is used in a way that supports environmental, economic, and social sustainability. As such, future development in the Town should be focused near the hamlet and along the transportation corridor with Moravia. The Town should prioritize creating an environment that encourages the revitalization of its existing housing stock and commercial areas.”
Comments or Questions:
Why should we follow some unknown definition of SMART GROWTH principles?
What principles constitute SMART GROWTH according to this Plan?
And who says those principles are best for the citizens of Locke?
Why should Locke residents follow foreign Smart Growth principles to ensure our properties are suited to some undefined ways to support unknown principles of environmental, economic, and social sustainability--described in the United Nations report: “UN-Habitat, World Smart Cities Outlook 2024” at: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2024/12/un_smart_city_outlook.pdf
For more information about sustainable development goals of UN Agenda 21/30 (see website: ConcernedCitizenofLocke.org).
Pages 22 and 23 (QUOTES a few of the Action Plans listed):
1. “Review and revise land use regulations to strengthen hazard mitigation and resiliency through enhanced protection of natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas.”
2. “Complete a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program to ensure the protection of the Owasco Lake watershed.”
3. “Support land conservation easements and other efforts by local land conservation organizations such as the Finger Lakes Land Trust and similar organizations.”
4. “Register for the NYS Climate Smart Communities Program and pursue actions...”
( The Plan includes the plans to partner with neighboring towns and other unelected special bodies (like OWLA) or newly appointed groups (CPIC) to help ensure plans for development in Locke. Why? )
5. “Establish the Comprehensive Plan Implementation Committee (CPIC) to ensure the advancement of the goals, policies, and action items in this plan.”
Comments or Questions:
Why are all these Action Plans, outside programs and organizations needed to determine the future development of private properties in Locke? This Plan seems to create far too many external rules and rulers to run the lives and properties of our citizens. It destroys Home Rule. Further, even if the present Town Board members resist the pressures to accomplish the goals of this Comprehensive Plan, who knows what future board members may want to do. They could ignore the people’s wishes, and in their uninformed zeal, take on too much control over private citizens’ future and development of their private property? I don’t think ‘conspiracy theory’ label applies here. I think: if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck! The Comprehensive Plan for Locke is a plan to take more control of land and its owners to advance the United Nations agenda plan to gain more control of private land and its development.
OUR OVERALL INITIAL THOUGHTS:
The goals of the United Nations Agenda 21/30 are intensive, extensive and deceptive. The UN, their planners, NGOs and cooperators hope that neither we nor our local governments realize that we are being maneuvered to further their plans for global control of all land and its development. They want to deceive us by using nice-sounding promises connected to sustainability, climate control and green environmental policies. We must not voluntarily give up our individual freedoms and rights to property and sacrifice our freedom to pursue our life’s hopes and dreams. All of this can be lost if we believe that the UN’s fancy promises don’t threaten our God-given and constitutionally protected rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and property rights). But that threat is real. That is exactly what the socialist totalitarian UN Agenda wants to do. Even if they don’t admit it, the UN cares nothing about our individual rights. The UN wants to take away our present freedoms and take control over many of our decisions and abolish our property rights. That’s their long-term goal; they are patient, and they don’t plan to give up. Their goals are a lot like those in the communist manifesto.*
*Footnote: Manifesto: see page 8 in The Citizens Rule Book, available at Whitten Printers, 1001 South 5th St., Phoenix, AZ 85004. Tel. 602-258-6406. Recommended for every US citizen and student. See pages 2-13, followed by The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
TEA Parties..... Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems.
DeWeese Report Volume 15 - Issue 8 By Tom DeWeese — August 7, 2009
SOURCE: https://canadafreepress.com/article/sustainable-development-the-root-of-all-our-problems1
Many Americans appear to be awakening from their slumber of apathy as government forces are making their move for total control of our lives. Massive TEA Party protests on April 15th, followed by more than 1000 again on Independence Day, show a growing movement of concerned, dedicated Americans. But there is a major component missing from those protests. There is a nearly universal lack of understanding of the issue of Sustainable Development and the dangers it poses to our liberty. Consequently, that issue is being left out of the protests.
Meanwhile, as thousands attend the TEA Parties and protest the Federal Reserve, taxes, and out of control federal government, inside their local city halls, international forces are busy turning the communities into little soviets.
I have been traveling the nation over the past few months sounding the alarm that we cannot win this battle to restore our Republic if we don’t understand that what we face is not a bunch of random issues – but a complete agenda of control – Sustainable Development. (Read my Spokane speech here Part 1, Part 2). Cap N Trade, global warming, population control, gun control, open borders and illegal immigration, higher taxes, higher gas prices, refusal to drill American oil, education restructuring, international IDs, natural health supplement control, food control, farming “reform,” control of private property, NAIS and UN Global Governance are all part of the Sustainable Development/Agenda 21 blueprint. To that end, I am focusing this entire issue on Sustainable Development to give activists all the ammunition they need to fight back. I am also including a list of more than 500 cities that are currently enacting Sustainable Development policies. If this is happening in your town (and it is), I urge you to challenge your local city council and mayor to stop these polices. The battles now must be fought on the local level. Remove Sustainable Development from every community and policies out of the federal government will be neutralized. And only then can we be on our way to restoring the American Republic. -------- Tom DeWeese
Sustainable Development: The Root of All Our Problems
In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore warned that a “wrenching transformation” must take place to lead America away from the “horrors of the Industrial Revolution.” The process to do that is called Sustainable Development and its’ roots can be traced back to a UN policy document called Agenda 21, adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.
Sustainable Development calls for changing the very infrastructure of the nation, away from private ownership and control of property to nothing short of central planning of the entire economy – often referred to as top-down control. Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life. In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution: your wealth goes in to a green rat hole.
During the Cold War, communists tried to get us to surrender our liberties and way of life for the wisdom of Karl Marx. Americans didn’t buy it. But now, they have taken the same clap trap and wrapped it all in a nice green blanket, scaring us with horror stories about the human destruction of the environment – and so we are now throwing our liberties on the bon fire like a good old fashioned book burning -- all in the name of protecting the planet. It sounds so friendly. So meaningful. So urgent. But, the devastation to our liberty and way of life is the same as if Lenin ordered it.
We now have a new language invading our government at all levels. Old words with new meanings fill government policy papers. The typical city council meeting discusses “community development,” “historic preservation,” and “partnerships” between the city and private business. Civic leaders organize community meetings run by “facilitators,” as they outline a “vision” for the town, enforced by “consensus.” No need for debate when you have consensus! People of great importance testify before congressional committees of the dire need for “social justice.” Free trade, social justice, consensus, global truth, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, and community service are all part of our new language. What are they really talking about? What mental pictures come to mind when those words are used? George Orwell realized that those who control language and manipulate key phrases can control policy. The language is being changed and manipulated to quietly implement a very destructive policy. Whenever you see or hear these words, know that, in every case, they are defining one thing - the implementation of Sustainable Development. Rather than good management of resources, Sustainable Development has come to mean denied use and resources locked away from human hands. In short, it has become a code word for an entire economic and social agenda.
I have spent most of the past 12 years studying every facet of this new political agenda which is fast becoming a revolution -- touching every aspect of our businesses, our public education system, our private property, our families and our individual lives. Interestingly, it is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s not liberal or conservative. It is being implemented on a purely bipartisan basis. It is now the official policy of the United States, put in force by literally every department of the government. It is the official policy of every state government, and nearly every city, town and county in the nation. But, I warn you, accepting the perception that Sustainable Development is simply good environmental stewardship is a serious and dangerous mistake.
So what is Sustainable Development? The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control.
Keep in mind that America is the only country in the world based on the ideals of private property. But, private property is incompatible with the collectivist premise of Sustainable Development. If you doubt that, then consider this quote from the report of the 1976 UN’s Habitat I conference which said: “Land …cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.” According to Sustainablist doctrine, It is a social injustice for some to have prosperity if others do not. It is a social injustice to keep our borders closed. It is a social injustice for some to be bosses and others to be merely workers. Social justice is a major premise of Sustainable Development. Another word for social justice, by the way, is Socialism. Karl Marx was the first to coin the phrase “social justice.”
Some officials try to pretend that Sustainable Development is just a local effort to protect the environment -- just your local leaders putting together a local vision for the community. Then ask your local officials how it is possible that the exact language and tactics for implementation of Sustainable Development are being used in nearly every city around the globe from Lewiston, Maine to Singapore. Local indeed. Sustainable Development is the process by which America is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait.
The best way to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable. According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include: Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment (capitalism, free markets).
Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 said,
“…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.”
Are you starting to see the pattern behind Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and all of those commercials you’re forced to watch about the righteousness of Going Green? They are all part of the enforcement of Sustainable Development.
And one of the most destructive tools they use to force it on us is something called the “precautionary principle.” That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped -- even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established – and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical. That makes it easy for any activist group to issue warnings by news release or questionable report and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy – just in case.
Many are now finding non-elected regional governments and governing councils enforcing policy and regulations. As these policies are implemented, locally-elected officials are actually losing power and decision-making ability in their own communities. Most decisions are now being made behind the scenes in non-elected “sustainability councils” armed with truckloads of federal regulations, guidelines, and grant money. {COMMENT (GK): Stakeholders are not necessarily local citizens. They can any special interest group who are self-appointed and un- elected who should have no power in our local matters.}
The Three Es
According to its authors, the objective of Sustainable Development is to integrate economic, social, and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making Nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. As such, every societal decision would first be questioned as to how it might effect the environment. To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; land use, education, and population control and reduction. The Sustainable Development logo used in most literature on the subject contains three connecting circles labeled Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity (known commonly as the 3 Es).
Social Equity
As stated, Sustainable Development’s Social Equity plank is based on a demand for “social justice.” Today, the phrase is used throughout Sustainablist literature. The Sustainablist system is based on the principle that individuals must give up selfish wants for the needs of the common good, or the “community.” How does this differ from Communism? This is the same policy behind the push to eliminate our nation’s borders to allow the “migration” of those from other nations into the United States to share our individually-created wealth and our taxpayers-paid government social programs. Say the Sustainablists, “Justice and efficiency go hand in hand.” “Borders,” they say, “are unjust.” Under the Sustainablist system, private property is an evil that is used simply to create wealth for a few. So too, is business ownership. Instead, “every worker/person will be a direct capital owner.” Property and businesses are to be kept in the name of the owner, keeping them responsible for taxes and other expenses, however control is in the hands of the “community.” That policy is right out of the Socialist handbook.
Economic Prosperity
Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based on one overriding premise: that the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor. It dictates that, if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must first be taken from the rich. Consequently, Sustainable Development’s economic policy is based not on private enterprise but on public/private partnerships. In order to give themselves an advantage over competition, some businesses -- particularly large corporations – now find a great advantage in dealing directly with goverrnment, actively lobbying for legislation that will inundate smaller companies with regulations that they cannot possibly comply with or even keep up with. This government/big corporation back-scratching has always been a dangerous practice because economic power should be a positive check on government power, and vise versa. If the two should ever become combined, control of such massive power can lead only to tyranny. One of the best examples of this was the Italian model in the first half of the Twentieth Century under Mussolini’s Fascism. Together, select business leaders who have agreed to help government impose Sustainablist green positions in their business policies, and officials at all levels of government are indeed merging the power of the economy with the force of government in Public/Private Partnerships on the local, state and federal levels. As a result, Sustainable Development policy is redefining free trade to mean centralized global trade “freely” crossing (or eliminating) national borders. It definitely does not mean people and companies trading freely with each other. Its real effect is to redistribute American manufacturing, wealth, and jobs out of our borders and to lock away American natural resources. After the regulations have been put in place, literally destroying whole industries, new “green” industries created with federal grants bring newfound wealth to the “partners.” This is what Sustainablists refer to as economic prosperity.
Ecological Integrity
“Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature’s rhythms” - from the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty presented at the 1992 UN Earth Summit. This quote lays down the ground rules for the entire Sustainable Development agenda. It says humans are nothing special – just one strand in the nature of things or, put another way, humans are simply biological resources. Sustainablist policy is to oversee any issue in which man interacts with nature –which, of course, is literally everything. And because the environment always comes first, there must be great restrictions over private property ownership and control. This is necessary, Sustainablists say, because humans only defile nature. Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights – as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. Individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of social planners. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1995 report: “Human activity…combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers…are impinging on the planet’s basic life support system. Action must be taken now to control the human activities that produce these risks” Under Sustainable Development there can be no limited government, as advocated by our Founding Fathers, because, we are told, the real or perceived environmental crisis is great.
Maurice Strong, Chairman of the 1992 UN Earth Summit said:
“A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally-damaging consumption patterns. The shift will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.”
The politically based environmental movement provides Sustainablists camouflage as they work to transform the American systems of government, justice, and economics. It is a masterful mixture of socialism (with its top down control of the tools of the economy) and fascism (where property is owned in name only – with no control). Sustainable Development is the worst of both the left and the right. It is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is a new kind of tyrannbby that, if not stopped, will surely lead us to a new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind.
SOURCE: https://canadafreepress.com/article/sustainable-development-the-root-of-all-our-problems1 Click on: August 7, 2009 (on website)
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992) made a list of goals and objectives [1]. Sustainability, environment and climate control became the overarching objectives of the UN Agenda 21, and later in the more recent Agenda 30 (target year for significant implementation is 2030).
In 1993, President Clinton established (Executive Order 12852) the Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) to develop "bold, new approaches to achieve our economic, environmental, and equity goals"[2]. The Council of approximately thirty members included the former NY State Governor, Andrew Cuomo [3], which probably explains the strong emphasis on sustainability, climate control and green environmental goals in many comprehensive plans in New York.
More current outlooks and trends are reflected by President Trump’s reversal on some previous views and actions because of the immediate harsh human effects, high costs and doubtful benefits of the measures being proposed and enacted to further the UN goals. A March 7, 2025 report the Edward Heartney, Counselor for Economic and Social Affairs state at the United Nations that the US under Trump “rejects and denounces” the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs), the key global goals adopted by nations unanimously in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [4].
President Trump’s Executive Order of April 9, 2025 “directs the U.S. Attorney General (AG) to identify all state and local laws, regulations, causes of action, policies and practices (collectively, State Laws) that are burdening the identification, development, siting, production or use of domestic energy resources, and prioritize the identification of State Laws purporting to address "climate change" or involving "environmental, social, and governance" (ESG) initiatives, "environmental justice," carbon or "greenhouse gas" emissions, and funds to collect carbon penalties or carbon taxes” [5].
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been identifying and shutting off inefficient or misused funds which may jeopardize HUD and other federal grantors that link their funds to advancing several UN goals, especially sustainability [6]. Wang Youming (Feb 2025), a Senior Research Fellow of BRICS Economic Think Tank, Tsinghua University wrote an article in which he says that President Trump’s ‘Putting America First’ policy is causing the United States to disengage from UN climate goals and world governance [7].
I think this also could be another reason for Locke to find other funds which are not linked to a Comprehensive Plan that would jeopardize our citizen’s individual property rights and freedoms.
[Also see: 'More information related to UN goals in USA']
Footnotes
[1] UN-CED Rio 1992: https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/rio1992
[2] Pres. Clinton: https://clintonwhitehouse3.archives.gov/PCSD/Overview/index.html
[3] UN-SDG goals, 2024: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2024/SG-SDG-Progress-Report-2024-advanced-unedited-version.pdf
[4] US Rejects: https://www.esgtoday.com/u-s-rejects-un-sustainable-development-goals/
Mark Segal March 7, 2025at the United Nations
[5] EO April 9: https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/04/president-trump-issues-executive-order-targeting-state
[6] HUD Grants: https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/hhpgm_final_ch7.pdf
[7] Wang Youming (2025): https://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/global-governance-vs-globe-governing
Also see: 'More information related to UN goals in USA'
A few more than usual citizens attended (maybe 20). All board members were present.
The citizens had a variety of questions and comments (as follows):
Why was the first draft of the Comprehensive Plan removed from the website so soon after the February presentation to the board?
Why was the posting of the second draft delayed -- leaving little time for public review?
What is meant by the often-mentioned sustainability?
What is meant by the Smart-Growth mentioned on page 32? [Also on pages 16, 20, 22, 24 and 25]
There was too little time for the public to learn about the comprehensive plan.
Two said the plan is what the town wants.
Some HUD grants require demonstration of stepwise progress on the Comprehensive Plan as they fund projects in a stepwise manner.
What is on the other side if we go through the door -- meaning adopting the new Comprehensive Plan.
One person asked how the public is to learn about such hearings and said she would not have known anything about it if she had not seen a private notice.
One said the Plan and Hearing was advertised only in the Citizen [which only a few people
in Locke read].
I said the Public Hearing was not posted on the Public Notice Board as I believe to be required by the NYS open meeting law.
Board members made comments (as best as I can remember):
Thane Benson - The Comprehensive Plan is not a legal contract.
John Carey — There is no secret plan. The plan does not commit the board to its implementation.
Fred Mackey – We need to move forward for the good of the people to have water.
Jeremy Fenner-- Made a motion to table the vote on whether to adopt the Plan or not.
Courtney Mantey – also agreed that the vote should be tabled for further review.
The board voted unanimously to table the issue of the Comprehensive Plan.
Agenda 21 was adopted by the United Nations at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The summit, officially known as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
In 1992, the House of Congress passed Resolution 353 so that the United States should assume a strong leadership role in implementing Agenda 21 by (a) adoption of a national strategy for environmentally sustainable development,...(b) the Government encouraging and facilitating means for adopting individual Agenda 21 plans of action, including the establishment of local, county, State, business, and other boards and commissions for achieving sustainable development and more (1). <- See footnote
In 1993, the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) was established by President Clinton (Executive Order 12852) to advise him on sustainable development =(2). Former NY Governor Andrew Cuomo was one its members.
Recent grants awarded to multiple NY municipalities including Moravia (3), Auburn, Cayuga County, Lansing, Ithaca and others make it clear that their grants were linked to UN Agenda goals in their comprehensive plans (see ‘NYS Grants’ below). Moravia has similar goals to implement in their new Comprehensive Plan (3). These goals are commitments to climate action, sustainability (poorly defined), smart growth strategies (defined by the state), and various green agendas, open spaces, and clear vistas. These plans also include making themselves subject to outside desires and goals of neighboring, local and regional municipalities, NGOs, and unelected special stakeholders. This makes our private citizen property use and its development become subject to approval and control of additional outside self-appointed unelected groups, any of which may have interests quite different from those of the citizens of Locke. All of these added influences (or control) is in addition to the normal federal, State, county or DEC authorities that may have jurisdiction on property use and development.
In 2021, HUD responded to President Biden’s climate crisis executive order (14008) by making their grant policy to be ‘front lines of the nation’s efforts to increase resilience to climate impacts’ because of the [alleged] increasing risk from both extreme weather events and rising sea-level. HUD grants goals include stepwise support for projects tied to community resilience, sustainability and environmental justice as stated on their website (4). Those goals happen to mirror those of the UN Agenda.
Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson says his opinions on climate change do not make him a climate change denier, but he is not a climate change alarmist.” He says “Climate is not static. It has always changed and always will. I do not share Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) view that the ‘world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.’ Or President Biden saying the ‘greatest threat’ to U.S. security is climate change.'” Johnson considers those positions to be “extreme, to say the least” (5).
Senator John Kennedy (R-LA), on a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, questioned the DOE Deputy Secretary David Turk about how long would it take and how much would it cost to make USA carbon neutral (a UN Agenda goal). He also asked how much the average temperature is expected to decrease. Secretary Turk said it could take 27 years and $50 trillion dollars, and he did not know (or would not say) how much temperature might drop (6). The carbon neutral goal represents huge costs with little or no real benefit.
An EPA website (7) describes President Trump’s promises to Make American Great Again, contrary to the United Nations goals. His new EPA Administrator, Lee Zeldon, says that the EPA now plans to end the ‘Green New Deal” by overhauling the massive rules on the social cost of carbon and similar issues. He said: “we are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion” and ushering in America’s Golden Age. For more details, see the March 17, 2025 EPA website (7).
Our private property, its development and our lives have already become fairly intensely controlled by government and appointed boards or agencies. We must remember how precious freedom is and how we should not have to endure additional arbitrary restrictions. While we cannot predict what will happen, it appears that the extreme fears of so-called man-made climate change and related environmental threats may not continue to be funded by federal agencies because the new Trump administration promises to move in the opposite direction. Therefore, it may be a waste of time, effort and money to seek possibly dwindling grant money through the MRB Group, apparently ‘married’ to a comprehensive plan that follows UN-Smart-City type plans as described in a United Nations report: “UN-Habitat, World Smart Cities Outlook 2024” (8). The UN goals diminish most, if not all, of our Constitutional freedoms that makes America unique and freer that all other nations.
To the Town Board of Locke: Please don’t subject our town to the ‘MRB’ Comprehensive Plan that is likely to lead to arbitrary and unnecessary loss of personal and private property rights. Please reject the Comprehensive Plan and consider other ways to resolve and fund town needs.
Footnotes:
(1) House Res 363: https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/353
(2) PCSD: https://clintonwhitehouse3.archives.gov/PCSD/Overview/index.html
(3) Moravia Comprehensive Plan: https://www.moraviany.com/the-comprehensive-plan/
(4) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Climate Adaptation Plan, September 2021 at https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CPD/documents/HUD_Climate_Action_Plan_AdaptationEditionclean.pdf
(5) Johnson: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/561805-ron-johnson-climate-change-is-bullsh/
(6) Sen. John Kennedy 2023: https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/press-releases?ID=2605F826-801C-4C5D-B60D-8BAEFCD92867
(7) An EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/icymi-administrator-zeldin-wsj-epa-ends-green-new-deal
(8) Smart Cities: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2024/12/un_smart_city_outlook.pdf
xxxx
(5) Johnson: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/561805-ron-johnson-climate-change-is-bullsh/
(6) Sen. John Kennedy 2023: https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/press-releases?ID=2605F826-801C-4C5D-B60D-8BAEFCD92867
(7) An EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/icymi-administrator-zeldin-wsj-epa-ends-green-new-deal
(8) Smart Cities: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2024/12/un_smart_city_outlook.pdf
Below is part of it’s affirmative response:
Dallas, Texas: Reports indicate that new single-family home developments must align with the UN's Agenda 2030, a broader sustainability framework encompassing the SDGs. This suggests that local planners are integrating global sustainability standards into zoning and development policies.…...
Challenges and Criticisms:
Despite these efforts, adherence to the UN guidelines is not universal. Some challenges and criticisms include: Resistance to Regulation: Critics of frameworks like Agenda 21 (an earlier UN sustainability initiative linked to the SDGs) argue that they impose restrictive zoning laws or infringe on local control. In some communities, this has led to pushback against adopting these guidelines, with concerns about overregulation or the use of eminent domain.
Source: https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_fc10b9c1-51e4-4b3b-b310-8b274d291b75
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE --We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. – US Justice Learned Hand (1872-1961)
The strength of the Constitution lies in the will of the people to defend it. – Thomas Edison
If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all. – Jacob Hornberger (1995)
Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have. – Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878 – 1969, Pastor, Manhatten)
PROPERTY RIGHTS (defined) --Private property rights are important and an essential part of life. Property rights include possession, control, exclusion, enjoyment and the right of disposition.
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God – and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it – anarchy and tyranny commence.” – John Adams
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. -- John Locke
NYS Department of State -- 2024‐2025 Environmental Protection Fund
Smart Growth Community Planning and Zoning Grant Awards
SOURCE: https://dos.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2024/12/2024-25-sgcp-award-list.pdf
Applicant: City of Auburn
Project Name: City of Auburn Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan
Project Description: The City of Auburn will update its Comprehensive Plan to incorporate Smart Growth principles and develop a citizen-focused Smart Growth strategy. The plan aims to address concerns and opportunities in areas such as economic revitalization, housing, infrastructure, childcare, healthy neighborhoods, public services, and recreation space.
Applicant: Cayuga (Co) – $103,500
Project Name: Cayuga County Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan
Project Description: The Cayuga County Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan will offer progressive direction and actionable strategies to advance the vision for the county and its 33 municipalities. The plan will leverage ongoing efforts and future opportunities in affordable housing, economic development, tourism, public services, and natural resource conservation, among other critical areas. With guidance from key local and regional stakeholders and the public, this plan will successfully propel the county forward.
Applicant: Copake (T) $81,000
Project Name: Town of Copake Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan
Project Description: The Town of Copake will develop a new comprehensive plan guided by Smart Growth principles to establish a framework for future development actions and policy making. The comprehensive plan will address community and economic development, housing, parks and recreation, alternative transportation and placemaking. The comprehensive plan will serve as a roadmap and decision-making framework and tool to accelerate the community’s progress toward a shared vision of the future.
Applicant: Hunter (T) – $75,000
Project Name: Town of Hunter Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan
Project Description: Town of Hunter will develop a new comprehensive plan guided by Smart Growth principles to be a decision-making framework to achieve the Town's shared vision. The plan will address community and economic development, housing, parks, recreation, transportation, climate adaptation and placemaking and advance catalyst projects, capital improvements and shared services. It will focus on equity and inclusion to cultivate a viable place for residents, workers, and visitors year-round.
Applicant: Schenectady (C)--$85,000
Project Name: City of Schenectady Comprehensive Plan
Project Description: The City of Schenectady will prepare an update to its 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Phase 1, currently underway, focuses on robust community engagement to gather community input establishing a shared vision. Phase 2 will build upon the public engagement and visioning work of Phase 1 to develop actionable strategies and identify priority projects. The Plan will address numerous items, including housing, economic development, walkability, and infrastructure, guided by NYS Smart Growth principles.
Applicant: Fayetteville (V) - $85,239
Project Name: Village of Fayetteville Zoning Update
Project Description: The Village of Fayetteville will review and update its zoning code and commercial design guidelines to align with its newly adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Village will streamline its development procedures while ensuring smart growth to create a pedestrian friendly, housing diverse and economically accessible community.
Applicant: Manlius (T) – $108,000
Project Name: Town of Manlius Climate Smart Zoning Update
Project Description: The Town of Manlius’ Climate Smart Zoning project will review the Town’s current zoning laws and recommend changes to better align the zoning code with the goals and objectives of its Comprehensive Plan and Climate Action Plan, adopted in 2023. the Town will update its zoning to help foster a wider variety of housing and commercial options while preserving working agricultural land and open spaces.
Applicant: Ithaca – $215,000
Project Name: City of Ithaca Zoning Code Update
Project Description: The City of Ithaca will update its zoning code to implement its comprehensive plan, Plan Ithaca, and codify the smart growth principles rooted in the plan. The new code will modernize land use regulations based on current best practices, address challenges facing the City and with administration of the current zoning code, focus on ways to increase housing supply, facilitate transitions to clean energy, integrate green space and green infrastructure, and address floodplain development.
Applicant: Lansing – $100,000
Project Name: Town of Lansing Zoning Update
Project Description: The Town of Lansing will update its zoning code to align with community values and sustainability principles, as outlined in its 2018 Comprehensive Plan. The Town hosts an abundance of natural resources, scenic vistas, and sensitive environmental areas. The update will protect resources while supporting development near existing nodes of activity to ensure the long-term well-being of the community.
Comprehensive Plan for Locke (draft)
Download PDFWe use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.