Monthly Archives: February 2012

An Update from Garland Texas on Their Fight Against Agenda 21

Here is an update from the folks in Garland, Texas and their fight against ‘Envision Garland’/ United Nations Agenda 21:

 

The question is when. The City of Garland, posted that Garland’s City Council would vote on Envision Garland at the council meeting on February 7, 2012. Then a notice went out that Envision Garland was pushed off the agenda for the time being and without notice of when it will be up again for a vote.

 

The buzz around Garland as to whyEnvision Garland was pushed back, was due to city council members wanting more time to research this new comprehensive development plan.

 

Just in case you haven’t been following, many citizens of Garland are concerned about this new comprehensive plan named Envision Garland. Many went to City Hall and spoke out during Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings. You can view these meetings online in the recorded meeting section – just look for agendas including Envision Garland.

 

Envision Garland aligns with the principles of an United Nation’s vision called Agenda 21, as well as containing vocabulary, goals, as well as city modeling designated by ICLEI a non-government organization of the United Nations, that our city has spent taxpayer dollars to become a member of.  Our city council informed us that they had no idea they were a member of ICLEI, even though they paid a sum of approximately $2,000 in membership fees and received software ‘tools’ to help develop the Envision Garland plan as well as ‘help’, i.e. coaching on how to request Federal Funding for projects.  One of the many downsides of such funding is that it has very specific requirements attached that usually require additional financial commitments from the taxpayers (and of course have expensive mandates attached).

 

Currently Envision Garland, if adopted, will do the following: Craft new UNC (United Development Codes) – these new codes are new regulations and procedures including but not limited to; zoning and subdivision codes, site and building designs, administrative and hearing procedures, in essence a new set of laws! The funding of this new plan will come from CIP (assuming CIP  is Capital Investment Plan – CIP is not clearly identified in Envision Garland) Funding – debt issuance, like the over $200,000,000 (that’s two hundred million) BOND the city approved in 2004! WOW! Go back and look at how the money is to be used in this BOND and you will see that Envision Garland is just a part of a process already motion. The BOND money of 2004 includes plans for redistribution of wealth – For Example: $11.2 million for enhancement in the city’s downtown and transportation corridors, along with funding for neighborhood vitality projects and $1.0 million for neighborhood vitality grants (this information is found on the Garland City website in a Jan 18, 2005 letter concerning the adopted 2005 CIP for the City of Garland -). Humm, what are neighborhood vitality projects/grants?   Let me show you.   On October 22, 2011, the city of Garland held the 2011 Garland Neighborhood Summit at Granville arts Center complex owned and operated by the City of Garland, downtown area.  One of the key speakers was Jon Edmonds, CEO of Frazier Revitalization, Inc., in his speech of how to get connected with ‘community leaders’ in your area, he states and outlines that he is promoting redistribution of wealth.  To me Jon Edmonds’ presentation was a rehash of Saul Alinsky’s beliefs and tactics to move society towards socialism.  As we all know, part of the socialist/communist ideals are equal distribution of wealth of the people.  Is Garland deciding that wealth needs to be redistributed?  Are we to all move up or all move down?  Well, In a break out session, Garland city staff members: Felisa Conner and Chasidy Allen presented Community Asset Mapping.  This is strategy for a Vital Neighborhood or better explained as a process that in the end leads to the Neighborhood Vitality Grant (a ‘matching’ money grant – Garland will match the funds you raise for your neighborhood project you develop through this Community Asset Mapping process).   So, basically this session was teaching citizens to think of a project they want in their neighborhood, seek out other folks/businesses that want the same, decide what this will cost (all areas of cost: skills, money, property, opposition etc.), collect the capital including filing for the Neighborhood Vitality Grant.  In other words, the city is ‘training’  folks to look around and think of ways to spend your and your fellow neighbors’ tax money!   I believe most folks would rather have lower taxes and be able to decide for themselves what they want to purchase with their hard earned money!   Of course, the big question is: where is Garland getting the money for this grant?  This question was raised in the session and Felisa Conner replied that the money comes from the Bond of 2004.

 

These ‘enhancements’ are vague and therefore demand much more transparency for $11.2 million dollars of debt the citizens of Garland will be held liable for. Envision Garland will also have the city participating in the Consolidated Plan (these type plans are popping up all over America click here to see one similar to our in New York – a plan that is required (mandated) in order to receive federal housing and community development funding – a collaboration with CPD, HUD, CDBG, ESG(previously the Emergency Shelter Grants now Emergency Solutions Grants – I assume the name change is due to the scandals that occurred when Shelter was used), HOME, HOPWA, CHAS. Which in essence doesn’t sound so bad until you research all of these organizations and follow the money then the corruption starts to spill out.  To see the multiple layers of corruption in all of these organizations just click on the name acronym to go to websites that cover the reports of lawsuits against these organizations or convicted offenders within these organizations.  Typing the words ‘lawsuit against’ or the word ‘corruption’ along with the name of these organizations into your internet searches will provide you with an abundant of articles and pdf files of accusations, convictions and filings of corruption against these organizations.

 

The whole point to this is, we need to build Garland on sound money choices and freedom. We do not need to borrow huge amounts of money throwing Garland it to a debt that future generations will suffer from.  We don’t need to close the door to the free market only allowing these public private partnerships or ‘regulated’ i.e.  ‘ government approved’ companies a monopoly in our markets.  And for sure we don’t need to open the door to corrupted organizations.

 

Get involved! Start participating. Go to your city council meetings, ask questions, research, we need to watch what is going on. There is more to this story, it is up to us the citizens to find out. Our council is asleep at the wheel or lying to us – they don’t even know what organizations they are a member of or what organizations they are sending our tax dollars to. That is unacceptable.  I demand better!    We must get engaged.  Turn of the TV and instead do a little research, go to your city council meetings.  Choosing apathy is choosing complacency!   If we don’t act now, then we will get what they want us to have.   And I have news for you, we are getting nothing.   Worse than nothing, we are getting ‘taken to the cleaners’.

1 Comment

Filed under Articles

SMART METERS – What You Need to Know!

What is all the fuss about SMART METERS?   Those of you doing your best to pay attention have heard bits and pieces here and there.   Some of you might not have even heard of a SMART METER.  Then of course there are people out there like Cindy who have been researching, studying and speaking out about the indubitably serious concerns of Smart Meters.  Part of Cindy’s ethical and scrutinizing work on Smart Meters is visible in her document below.

SMART METERS –

What you NEED to know!

Brought to you by the creators of http://www.BanTexasSmartMeters.com

Invasion of Privacy • Overbilling • Damaged Appliances • Failed Security Tests

Remote A/C Power down • Fires upon Installation • Not Tested for Bio-Effects

Smart Meters have been approved by Federal and State law. However, they are NOT mandatory.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 section 3.1.1, very clearly establishes an OPTIONAL standard by which utilities are to offer “UPON REQUEST net metering service to any electric consumer”.

Why is it then, that Oncor’s spokespersons, Catherine Cuellar and Chris Schein, have both stated publicly that if a customer refuses to accept a smart meter, then Oncor would remove the analog meter, and the customer would effectively be disconnected? This policy, allowed by the PUC, is also practiced by the installation techs in the field. It is a blatant example of Oncor’s abrupt treatment of customers if they show any concern or resistance. I have heard many reports from customers who have been coerced with threat of illegal immediate service disconnection by field techs if customers refuse the new meter. This is clearly a violation of the TX PUC Substantive Rules Ch. 25requiring a written Disconnection Notice! If this has happened to you, please contact the PUC immediately!

Smart Meters Not Ready for Prime-Time

Smart Meters are Not Secure .

    Why did our Legislature and PUC allow the Utility Co’s to “Leap first, Look later?”

●     Why was this very important step ignored?

    Did you know that there are no established standards for the security of these smart meters?

The reliability of the new meter’s security has been left up to the Utility Companies and manufacturers, and as a result they fall frighteningly short. Now that upwards of 8 million meters have been installed in Texas alone, TDU’s like Oncor have decided NOW it is time to test the meters for security. *One such company that was employed to test 3 different Utility Company’s meters’ security was ‘InGuardian’. Senior security analyst Joshua Wright, said his firm found “egregious” errors, such as flaws in the meters and the technologies that utilities use to manage data from meters. “Even though these protocols were designed recently, they exhibit security failures we’ve known about for the past 10 years!” Wright said. Even though, the meters scramble the data, they ‘put the keys to it right by the door’, according to Mr. Wright. [*Source – Mar. 2010, NBC-DFW, AP]  If we can’t believe Oncor when they claim the meters are “secure”, how can we possibly rely upon other claims?

Violation of our 4th Amendment Rights

Invasion of Privacy

It is a well known fact that the purpose of the Smart Meter is to ‘monitor’ your electricity consumption, providing data to Oncor and/or your Electricity Provider. This data is not merely a usage total for the month, (which is really ALL the information needed to bill you), but it is recorded virtually in real time. Then it sends your data wirelessly every 15 minutes to a collection point. This consumption data, however, holds within it the imprint of a ‘digital fingerprint’ of every electricity-using device used in the home. Even though the utility company says they do not look at such ‘granular data’, nevertheless, it is retrieved. Consumers were never given the opportunity to consent to the collection of that data. In Texas, your data belongs to you. That begs the question, if it is MY data, then why have I not been asked permission by the PUC, Oncor or the Electric Co. to collect MY data? Do they think they are above the law? Why does the PUC allow them to get away with this? This violation of privacy is happening all over Texas, as well as everywhere smart meters are installed. Is there any wonder why there is a vast market emerging of corporations competing to get a hold of this private information with the intent on mining the data for profit that comes from these meters?

Is this ‘data collection’ or ‘monitoring’ actually surveillance?I believe it is, and here’s evidence as to why. The utilities industry documentation states that the purpose of the smart meter is to monitor consumers in order to change (control) consumer’s habits or usage patterns. In fact, without such changes, no real savings would be realized. So, I found it interesting that the Oxford English Dictionary defines “Surveillance” this way: “it is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing, or protecting.” This makes the point clear that the monitoring of the smart meters is surveillance, thus violating our 4th Amendment rights, i.e. the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…”

Overbilling – Fact or Fiction?

In 2010, public outcry about outrageously high bills (2-3X and sometimes more), reached a fever pitch in the Dallas area where about a million smart meters had recently been installed. As a result, the PUC directed Oncor to test the meters for accuracy. Oncor contracted with Navigant Consulting for the testing. However, the PUC displayed their lack of concern for the consumer by allowing the continuation of the meter installation during the testing, despite public pressure to the contrary. Although, the Navigant Report found malfunctioning meters as well as other problems, Oncor spokespersons continue to simply state that the Navigant Report shows that the “new meters are extremely accurate”. How can that be a true statement when a number of meters were found to be in error, and were usually running faster than they should, resulting in overbilling? One particular type of meter was showing an event code of 2118, and at least 439 of these were quietly removed from service. I did not find evidence showing that Oncor remedied any overbilling. Additionally, the Navigant Report revealed Oncor’s lack of a proactive response, as they scolded Oncorsaying that if Oncor had responded promptly to the event codes when they first appeared, the problems that resulted could have been avoided. Oncor’s unacceptable conduct seems to be in keeping with behavior typical of the monopolies of the 19th century, showing very little concern for their customers’ abundant complaints. Despite testing, many customers are still experiencing extraordinarily high bills, and yet are just told their extremely high bills are due to weather.

What about Health Effects?Oncor’s stance is “We follow all the FCC guidelines.”

Side effects reported by people in our community:

●   Ringing in the ears when trying to sleep in their bedroom which has the wall with the ‘smart meter’.

●   Heart palpitations started when their neighbor got a smart meter.

●   Brain-fog, agitated sleep.

●   Started having insomnia.

It is no coincidence that all of the symptoms named fall into the category of symptoms of those who have EHS, which means that they may be electromagnetically (EMF) sensitive. Many studies point to the negative effects of EMF, and the potential negative long term effects! The FCC guidelines in over 10 years and do not take into account non-thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation. We need to demand that the FCC update EMF exposure guidelines! The meters, to my knowledge, have not been tested for how often or how much RF they produce within their mesh environment , which would likely have different results than the tests done on one meter inside the lab. Tell the PUC you want this kind of testing, as well as security testing before they install any more meters! Go to http://www.puc.state.tx.us and start with an informal complaint.

FOR MORE DETAILS, F R E E DOWNLOADABLE 100+ PAGE BOOK, AND TEXAS SPECIFIC INFORMATION on how to Preserve your Rights and Join the Fight!

VISIT US AT http://www.BanTexasSmartMeters.com, or email me at Cindy@BanTexasSmartMeters.com

5 Comments

Filed under Articles