Norris, a pro-abortion Democrat, joined about 25 protesters at an April 12 rally on University Grounds to call for an end to feline intubation. This procedure allows medical residents to practice putting tubes down cats’ throats in anticipation of later using the technique to save lives of human babies.

According to a report in the April 13, 2012 Daily Progress, “Norris the Red” called the feline testing process “cruel and unnecessary.”

The Progress story clarifies that no cats have died as a result of the process. Dr. Sandy Feldman, attending veterinarian to subject cats compared the procedure’s aftermath to a “sore throat.”

Sadly, Norris’s concern for “cruel and unnecessary” procedures performed on cats does not extend to human babies, thousands of whom have been (and continue to be) aborted at the University of Virginia Medical Center—just steps away from the UVa “save the cats” rally.

Whether pleading for the comfort of cats or declaring the rights of trees, godless Charlottesville leftists, inspired by morally confused “leaders” like Dave Norris and David Toscano, continue to miss the forest for the trees. And while Charlottesville cats may now be more comfortable in life, Charlottesville babies continue to suffer unspeakable, torturous deaths (warning extremely graphic photo) in the name of “choice.”

An October 17 Daily Progress story trumpets the lawless group’s intentions for the park, if they are granted special permission to camp there:

Occupy Charlottesville protesters asked the City Council on Monday to suspend the 11 p.m. curfew in Lee Park, which they are occupying.

Speakers from the group said that they feel the group is within the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, in that they want to keep the park safe, clean and healthy. [emphasis added]

A November 19 OC Facebook posts again states the group’s objective to maintain the park:

We will be having group park clean-up over the next few days to get the park neat and shiny: Tonight at 6pm, Sunday 10am, and Monday 10am. Feel welcome to stop by and pitch in whenever you can though. The to-do list includes: Trash/recycling/compost disposal, Common tent re-organization, Leaf raking, Sign posting, General pick up, additional seating. Any more needs we can be sure to cover? [emphasis added]

The Special Events Permit issued to Occupy Charlottesville clearly delineates the group’s practical and financial responsibilities upon their departure:

• Any damage to park shrubbery, flower beds and or trees resulting from your organization’s special event will require reimbursement for any repairs or replacement
• Participants will be responsible for cleaning up the park area after the event.

Charlottesville City Public Works crews were on hand at Lee Park shortly after 7:00 this morning, attempting to deterg the site prior to public observation of the Occupiers’ reproach—an aftermath of filthy refuse.

While the fraction is the same, the numbers have been flipped. When it comes to bearing the financial burden for restoring Lee Park to usable condition, 1% made the mess, but 99% will pay to clean it up.

View the Lee Park “trashed” pictures that Charlottesville City doesn’t want you to see:

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

As predicted by The Schilling Show yesterday, OC members planned to move their makeshift tent city to from Charlottesville’s Lee Park—where the protest has resided since October—to George Rogers Clark Park on the Corner, which apparently rests on University grounds.

An open letter to OC from UVa Chief Operating Officer, Michael Strine, makes it clear that the University will not tolerate violation of their property and threatens potential Occupiers with citation and prosecution. A University Police car stationed at the Clark site this afternoon shows that UVa means business.

Occupier Jon Grainger, in today’s Daily Progress said OC’s fallback location is the “free speech wall” on Charlottesville’s downtown mall, directly in front of City Hall—a site recommended by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute.

Downtown merchants, at the height of their Christmas selling season, certainly would take issue with such relocation. In this event, how will Charlottesville’s invertebrate, incompetent City Fathers respond, now having painted themselves into a very tight Corner?

Read Michael Strine’s open letter to Occupy Charlottesville:

November 30, 2011

 

Dear Members of Occupy Charlottesville:

We understand from news reports last night that members of your group may intend to establish an indefinite encampment at the University of Virginia.  By way of this open letter to your membership, we are providing notice to you as soon as reasonably practicable that such an encampment will not be permitted on the University’s Grounds.

While the University cherishes and protects robust exercise of the rights protected by the First Amendment, the University must continue to fulfill its core functions of education and patient care.  The erection of camping structures on the University’s Grounds would impair our mission by diverting necessary resources from our core functions.  Such an encampment also would create significant health, hygiene, and safety problems for the University community and the citizens we serve.  Quite simply, the University is not a campground and is not set up to support an indefinite encampment.

By providing this notice to you in advance, we are hopeful that you can plan accordingly.  The University will take enforcement action to prevent the attempted establishment of an encampment on University property including issuing Trespass Notices and the subsequent enforcement of such notices, if necessary.  We also remind any of your membership who previously may have been issued Trespass Notices for prior conduct on University Grounds that such notices continue to remain in full force and effect and will be enforced.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

 

Michael Strine

Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer

Growing pressure from the North Downtown Residents Association and frustrated downtown businesses and merchants—all of whom are tired of the Occupation’s negative impact on their lives and livelihoods—finally has forced reluctant Charlottesville City Councilors to make a decision on the future of Lee Park. In a November 28 Daily Progress article, Mayor Dave Norris stated that permission for a 24/7 encampment will end soon.

Unwilling to take a public vote on the subject of the ongoing Occupation, City Council is desperately seeking a painless exit from their self-created political quagmire. McIntire Park has been suggested as a new, less offensive commorancy, but on their own web site, Occupiers have expressed concern that the location:

1. Does not offer free wi-fi
2. Is not pedestrian friendly
3. Is too far from soup kitchens
4. Does not fit the Constitutional definition of a public forum

With such backlash against McIntire, city administrators clandestinely have proposed relocating the Occupiers to the George Rogers Clark (GRC) statue site, adjacent to the University of Virginia and the Corner.

City Hall officials have contacted management at the Red Roof Inn—located in the immediate vicinity of the alternate destination—to alert them to the prospect of new “neighbors” in the ‘hood. Red Roof management has expressed concern over potential crime and sanitation issues, as well as negative business impacts, should the Occupation migrate to the Corner.

The entitled Occupiers have not wholly embraced the notion of transposition from Lee Park against their collective will, commenting on the proposition:

• We should make a statement that we will decide if/where to move in the future.
• Mayor says that we ARE leaving, that’s not a decision we’ve come to yet.
• The issue is not whether or not we can occupy parks. That has been agreed on at City Council. The issue is which park. Lee Park is the best and that’s why we chose it. Lets dig in our heels here!

Further complicating the issue is a November 28 press release from the Rutherford Institute in the form of an open letter to Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris. Rutherford founder and president, John Whitehead, suggests that any location not within a “reasonable distance” from Charlottesville City Hall is unacceptable for the purpose of continued “free speech” as currently being exercised by Occupy Charlottesville. He proffers that Occupiers relocate to the First Amendment Plaza, which stands immediately in front of Charlottesville City Hall:

First, the city should encourage protesters to make full use of the space which is presently home to the First Amendment Plaza. In light of the fact that the First Amendment monument, which is situated in the area outside City Hall, includes a podium “intended to serve as a contemporary soapbox from which individuals may address both planned and impromptu public gatherings,” this would seem to be a natural place for individuals wanting to petition their government for a redress of grievances. If the city chooses to look elsewhere, it should keep in mind that any such forum must be within a reasonable distance of City Hall so as to ensure the visibility of any potential protestors. To place such a forum away from the seat of government would effectively nullify the space’s purpose. To this end, we have concerns about McIntire Park as a proposed venue.

So, what is a Marxist Mayor to do?

Let the Occupiers stay in Lee Park and risk further political alienation of the neighbors? Not a chance.

Accept Rutherford’s recommendation for a Downtown Mall “free speech” Occupation marathon? Over the merchants’ dead bodies, especially at Christmastime.

Relocate the Occupiers to another park site within city limits? Possibly; but no real purpose is served by moving elsewhere legal, social, and sanitation problems inherent in the Occupation—a temporary fix, at best.

Norris and his spineless Keystone Kouncilors have capitulated to Occupiers’ lawlessness by rewarding them with unprecedented political and financial favoritism and by mollycoddling them with undeserved gratuity. In remunerating lawbreakers with misplaced charity, councilors have created a dangerously false expectation of continued leniency—a mirage that sadly may vanish in a haze of pepper spray should push come to shove.

27% live in poverty
One-party tyranny
Low paying jobs
Occupy Cville mobs
Cost of living through the roof
Power elite, arrogant and aloof

World Class, my a$$

Wasteful art in place
Disrespect for the black race
Public housing disgrace

World Class, my a$$

Former mayor beats his wife
Lacrosse player takes a life
Feel good, checkbook philanthropy
Blood money from Albemarle County

World Class, my a$$

Sister cities number three
Self-satisfied as can be
Self-designated “World Class” city
City-County enmity
$7 million to re-brick the Mall
Christmas bonuses for all

World Class, my a$$

School system failing AYP stings
Tablets forced on parents with costly strings
Millions wasted to reconfigure schools
School board is ship of fools

World Class, my a$$

UVA, arrogance beyond compare
Pay up or sit elsewhere
Health System doesn’t care
Serpentine walls
Know-it-alls

World Class, my a$$

Landmark eyesore
Bureaucrats spending galore
City Manager over his head
Good thing Mr. Jefferson is dead

World Class, my a$$

We had a night to remember at the abortuary on Commonwealth Drive…just around the corner from the Pregnancy Centers of Central Virginia.

Normally one or two pro lifers show up with their signs and their prayers. Today the parking lot was already half filled by the time the first pro lifer arrived. It’s easy to get discouraged and today looked like it was going to be another long night… but that is not what God had planned. Today was going to be different because the silent cries of the unborn were not only heard by God, but there was a response by his faithful servants.

Their names are not as important as their mission, but maybe you know them? Chaney, Avery, Martha, Christina, Steve, Katarina, and Lauren all gave up their evening to serve God on a very special night. A night that would reveal the weakness of men and the strength of God.

It started when Martha walked up the abortion clinic driveway which is shared by an accountant’s office next door and stood on the edge of the accountant’s grass. She invited the others to join her and quickly they formed what appeared to my eyes to be a pro life line of defense. The previous week the accountant had given Martha permission to stand on his land to reach out to mothers and fathers considering abortion. The clinic staff were furious and had been complaining about the presence of persistent pro lifers who refused to walk away or give ground.

And today was no different. The clinic staff came out and Martha told them they had permission to be there, but the permission wasn’t simply from the accountant.  Pro lifers had answered the call long before that accountant knew of their existence. Their permission was of a spiritual nature — they had permission from God who calls us to serve in Him a fallen world on the sidewalk and driveway of an abortion clinic that to the untrained eye looks like an ordinary house.

The staff didn’t take matters into their own hands just yet… instead they decided to call the police.

And soon four police cruisers were on site, but those courageous pro lifers didn’t surrender. Instead they all knelt and began to pray. It was beautiful to see courage in the face of conflict. The headlights of one of the police cars was shining on them as passersby in cars craned their necks to see what was going on in the abortuary parking lot, but those police headlights did not shine nearly as brightly as the light of God’s spirit in that parking lot.

That spiritual light burned so bright that not even the abortionist could ignore it. And we’re not talking about just any abortionist.

The abortuary is owned by Dr. William Fitzhugh who has been performing abortions across the state of Virginia for decades and has been a leading advocate for partial birth abortion, even going so far as to be a named plaintiff in a federal lawsuit to keep partial birth abortion legal.  Last year his clinics stole the lives of 3,733 innocent Virginians … 415 were babies from the Charlottesville community.

The clinic staff were hoping the police would solve their problem and remove these pro lifers from the premises.

The police called the accountant to confirm that he had given the pro lifers permission to stand on his property — not only did they have permission to stand on the grass but according to the police the dividing line was the middle of the driveway! The pro lifers could now stand even closer than they had imagined. As time wore on post abortive mothers and fathers began to walk toward their cars with pro lifers praying and holding signs closer than they had ever been in the history of the spiritual battle for life in Charlottesville. They were so close they could see the pain and the shame in the eyes of the mothers and fathers.

Those moms and dads were told that God loved them and could heal them. They were told about ministries that were waiting for them such as Rachel’s Vineyard.

This would have been a miraculous night if nothing else happened, but God was just getting warmed up. The doctor who had ignored too many pro lifers to count was suddenly acutely aware of their presence outside of his clinic. He walked out of the abortuary in scrubs and stood on the back porch of the house where thousands upon thousands of innocent lives have been stolen and looked at the pro lifers who could be seen from the back porch for the first time in his career aborting babies in Charlottesville.

And then Dr. Fitzhugh heard the same words he’d been hearing for weeks, “It’s not too late to change!”

But unlike all of those other days when he dismissed the pro lifers and went about his grisly work, today he responded to those words and walked toward them. “I’m sorry, I didn’t catch that?”

“It’s not too late too change!”

He shook his head and walked closer still, “I didn’t catch that?”

“It’s not too late to change!”

Closer and closer… and the words were repeated over and over until he was face-to-face with the pro lifers who were still standing there late into the night.

“You shouldn’t be bullying people out here!” Dr. Fitzhugh said with as much courage as he could muster, but he wasn’t dealing with his office staff or lukewarm Christians. He was standing nose-to-nose with servants of God who were sent to rescue the unborn, their parents, and him.

He was shown the picture of a baby in the womb and reminded that his job is to dismember babies who are defenseless against him and that is the definition of a bully. “I’m not a bully! I’m here to help women.” He retorted.

Dr. Fitzhugh, like so many other misguided physicians, has deluded himself into believing that abortion is good for women. Even when it was pointed out that a woman had left his clinic five minutes ago who was obviously in great pain and suffering he didn’t break from the script. A few moments later he was presented with another more powerful example when he was asked about a young Muslim man who was in his clinic last week begging and pleading with his girlfriend to spare their baby. That young man had come out three times to talk to the pro lifers who did their best to encourage him and told him to go in back in and rescue his child and tell his girlfriend that God loved her and that he loved her too.

We never shared that story because it was so painful.

When that young man drove into the clinic parking lot the look in his eyes are forever etched in my memory. I don’t know if words can adequately capture it, but I imagine it’s how I would look if I were lost at sea and drifting on an old piece of wood after giving up any hope of rescue — and then opening my eyes and seeing the distant outline of land. Hope… that is what I saw in his eyes.

He didn’t even bother to go into the clinic — he went straight to the pro lifers who were standing on the sidewalk and in tears he asked if they thought he was going to hell. He stated that he knew his girlfriend was going to hell, but he wasn’t sure if he would go there since he had tried everything to save his baby. He took all of the pro lifers literature and listened to their suggestions and went into clinic three times to save his baby.

And three times he came out unsuccessful and frustrated. I remember the sound of the abortuary door slamming shut after his third attempt and the look of disgust on his face as he sat on the steps and pondered the impending death of his baby. I was also feeling frustrated that nothing was working. Earlier in the day a pro lifer said with 100% confidence, “We don’t have to worry… God has this one under control. I don’t know why… but he does… it’s going to work out.”

I wanted to believe it, but after the third time I was running out of words. To be honest, I was running out of hope.  I thought about risking getting arrested and going into the abortuary myself and talking to his girlfriend directly. Maybe if I could look into her eyes she would know that her baby would be cared for even if it was a complete stranger. I asked God for a special intervention… even though I knew that God loves all of his children equally and is no respecter of persons.

I wanted to tell the world about the miracle of a young man who had friends he had never met waiting for him at the abortuary. I wanted to see the smile on his face and her face… but that’s not what happened. He went in a fourth time and we waited, and waited, but he never came out again. Finally we went home disappointed that we didn’t get to see a miracle that night, but we knew there would be other nights — even if we would never be able to erase the memory of a young man desperately trying to save his baby with the help of pro lifers who were praying and advocating with every gift God had given them.

I walked away that night convinced that somehow we had failed that Muslim boy. The last words I heard him say was that he wanted her to suffer for what she was about to do to their child.

And now we were staring at the doctor who stole that child’s life and played a role in destroying the relationship of a mother and father. I wanted to hear his justification for hurting a man who was powerless to save his child, but I wasn’t prepared for his answer.

“I know exactly who you’re talking about… she didn’t have an abortion that night. She changed her mind.”

Dr. Fitzhugh had no idea what he had just told us. Long after we had given up and gone home to begin the grieving process and question our inability to win the victory — God was still there fighting. And God was victorious.

This abortion story captures the weakness of men. Even when we’re told God has it under control we still manage to see the all ways that it cannot happen. How it’s just not possible. But God is faithful to the very last possible moment even after every human effort up to that point has failed.

The spiritual battle surrounding abortion is just another shining example of how God is triumphant.

“But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” – Matt. 19:26

In a desperate attempt to justify his abominable pro-abortion, pro-Planned-Parenthood voting record, Houck invoked Thomas Jefferson as one who would support a woman’s right to “make her own decisions,” as reported by the Daily Progress:

“As we stand here in front of Mr. Jefferson’s Rotunda, one of the principles that Jefferson always espoused was individual liberties and individual freedom,” Houck said. “Well guess what, my opponent made it very clear in a debate last night that he stands squarely opposite of what I believe and what Mr. Jefferson believes: that a woman has the personal freedom to make her own decisions.” [emphasis added]

Principled men of Jefferson’s day never would have supported abortion on demand as Houck does. They recognized that children were a gift from God—not a “punishment” and not to be bodily sacrificed at the altar of personal convenience.

But Houck also got it wrong in attributing to Jefferson a favorable outlook on women’s “personal freedom.” In fact, Jefferson pictured a woman’s place as in the home caring for her children. He also opposed American women taking an active role in politics as he’d observed French women doing in their homeland. A letter to George Washington made clear Jefferson’s position on women in politics:

The manners of the nation allow them to visit, alone, all persons in office, to solicit the affairs of the husband, family, or friends, and their solicitations bid defiance to laws and regulation . . . [Few Americans] can possibly understand the desperate state which things are reduced in this country from the omnipotence of an influence which, fortunately for the happiness of the sex itself, does not endeavor to extend itself in our country beyond the domestic line.

Professor Edd’s historical ignorance does not end with Jefferson, however. In an October 4 Daily Progress story, Houck implies that the Bible can be interpreted to support abortion. He further states that morality and God’s word is not absolute, but rather, relative:

“I think [pro-life theology] is one interpretation of what the holy scriptures say. I think it is an abomination to pull the Bible and to use churches in the way that my opponent is doing in this campaign. It’s way over the top. The holy scriptures are something that each person finds their own way of understanding and believing in…” [emphasis added]

So much for Edd’s historical grasp—such wildly inaccurate statements indicate an extreme level of desperation in Houck’s flailing re-election campaign as well as his dangerous ignorance of Jeffersonian history and Biblically based Christianity.

Edd Houck: Desperate. Ignorant.

Desperately ignorant.

In an October 24 Special Event Application, group representative, Bailee E. Hampton, stated in her own writing that “there is no official food distribution” at the demonstration.

Good thing, because if there was, the Application informs the applicant:

“A Temporary Food Permit will be required by the State Health Department (Thomas Jefferson Health District) located on Rose Hill Drive…”

In addition, a Special Events Certificate of Approval issued to OC by the City of Charlottesville includes the following language regarding food:

TEMPORARY FOOD PERMIT

No food or food items may be distributed or provided to participants without obtaining a Temporary Food Permit from the Thomas Jefferson Health District–Environmental Services Division. This is a State requirement. Food permits must be posted for public view unless otherwise requested by State Health Department.

Yet, a November 2 Occupy Charlottesville press release entitled “OCCUPY CHARLOTTESVILLE SEEKS HELP FROM COMMUNITY” directly contradicts the City’s conditional terms of Occupancy:

We would like to formally invite the public to attend our Occupation, and we challenge those who seek to divide the bottom 99% to come spend even one night in the cold with us. There is an especial need for social workers, teachers, security volunteers, counselors of all kinds, cooks, cleaners, campers and anyone seeking solidarity, community or camaraderie. We would like to welcome questions and comments in person at our camp, and are happy to engage in polite discussion at any hour. Please come in a spirit of nonviolence and respect, and bring your friends. There is free food and beverage available to anyone, as well as coats and blankets, books and tarps. All are welcome.  [Emphasis added]

A recent picture of the encampment’s open “kitchen” area (see below) shows what appear to be fresh bananas and bagels amidst prepackaged foods and other food supplies, openly displayed and seemingly placed for the taking. Local Health Department officials confirm that as of yesterday, no Temporary Food Permit had been issued to Occupy Charlottesville.

OC protest organizer, Evan Knappenberger, stated in a November 3 Daily Progress story that the group is a respecter of law:

“We believe in law and order,” Knappenberger said, explaining that both the city and the Occupy Charlottesville movement feel strongly about keeping Lee Park both safe and clean.

If so, where is the State-mandated Temporary Food Permit for Occupy Charlottesville’s self-described food preparation and distribution services?

If not, where is the Thomas Jefferson Health District and where is equal protection under the law?

Occupy Charlottesville’s illegal commandeering of Lee Park may have been given a pass by politically sympathetic City Hall Marxists, but State forgiveness of health-related transgressions is much less likely—especially considering the open and flagrant nature of continuing OC violations.

[Show as slideshow]

[View with PicLens]

An October 24 “Indemnity Release” and “Special Event Application” signed by Occupy Charlottesville representative, Bailee Elizabeth Hampton, definitively states that there will be no alcoholic beverages involved in this activity and that:

“We are not allowing alcohol or other substances”

In addition to ongoing “substance” abuse issues, personal safety of participants is of great concern. Today, Occupiers are asking, through a centrally posted “Camp Needs” bulletin board, for donation of 100 “rape whisles” [sic]. Connection between the arrests and the request is unclear, but the surprisingly frank appeal certainly signals a looming sense of danger in the Occupy encampment.

Prior to OC’s sanctioned occupation of Lee Park, Charlottesville City Council members lauded the organization as peaceful and well mannered. Public requests for “rape whisles,” however, seem incongruous with initial characterizations of Occupy Charlottesville, and perhaps belie the city’s stated trust in the Occupiers to “self-police.”

See Occupy Charlottesville’s “Rape Whistles” wanted posting:

For the last month, I have been trying to have Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings in Housing Unit #1 at the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail (ACRJ). I have met resistance at all levels.

The Program Activity director said point blank, no, to the use of all but a vacant classroom. Due to security reasons, inmates can’t use the classroom alone. But on the other hand, volunteers can come in for church, bible study, etc. You would think that there is more of a security risk where there is a non-inmate surrounded by inmates vs. inmates surrounded by inmates.

Nevertheless, I asked that we be allowed to use the gym. Physical recreation is allowed two hours per day, five days a week—one hour for walking, one for basketball. My request was, and is, for an hour to exercise our minds, working on recovery.

A large number of people are here for drug or alcohol related charges or convictions. What person in their right mind wouldn’t embrace people trying to help themselves with their addiction?

This problem with drug addiction is almost everywhere. Bluefield Police Chief, Harry Cundiff, stated in the Richmond Times Dispatch that 80% of crimes in his town are drug related. I would be the first to say that NA is not a cure-all for drug addicts, but NA is a non-profit fellowship of men and women for whom drugs had become a major problem. We are recovering addicts who meet regularly to help each other stay clean.

To the jail administration: What part of that don’t you understand?

You allow inmates to wax floors in this pod, why don’t you allow inmates to better themselves? And, you don’t have to pay us a $20 canteen bag at the end of the month because recovery is priceless; all we need is an opportunity.

ACRJ administrators, the ball is in your court; don’t drop it.

Neff, whose stated credentials primarily focus on social justice “philanthropy,” is a current board member of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP), an extremist, zero-population-growth “environmental” organization. She also is a co-chair of the “gender transformative,” web-based, TrueChild, whose stated vision is, “a world where every child can break through gender stereotypes, so they can be their true selves and reach their full potential.”

No stranger to controversy, Neff was accused by multiple sources of ethics breaches in her unsuccessful 2009 campaign for the Virginia House of Delegates 58^th District seat.

The announcement is scheduled for 10:00 AM at the Albemarle County Office Building.

While Charlottesville Democrats attempt to muster city support of the Accords’ implementation in Albemarle County, another subversive group has surfaced to further the Marxist, population control, and anti-property-rights agenda.

The Albemarle Responsible Citizens’ Alliance (ARCA)—headed by Progressive ringleaders Sally Thomas and Waldo Jaquith—defends the Accords as benign , merely reflecting the will of everyday people to ensure future communal “health”:

The Sustainability Accords being decried by the Tea Party were developed by a group of local citizens from the six localities of the district—a “diverse group of farmers, business people, foresters, environmentalists, developers and elected officials” who were charged with creating a vision for “a future where our economic, human, social, and environmental health are assured.” Over a period of four years, the group developed a mission statement, with goals, objectives, indicators and benchmarks, through a public process with forums and working groups. The Accords were presented to the public on June 16, 1998, were signed by citizens and local elected officials, and included as part of the comprehensive plans both Albemarle and Charlottesville.

Both Thomas and Jaquith are directly or philosophically aligned with the fanatical, zero-population-growth, Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP), and ARCA appears to be nothing more than a palatable, public front-end for ASAP’s extreme no-growth advocacy efforts.

ARCA and the Charlottesville Democrats also have friends working on the inside: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors members Ann Mallek (chair) and Dennis Rooker. Both repeatedly have expressed support for the 1998 Sustainability Accords, with Rooker publicly referring to conservative Accord skeptics as government “infiltrators.”

When confronted, Sustainability Accords advocates often refer to relatively complaisant aspects of the document: transportation alternatives, water quality, wildlife protection, etc.

But when parsed even mildly, the 1998 Sustainability Accords are far more sinister.

The primary Sustainability issue addressed in the document is “management” of “Human Population.” The Accords suggest government intervention in:

• Population growth
• Population distribution by racial, ethnic, age, education, income, and employment status
• Population “dynamics,” including human fertility

“Human Basic Needs” also are slated for proposed intercession. The Accords seek government guarantees for community members’:

• Adequate daily nutrition
• Adequate clothing
• Adequate housing
• Optimal health
• Realization of “full potential” through education
• Adequate and affordable transportation access
• Employment that offers just compensation, fulfillment, and opportunities for advancement

The Accords seek government involvement in community “Values and Ethics” by:

• Ensuring “equitable sharing” of societal “benefits and costs”
• Creating conditions that promote a “healthy balance” of “wealth, power, and privilege”
• Insinuating government-approved conflict resolution tools into private disputes
• Encouraging public and private “institutions” to evaluate “ethical responsibilities”
• Manipulating local media and schools into promotion of the Sustainability agenda

The Accords authorize government to promote its own growth and power via:

• Advocacy of community organizing
• Encouragement of individuals’ “full involvement” in government
• Re-education in areas of “self-sacrifice” and “self-restraint”
• Increased availability of “government services”
• Implementation and continuation of “progressive” and “equitable” taxation schemes (N.B. Progressive taxation is a plank of the Communist Manifesto)

The 1998 Sustainability Accords also seek to:

• Monitor and evaluate personal “savings” levels (i.e. individuals’ money in the bank)
• Enhance citizens’ economic “understanding”
• Micro-manage types and sizes of locally operating businesses
• Obtain full government control over the size, “appropriate” scale, location, use, recreational aspects, and interconnectability of all new development
• Promote alternative transportation systems that are “non-polluting” (i.e. bicycle and pedestrian) at the expense of personal automobile travel
• Provide “free” public Internet access
• Mandate expensive “green” building techniques and construction materials
• Control the economic, environmental, social, and political “interdependence” (relationship) between local urban and rural areas
• Achieve “international marketing” of local forest and agricultural products
• Promote consumption of local products at the expense of free markets, through government subsidy and market manipulation
• Increase government control over private lands through promotion of publicly financed “conservation easements”
• Equate the value of plant and animal life with that of human life (N.B. The preservation of unborn humans is not considered an element of human sustainability in the 1998 Sustainability Accords.)

Thirteen years later, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC)— lead applicant in the  $1,000,000 HUD grant—on their web site has “sanitized” and summarized the 1998 Sustainability Accords as follows:

The 1998 Sustainability Accords are both a first step and a final product. The fifteen statements were distilled from a far larger set of objectives and concerns, using two criteria: the urgency or immediacy surrounding the objective and the degree to which it is related to the other objectives. Highest priority was assigned to those objectives for which reliable, factual information could be obtained. These data allow for the measurement of trends, either toward or away from sustainability.

• Encourage and maintain strong ties between the region’s urban and rural areas
• Strive for a size and distribute the human population in ways that preserve vital resources
• Retain the natural habitat
• Ensure water quality and quantity are sufficient to support people and ecosystems
• Optimize the use and re-use of developed land and promote clustering
• Promote appropriate scale for land uses
• Retain farm and forest land
• Develop attractive and economical transportation alternatives
• Conserve energy
• Provide educational and employment opportunities
• Increase individual participation in neighborhoods and communities

This beneficent description is a far cry from the insidious planks of the source. Interestingly, the TJPDC does not provide a link to the original Accords from this page, which is entitled, “The 1998 Sustainability Accords.”

Supervisor Rooker and others Accords defenders deceptively have pointed to this version of the Sustainability Accords as the foundation for future regional “planning,” ignoring the actual document upon which the HUD grant was premised.

Perhaps as frightening as the Accords, themselves, is the Charlottesville Region Sustainability Implementation Plan —designed to facilitate full implementation of the 1998 Sustainability Accords through the $1,000,000 HUD grant.

The Implementation Plan calls for:

• Unified code and ordinance changes for Albemarle County and Charlottesville to further the referenced Sustainability goals
• Incorporation of Sustainability strategies into local government comprehensive plans and the Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan
• Development of “systems for changing behavior on the part of individuals and institutions”
• Dispersion of poverty
• Focus on “socioeconomic inequity”
• “Shifting demand” from automobile travel to transit, bike, and pedestrian travel
• Unifying land use and transportation goals for Albemarle County and Charlottesville
• Economic development that provides jobs for “individuals with average levels of education”
• Formation of a Regional Transit Authority
• Reduction of “green house” gasses
• Official government acknowledgement of man-made climate change “science”
• Sustainable adaptation to man-made climate change (i.e. global warming)
• Taxpayer subsidized energy retrofits for housing and business
• Recommendations to reduce transportation and housing “access barriers” for children and seniors (intergenerational Sustainability)
• Development and implementation of Sustainable strategies for housing
• Taxpayer funded “affordable housing” subsidies
• Wide-spread changes in land use
• Reduced emphasis on traffic congestion mitigation and improving road safety
• Measurement of personal vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
• Government limitations on VMT and personal automobile use
• Avoidance of “undue” impacts on individual property rights

The ten-page Soviet-style implementation manifesto emphasizes government-induced “behavior change” for local citizens, businesses, and organizations—the words, “behavior” and “behavior change” referenced 21 times throughout. The behavior change process is given special emphasis in the Implementation Plan:

Task #5: Plan for Behavior Change Processes

Changing behavior in favor of sustainability on the part of both individuals and organizations is a critical component of actually implementing sustainability. Long term, permanent sustainability requires changes to the processes that shape the built environment. But the built environment changes very slowly. In the short term the most immediate gains in sustainability can be achieved by changing behaviors on the part of individuals and organizations. It is expected that as part of this project, a few key behaviors will be identified that, if changed, would greatly benefit the overall sustainability of the Charlottesville/Albemarle metropolitan area. This task is designed to prepare a plan for the process that would need to be put in place to bring about those changes in behavior.

In short, the 1998 Sustainability Accords (and the 2011 Implementation Plan) are pure poison.

Proponents can wrap them in a sustainable bow.

They can conceal them with sustainable lipstick.

They can characterize them as sustainable principles of “equity” and “justice.”

Still, they are poison.

The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, in conjunction with its Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville partners, is conspiring to commit a massive fraud. The TJPDC’s proposed implementation of the 1998 Sustainability Accords is a direct assault on the liberties of its own citizens. The inherent threat to property rights—the foundation of Constitutional freedoms—is real and acknowledged. Citizens must not relinquish God-given, Constitutionally protected rights to elected and appointed big-Government authoritarians, no matter how nicely they ask or what they promise in return.