Project 7B Filled with Red Flags for Bonner County
by Shari Dovale
I was just sent this document. It is a report called “Growth, Land Use, and Planning in Bonner County, Idaho.” This is the result of a $12,000 grant from University of Utah’s law school . I had to wonder how talking to 30 people could cost so much money and why the University of Utah law school was interested in North Idaho?
It is being promoted by a new group of organizers called Project 7B.
Admittedly, I have not had time to delve deeply into it, but I intend to do so. I did peruse the document and noted several passages that were of concern to me.
Here are my first thoughts.
A couple of – specialists – in “Metropolitan Planning” from the University of Utah came to rural Bonner County to discuss how to address environmental and public policy. They began by selecting 30 specific people to interview and on which to base their “study.”
In 2014, the listed population for Bonner County was 41,585 (28% urban, 72% rural). Therefore, they spoke to less than 0.1% of the population, with few, if any, of them being in the majority “rural” based on their statements in the report.
Page 3:
During the summer and fall of 2016, Environmental Dispute Resolution Program staff conducted in-‐depth confidential interviews with 30 individuals representing a diverse range of stakeholder groups in Bonner County, Idaho
Page 12:
A number of interviewees said there is a faction of very conservative and very pro-‐private property and anti-‐regulation folks residing in Bonner County, and that more people with this ideological leaning are moving into the area. They felt this group tends to be very politically active and divisive, and expressed concern that the growing presence of this contingent is causing additional tension in Bonner County.
This tells me that this is an attempt at manipulating public policy on land use and private property in Bonner County. They want people to believe that they have a consensus of the population, with the exception of a few ‘extremists.’
Yet, they continue to repeat their main concerns:
Page 17:
As noted above, multiple interviewees expressed concern about increasingly divisive politics at the local and national level, and the effect this seems to be having on community character and local decision-‐making
They have come down hard on the County Commissioners and suggest the current policy be changed BACK to previous standards. This tells me that there could be some ‘disgruntled’ employees within their less-than-0.1% demographic discussions.
There appear to be intentions to alter policy on water rights, as well.
Page 7:
However, they differed in their perspectives about the extent to which recent changes in county land use planning, regulations, and permitting requirements presented a risk to water quality. They also held differing perspectives regarding the role that government planning and regulation should play in protecting water quality and water bodies
This report is obviously a part of Agenda 21/2030. It is interesting that their 30 interviewees are right on board with the talking points:
Page 8:
It is also important to note that interviewees generally steered away from using the term “smart growth,” indicating that term has developed a negative stigma that might get in the way of productive conversation about how to achieve “good growth” and avoid “bad growth”
Page 10:
…streamlining should not come at the expense of achieving the intended goals of government departments, programs, and policies.
Page 11:
…some interviewees identified the meaning of “freedom” and “whose freedom to do what” as points of tension. For example, interviewees noted that some people in the county seem to prioritize the freedom to do what they want on their properties and/or to carry guns, whereas others prioritize the freedom to move around freely and/or to not feel threatened by other community members carrying guns.
As I said in the beginning, this was recently sent to me and I have not gone through it in depth. However, I see multiple red flags within Project 7B, and I am concerned that this will slip through the cracks and the NWO Progressives will use this as their tool to further their agenda.
Bonner County is already very low in private land ownership. It is estimated that less than 15% of this county is privately owned, and approximately 2/3 of the county is already unavailable to the public.
The red flags suggest that we could easily lose more of our lands.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews
I agree whole-heartedly with the author’s comments and the subsequent editorial comment offered by Ms. Ollie, a fellow student of (CSG). The desired result of 7B’s efforts is to effect agenda 2030 in Bonner County through the existing planning and zoning structure. It is much more than a foot in the door. Inconspicuous compromise to current political structure is dangerous and a progressive leftist goal. I can not urge readers enough…, go to https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/C3LSTB8 and take the Delphi-technique survey. Scrolling through the survey you’ll see leftist terminology. Tell them in the open answer boxes that we want neither regionalization or lobbyist outsiders attempting to influence our local politics. Tell them their scheme is transparent and unwelcome.
First off, one has to wonder if this is about some sort of regional planning/government. It’s an important topic as erasing the political boundaries established by our Founding Fathers is dangerous. We have vertical and horizontal design and separation for a reason. Built in is a system of checks and balances. For example, state government has a legislative, executive, and judicial branch. However regional governments do not have this separation or the checks and balances that come with. Classes offered by the Center for Self Governance really brought this home. The book “Regional Factors in National Planning” is an eye opener.