Mention the word sustainability in certain circles in McKinney and you may witness the same polarization that occurs with regularity in our nation’s capital. On the one side, sustainability is planned progress necessary for ensuring our city’s survivability into the future; on the other, sustainability is a plot by the United Nations to take away our freedoms.
Matt Frankel of Gresham, Smith, and Partners (GSP), the consulting firm engaged by the city, presented the Draft Sustainability Plan to council on Jan. 23. The plan is the culmination of four years of research and planning, gathering input from McKinney residents, community businesses and consultants. Its primary purpose (per the City’s website) “is to identify essential elements of community sustainability and provide analysis and guidelines for the implementation and/or furtherance of community initiatives to ultimately achieve a more sustainable McKinney.”
Sounds like a good idea, right? Well, not so fast, say some McKinney Tea Party members. It’s time to call it what it is, they say. “Sustainability” is a code word for Agenda 21, or is a stepping stone for a United Nations conspiracy plan to create a one world government that will usurp property rights and deprive Americans of their constitutional rights in order to ensure sustainable development.
Sound crazy? Not to them. These Tea Party members, or Agenda 21’ers, appear to be on a mission to stop all sustainability plans in communities across the Nation, often infiltrating sustainability planning meetings and displaying disruptive behaviors. And it’s happening right here in McKinney, Texas.
Many times, the Agenda 21’ers who attend these meetings don’t actually live in the community, but that doesn’t stop them from espousing their opinions. Personally, I resent the fact that individuals who don’t live in my community feel like they have the right to influence our own city leaders and citizens. Really? Isn’t this a rather hypocritical commentary on one of your most common arguments – it’s the right of citizens and leadership who governs to make decisions that are best for us because we know what is best on a local level better than anyone else? But, I digress.
The City of McKinney has gotten caught in the middle of the fray with Tea Party members expressing their dissatisfaction at Council meetings and emailing letters putting pressure on their Council representatives to vote against the Draft Sustainability Plan.
Some Tea Partiers view phrases in McKinney’s plan like “green space” or “comprehensive plan”, “sustainable development” as part of the conspiracy to take away their freedoms and property rights. They feel theses phrases put the community above the individual. The central Gov. wants to push citizens out of their property and into higher density developments. The tentacles of fear strangle reason like the vines of Kudzu slowly choking the life out of a healthy tree.
I asked local Tea Party leader Charles Molyneaux, who is a resident of Parker, to fill me in on why he feels the local Draft Sustainability Plan is so reprehensible.
After responding that he was too busy to answer my questions and that I needed to first do my homework, Molyneaux replied, “I am greatly concerned of the ramifications of any city that proceeds with Agenda 21 in any form, and so also should you. I am strongly against the infringements of personal rights. If you think that this plan was developed by the citizens of McKinney or by the citizens of other cities around the world that have endorsed similar plans you are very naive. Please do your research on Agenda 21, then ask yourself if this is something you would endorse. “
I may be naive, but the reality is that the one thing that we can always count on is change. With the higher gas prices, walking and biking to destinations is more on our minds than it was perhaps even 10 years ago. Locally, our experiences with last summer’s unrelenting high temperatures combined with drought has resulted in a greater awareness of water shortages that can potentially effect not only our home life, but the economics of our city and our state. Downtown McKinney has been evolving. It’s not the same downtown that it was 5 or 6 years ago, and that can be difficult for residents to embrace, particularly if it’s not the type of downtown that attracted them to McKinney in the first place.
Fear becomes pervasive. Fear of change, fear of the unknown – all understandable – begins to drive decisions and responses. Fear mongering, or scare mongering, doesn’t make for open communication and collaboration. Instead polarization increases.
But isn’t it imperative that our city, which was selected as the second best place to live in the country (2010) make plans to preserve the quality of life that is so important to our residents?
Businesses have to have plans in place to survive. I don’t know any successful businesses that simply throws spaghetti against the wall once a week to see what sticks in order to decide what to do that week. Planning is preparation – identifying priorities, providing clearer focus and producing more efficiency and effectiveness.
As I recently heard local futurist Carolyn Corbin say, “The future is never a continuation of the present.” Planning, as in a city’s comprehensive plan, is fluid. It is ever changing, with an eye on a particular goal. The way we arrive at that goal will change over the years.
What do some of the McKinney residents who participated in putting the Sustainability Plan together think?
Rick Moreno: I believe that attention to sustainability by individuals, companies and government entities is essential for stewardship of God's creation. This plan contains concrete and common sense ideas for helping our city save money and conserve resources. I have felt included in the process of developing this plan, and I feel the citizens of McKinney have been presented with a plan that gives us a good understanding of what can be accomplished.
I encourage the City Council to approve the plan, and I plan to attend meetings and communicate with the Council regarding a citizen's point-of-view."
Laurie Jay: We all live in different rooms under the same environmental roof if you will. Since our water, air and land are all shared resources that as we grow in numbers, more is consumed, I feel it’s imperative that a blueprint exist that relates future impact with decision-making. It’s a health and awareness issue; by conserving our natural resources we’re protecting our health. Preserving our “unique by nature” green canopy and designing safer bike path options for better air quality, seeking renewable energy options like wind and solar to reduce consumption and future costs, having guidelines in place to protect our water sources, all of these matter to me as a resident.
I don’t see how McKinney can remain competitive for economic growth without an intentional focus on protecting its citizen’s health. It’s been shown that businesses are only as healthy as the people that work there, so there are obvious productivity issues to consider. Neighboring cities seem to be developing more strategies to protect their environment. I want to know that I live in a city that is pro-active in conservation and values the well being of its residents and the earth.
Respectfully, because our Council was elected by citizens, and this plan was written from citizen input, I think it should be adopted in its entirety. I don’t believe we have to choose which part of the plan is more important, that’s like saying we all don’t depend on clean air, clean water and valuable open space for a healthy quality of life. Different parts of the plan will be implemented at different times dependent on the areas they affect, and from I understand from attending all three sustainability conferences, this has been written as a fluid plan that may evolve as our city grows and changes.
Dave Clarke: I strongly support the plan for many reasons, as it is imperative to the City’s long-term growth. I also serve as Chairman of the McKinney Parks and Recreation/Open Spaces Board. As an Engineer, I realize how critical these issues are to our long-term growth.
This plan provides positive direction to both City staff and it’s residents to better utilize our limited resources such as water and electricity by providing a blueprint for prudent use of these limited resources. It is critical for our successful growth to better utilize these and other limited resources to reduce waste and work together to be self sustaining and less dependent on outside resources.
Andrew H. Whittemore, an Assistant Professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of Texas, writes in an article entitled, "Why Planners Need to Take Agenda 21 Criticism More Seriously", ...planners shouldn’t shy away from providing lessons on what a laissez-faire approach to development actually means. It does not mean miles upon miles of detached housing with green lawns, dependent as that is on zoning, federal mortgage insurance, tax deductions, utility subsidies, eminent domain and other expenditures involved in road and water infrastructure, and more.
It's imperative that the City prepares for our future. We need a plan in place to ensure that our City's natural resources, economic sustainability and quality of life are intact for future generations. Don't let fear be the driving force in the decision making - finances, yes, but fear, no. I want my children and their children to experience a McKinney, Texas, should they choose to remain here, that can support their needs, don't you?
Printer-friendly version
Comments
Sustainability is a good
Sustainability is a good word. One that a responsible city will use not to overbuild, give out more building permits than it can handle and help with water, open space and development in a thoughtful way to help the city sustain and improve it's current way of life. The "tea party" needs to listen and learn that the stories they are getting from their leaders might just be a little paranoid. Listen to the city leaders and form your own opinions. Do not look for Conspiracy in a word. To sustain this city for the future is a good thing.
Ms. Bado, I noticed one word
Ms. Bado, I noticed one word kept resurfacing in your article..."fear". This word seems to flow rather easily off the lips of those that don't want change. This word was echoed initially during the city and school district's redistricting process. Fear results in one of two things: 1. Those engulfed in fear will become withdrawn and isolated 2. Those that partake in fear will act out in irrational ways.
Through the city's recent events, has anyone bothered to speak to those of us that participated in all three Sustainability meetings? Have the council members that attended these meetings given their perspective? Has Council done a comparison and contrast with the city's plans and studies versus the Sustainability Plan? If the city is already doing some of the things in the plan will they decide NOT to continue down that path because it would be considered "sustainable"?
Studying history has taught me that history repeats itself. The same aura displayed in this town when I was a child has returned with more vengeance. Now my children are encountering these obstacles. I'm reminded of a quote from a council member that you interviewed sometime back, "Ten years from now history will judge us on the choices we made". A decade from now I wonder what our report card will be?
Great comments on the fear
Great comments on the fear aspect.
I have spoken to many people who participated in all three of the Sustainability meetings. If you participated in all three meetings, I would love for you to weigh in with your thoughts about the plan, the process, etc. Council is currently looking at the Sustainability plan to see which items are feasible, which pieces are already in place and being executed. (according to the discussion at the Jan. 23 Council meeting.)
I will be more than happy to
I will be more than happy to share my perspective of all three meetings. For the record not all Tea Party members agree with the ones that have been the most vocal. Also, wasn't it Tea Party members that were trying to force President Bush to boycott the 2008 Olympic Games due to China's poor environmental standards?
I participated in the
I participated in the Sustainabiltity meetings and welcomed the two-way contact with City Staff and other residents. The residents were from many backgrounds. Sometimes, I was amazed at the breadth of their interests and input. Other times, I was surprised how narrow their focus. What I did not find, was anyone concerned about world government.
"Sustainability", is a trendy word, just like "unsustainable", and both are overused to the point they are almost meaningless. There were no sinister plots here, maybe some idealism, maybe a misguided daydream or two, no UN operatives promoting Agenda 21.
The McKinney Tea Party has not declared it's opposition to this plan. This chapter, formed in 2009, had 1000 members, people from every walk of life, who care about our city, our country and the future awaiting our children. In other words, committed to the "sustainability" of our nation and our way of life.
The people that you hear so stridently protesting, moved into a leadership vacuum with energy and an agenda of their own. They were not elected, do not live in McKinney and they do not speak for the membership of the McKinney Tea Party. An interesting irony...there has been no free discussion of this topic by the Tea Party at any meeting. Members who had participated in the open "Sustainability" meetings where their input was valued, were dismissed and lectured to.
Comprehensive planning means cities can be enriched by developments like Watters Creek, it does not mean the sacrifice of private property rights. It does not mean living in tenement housing. Public transporation means more room on the road for your cars, not taking your car away. Setting aside land and funding for parks is a proper function of government and has been for centuries. Recycling means we don't live with our own garbage. Others, looking ahead and planning for the future created the City of McKinney we love today and to keep it safe, we must be trusted to plan for tomorrow.
The Sustainabilty Plan does not have all the answers, but the effort and the interchange of ideas brings us closer to the solutions that can protect our way of life. The fundamental goals of the Tea Party are exactly the same.
Words like "green" or
Words like "green" or "sustainability" or "conservation", remind the Tea Party of an assault on their basic freedoms.
Words like "Tea Party" remind me of tin foil hats.
Hi Angie, I have a little
Hi Angie,
I have a little different perspective on “sustainability plans”. I was unaware of the Agenda 21 movement until I read your article so I cannot speak about their cause or intentions. I just have firsthand experience as a landowner who has dealt with all type of future land use plans or “sustainability plans”. My perspective would be and is different from maybe someone who lives in a neighborhood in McKinney and very different from a real estate developer that wants growth, growth, growth.
We have three family farms in Northern Collin County. I am the eighth generation land owner of these farms, my children are ninth generation. We are constantly bombarded with “plans” to encroach on our land or take our land via eminent domain. We also have been impacted as to what our use can be for our land all by different government entities or utilities that have the power to do so. Some examples of this are as straight forward as road expansions and then some are as bizarre as locating a fire station where one of our family homes are. Yes, one future land use plan has my parent’s home being the exact location for a “future” fire station. This same future land use plan also has designated around 20 acres of the same farm as a city park. We are not even in the city limits, we cannot vote for elected officials in the city, and we cannot run for any city office, but yet they can determine that our land and homes will be taken under eminent domain for a fire station and a city park. I would say that is violating our rights as property owners. You might think a solution to that issue would be annexation into the city for representation, but that brings another set of restrictions with city ordinances concerning fences, noise, trees, air quality, etc. The Public Utility Commission has proposed new power lines across our land and of course that will be taken eminent domain. There are four transportation projects that will take more of our land via eminent domain; one will take over twenty acres, and two projects cut across two different farms sectioning them up. We have also been denied the right to build a new home where we would like on a farm because a road is scheduled to go across the farm sometime in the next twenty years. I would say that is a violation of our property rights and even worse our ability to use the land as we wish. It is much more difficult to raise livestock and crops on small tracts of land. All of these infringements on property rights force family farms to be sold for development; which is the real goal of the government entities. They want us to sell-out and I have been told by many officials, that we will have to “take the money and run”. We do not want to sell-out. All of this is a result of the tremendous growth in Collin County. I maintain this growth cannot be sustained without impacting property rights.
It is interesting that many of our elected officials that approve these “sustainability plans” are in the real estate development business themselves. How is it that they are allowed to even suggest that in the future they can “take” private property to ensure that they can develop another project? It seems to me there is a real conflict of interest.
Water is another issue with sustainable growth that has a huge impact on all of the community. I am sure it is addressed in the proposed plan. My suggestion would be to impose a substantial fee for all new building permits from the water districts to help fund new resources or pay for the filtering of the water from Texoma so that the community has the water it needs.
I am in favor of trying to curtail development to some degree or at the very least impose large privilege fees to continue the urban sprawl that is eating up our rural way of life, so when they do force us to sell out, and they will, they can pay us handsomely for taking away our way of life, violating our property rights, and denying us our constitutional rights. It is always about greed and money isn’t it…..and I truly don’t want to be part of it, but I don’t know of any other way to protect my family land from their greed.
You raise some interesting
You raise some interesting points. The problem is the masses continue to come to North Texas and I attended a conference this week where we learned that major growth will continue - predicted 14 million in the Texas triangle by 2030 - so, water, land, trees, and energy are all things that have to be considered as we plan for that growth.
Sustainability means that we can plan for green space and not just keep building on every piece of land that exists between us and OK!
I feel your frustration, and rightfully so, which leads to perhaps the much bigger question here - how do we deal with such an enormous influx of people? Should there be a halt in development for some period of time? I don't have the answers, but there are obviously many aspects that need to seriously be considered and soon!
McKinney taxpayers have every
McKinney taxpayers have every right to check their wallets when city official begin using code words like "green", "financial responsible" and "sustainable".
Here is the quote from our former city manager about the old Collin County Courthouse on McDonald Street. "The best option for us now is to start over with a new building, keeping sustainability and cost-effectiveness in mind with the design and construction. Over the life cycle of 20 years, maintenance and operation of a new facility will save an estimated $20 million, and savings reach an estimated $40 million for 30 years, assuming annual cost increases of 5 percent." What a load. For an investment in excess of $9 million, our city replaced a structurally sound, overbuilt building and replaced it with a useless field that requires mowing, watering and fertilizing.
Don't get me wrong, I vigorously applaud the city staff for a proactive process that allowed citizens to have a open and active role in determining the vision for our city and I am grateful that my input into the bike plan was included. It would be a beautiful thing to be able to bicycle in McKinney, without it being a life threatening experience.
My concern is that the council will now use this as a excuse to avoid actively seeking community input. We do not need to go back to days when councilmembers manipulated the system with regular, private meetings behind closed doors. "Same time and place!"