Recognizing that international co-operation, based on the principles of the United Nations Charter. has to be developed and strengthened in order to provide solutions for world problems and to create an international community based on equity, justice and solidarity....

With Global warming and climate change rushing ever closer, with injustice and inequality destroying the quality of life, and with affordable housing become beyond the reach of all but the possessors of inherited wealth, the issue of human settlements must be addressed with great urgency.

Anecdotal approaches to this challenge are occurring in various places.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2908682.htm

They are usually called "Community land trusts" where a Trust owns the land, but people can purchase/lease/re-sell a home on that land, without paying for the land itself.

http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/1011_Community-Land-Trusts--Leasing-Land-for-Affordable-Housing

Over time, Governments should increasingly take part in this approach, with the eventual aim of holding all land in public hands.

Discuss.

The Government retains ownership of the land in many cases already. It has been like that in Canberra since about 1930, with 99 year renewable leases. It seems to work alright, despite the place being seen as a bit boring and characterless by everybody else in Australia. Must affect land values and stuff, but if you live in Canberra you trust whatever the government says automatically.

Medium to high density sustainable environmentally-friendly urban transit developments with integrated transport nodes is the go, with passive surveillance and intermingled low cost social housing measures.

Problem is, in practice, nobody wants to live with the houso's. Busses and trains are a great idea, for other people so the roads arent too busy for me when I drive. People want a patch of lawn to ceaselessly mow and water on alternate days, and a little white fence around the edge. Using a composting toilet is fine, until you have to use a composting toilet. We build these pies in the sky, much like the orange people, where we condemn land ownership and then demand all land be signed over to us.

And so I reckon let market forces decide the outcome. Leasehold, freehold, rented, cult or sect ashram etc., crown land or reserve.. we all have to decide what works for us. Another issue, is that the Government retains any minerals underground as a separate thing and that if they sell this from under you it can be complicated.

Another thing, working against good development policy is cost. The cheapest developments are things like massive concrete towers in Carlton or Surrey Hills, but they have a dubious social record of causing despair and hopelessness. For councils, tiny little hankerchief-sized blocks are great money spinners for cramming in the ratepayers, and not wasting too much sewerage pipe etc.
Things like public transport, the magic figure is 90 000 people to financially justify it. In reality, places like Cairns dont have it yet despite having a higher population than that. Entertainment for young people, sounds like an irrelevant issue but poor development is often characterised by aimless kids roaming about and high property crime rates.
There are a few excellent examples of where these progressive transit oriented urban housing developments work really well, mostly places like Holland where there is little choice and you can walk everywhere anyway.

HI Pat.. nice_2_hear from u.

We haven't really dialogued before, so..consider your hand vigorously shaken- "g'day mate" :)

In terms of social policy, your point about urban centers linked by public transport is a great idea.
As for Canberra and the Government "owning" everything.. fair enough, but you can pretty much buy in, and buy out.. not much diff from freedhold in practice.

MY CONCERN... is much deeper than this. Ok..put on the tin foil hat :) and start to look sideways for...'THEM'.....

MARX.. "abolish private property"

"Finally, communism is the positive expression of annulled private property – at first as universal private property."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm (end of Para 2)

"From him who has, according to his abilty, to him who has not, according to his need" Classic Communist doctrine. (forced)Redistribution of wealth.

UNITED NATIONS. Vancouver Conference on Human Settlements 1976

ACTION PLAN

http://www.un-documents.net/vp-d.htm

Preamble.
Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.

Recommendation D.1

(a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of...achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.

(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements....

REALLY? hmmmmmm sounds just like the Marxist State to me... (*adjusts his tin foil hat*)

"Collectivism" - the divine right of government

would be no different to the divine right of Kings

especially when some minister of state decides to annoint himself "Ceasar" (or Napoleon or Stalin)

devolution might produce inequalities but better overall outcomes will always be the product of 'reward for effort' than 'the equality of poverty'.

Smack on Stern.. exactly.

But it appears the UN and it's Communist/Green/Socialist supporters have not yet received that message.

If you look at the CLAUSE 61 discussion you will observe just how Communists such as Jack Straw (UK) wish to limit even conversation of a critical nature..

Just like the quote from the Vancouver Action Plan are neatly tucked away from widespread public view... so are little 'clauses' which erode and undermine our freedom and sovereignty.

"...such as Jack Straw (UK) wish to limit even conversation of a critical nature.."

Al
Do you mean like banning certain commentators on the ABC if you disagree with their viewpoint or religious affiliations?

Pelly.. fair point...I left myself open to that.. it's ok...

Let's move on to the issue.. the original title of this thread was

U.N. a hotbed of COMMUNISM ? something like that.. a bit too sensitive for the moderator it seems..but it is something I would rather discuss MUCH more than Islam.. I just join in the fray on those other threads because they are at least 'alive' plus my input there is more Pericles/Morgan/Foxy bashing-after all..they need a liberal dose of the verbal rubber hose at times :) (except foxy)

What are your thoughts.. did you check out the quotes in my 2nd post ?

If you want a rest from the 'whackamozzie' threads.. I'm happy (most happy) to have an 'Islam free' discussion here.

There is a small connection though.. it relates to the impact of the OIC in the U.N. but they are only being 'used' or permitted by the big players who are running the show. So..we don't need to address them here.

Let me ask..do you see anything to be concerned about in the UN from that 'Vancouver Action Plan' ? (re private property)

Boazy: << Pelly.. fair point...I left myself open to that.. it's ok... >>

Typical. Boazy admits his hypocrisy in this thread, but won't acknowledge it in the discussion where he actually called for the "banning" of Waleed Aly from the ABC, presumably because he disagrees with his views, or simply because he's a Muslim, or both. We don't know which because he refuses to explain himself.

Sheer hypocrisy, but what else is new?

Dear CJ.. feel free to have a whack at me.. no biggy.. if it floats your boat for a day.

But in truth, your energies would be much better spent on discussing the merits of this thread...or should I say 'threat' (From the UN)

How do you feel about the excerpt from the Vancouver action plan regarding the need to move from private ownership to complete public?

I'd be quite interested in your views on that.

Boazy, why don't you just explain yourself in the context of the thread in which you expressed your blatantly hypocritical desire to ban Waleed Aly from the ABC?

Anybody'd think you're jumping from thread to thread in order to avoid facing the issue.

CJ..

I told you...if .IF.. you take the trouble to explore the link I provided in the other thread.. it would become abundantly clear 'why' I would ban Walid Aly.

In Walid's case, he represents a particularly odious (2quoteU) memory of the ICV persecuting 2 pastors and costing the Christian community over half a million dollars and 4 yrs of peoples valuable lives. He was a member of the ICV which along with the EOC tried to supress criticism of Islam using mockery, ridicule,a conspiracy of networked people in the ICV and the EOC and to repress valid criticism of his own faith. During that period one home of a Christian connected to CTF was firebombed. Walid is just the friendly 'soft' representation of the Wolf in Grannies clothes "Oh Walid.. what elequent words you use" "yes.. all the better to...." and so it goes.

See the link I gave CJ.. do some homework.. find out the truth and you will have a big part of the answer to your question.

One of the reaons your criticism of me is like water off a ducks back is exactly because I happen to know it is founded on pure bigotry and base prejudice rather than actual fact.

I would possibly respect you IF.. you did some digging and at least disagreed with what I presented on the grounds of valid argument rather than prejudice. When that day comes (valid argument from you) we might get somewhere.

You cannot accuse a person of 'Islamophobia' without examining the basis on which people express their concerns. You know as well as I do that 'a phobia' is an 'irrational' fear. The stubborn refusal to see IF something is 'irrational' is just pure bigotry.

But in all honesty..I'd rather discuss the strong 'marxist' elements in the UN vancouver action plan. Are you up to it?

G'day kettle. Pot calling.

>>One of the reaons your criticism of me is like water off a ducks back is exactly because I happen to know it is founded on pure bigotry and base prejudice rather than actual fact.<<

I've notice that you have started to use the 'b' word a lot lately, Boaz. Often in posts in which you accuse others of ad hominem attacks.

There's a word for that too, you know.

And, as ever, the traditional Boaz chuckle.

>>I would possibly respect you IF.. you did some digging...<<

This, from "Mr Research" himself.

Barking, Boaz.

Northern Ireland.

Swedish Pastor.

The list is a long one.

Finally we have it. Boazy wants to ban Waleed Aly from the ABC because he's a member of the Islamic Council of Victoria, which ran an unsuccesful campaign against a couple of fundamentalist Christian Islamophobes for the vilification of Muslims.

As I recall, the Christian fundies had their right to vilify Muslims vindicated. Now, out of revenge, Boazy wants to gag even moderate Muslims like Waleed Aly.

Now why couldn't Boazy have just explained himself in the context of the thread where he made his hypocritical statement, instead of derailing this one?

Here's some "homework" for you, Boazy: look up the meaning of the word 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary.

CJ.. you seem to place a rather high level of importance on keeping things in particular threads. I don't really share that view.
I have a lot in my mind which I want to discuss with people at present..and yes..I do jump around a bit, but in this case the only person (possibly Pericles also) who has concerns about that issue is...'you'.

But your take on my motives is not correct.

You used a couple of words which demonstrate your own prejudice and thus far 'bigotry'. (yes.. it's you).

You claimed the pastors wanted freedom to 'vilify', but you have yet to examine whether their basis for CRITICISM which is the correct word, was groundless or not. Remember...you live in your comfy spot in Canberra or wherever..Daniel Scott has had his life on the line from Islamists in Pakistan. He has had first hand experience of the 'Destination' so..when he passes the stations on the way..he knows where it's all heading.
You..simply are not qualified to make assesments of what they said and why from your comfy/atheist digs up there. Actually... heaven forbid..you ARE technically qualified with your anthropological background, but for some reason you just tuck that away in the back paddock and let 'ideology' drive your output.

"Criticism of Islam"= "Islamophobia" when you absolutely know it is not. So this makes you look much worse.
'Unfounded' criticism of Islam IS 'Islamophobia.'

I even pulled Proxy up on his "Islam calls for all infidels to be killed"..now that WOULD be 'Islamophobia' (one of his rare lapses)
See my response to him for the correct situation.

If you had a genuine desire to explore the basis for criticism of Islam, you would join in a discussion of links I provide where up till now I have not even expressed an opinion....I've only asked "Do you see any basis for concern"..and Pelican graciously went a bit further and READ the information.

As I said.. if you read it too, you might see that it's not 'revenge' about Walid Aly but much deeper.

..continued

continued....

My call to ban him, is also an 'object lesson' which might lead to discussion about the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) -56 voting Muslim nations at the UN which is trying to restrict criticism of Islam.(even well founded)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52O5QY20090325

You will note especially the following:

QUOTE
The OIC resolution says "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism" and calls on U.N. member states "to combat defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general .... "

BUILT-IN MAJORITY

Similar unbinding resolutions have been passed since 1999 in the U.N. General Assembly and by the 47-nation Human Rights Council, where Islamic countries and others who support them on the issue have a built-in majority.
UNQUOTE.

The OIC is seeking BINDING resolutions to become part of OUR law.

See how it works CJ ? the issue is much bigger than Walid himself.
Raising awaereness of bad laws and oppressive groups (OIC) involves some strategic actions. Calling for Walid Aly to be banned is just one of them.

Pretty much all of your terminology is dripping with prejudice.

//fundamentalist Christian Islamophobes for the vilification of Muslims.//

They did not win the right to 'vilify' Muslims. The outcome was that they DIDN'T vilify Muslims by what they said and that Justice Higgins had erred in law and procedure.
They won what the law allows "reasonable and in good faith and in the public interest".

Nothing changed, but the APPLICATIONand interpretation of a stupid law by (my opinion) a prejudiced Judge is what was overturned.

JUDICIAL PREJUDICE.. my my how I'd love to go down that path..but another time.

CAN we get back to 'Marxism in the UN' ?

Al
In your first link 'The World Today' the program involves Charitable Trusts not government ownership. It is one possible solution to address housing affordability for the lowest of income earners. It is not indicative of some Marxist plot to own all (currently) privately held land. It would no doubt reduce demand for government owned commission housing.

Collectivism is not always a Marsist conspiracy. We have 'socialised' medicine which works far better, even if imperfect, than private health care systems like the US. We have publicly owned public transport, emergency services, law enforcement and education. A Social Democracy embracing some of the benefits of collectivism within a Capitalist framework is not Marxism.

The only downside referred to in the links, is that the assett is not going to appreciate compared to market values, but that is the point, the Trust is to ensure affordability into the future.

The presence of Trust owned land does not immediately imply a grand conspiracy for a land grab. What other suggestions do you have for housing affordability. I thank the lucky stars that I could raise my children at home when housing prices did not rely on two income (*cough*) 'working families'.

Al, your trying to draw a long bow. Do you imagine that Western democracies like the US and Australia would vote in a candidate advocating control of all privately held land. Private property rights are enshrined in the Constitution and there is no threat from Land Trusts. How does it differ from government owned housing for those who are eligible?

Fact is even under our property rights as they stand, governments seem hell bent on widening highways and approving developments to the detriment of current land owners. Sometimes there may be case where the overall public good is vastly outweighed by one person's property standing between change or not. As long as the person is adequately compensated it is not a conspiracy. Yes, we can all find examples where governments have overstepped the mark on dodgy development applications and they should be accountable.

So, because you're affronted that the ICV would dare make a lawful, but ultimately unsuccessful, complaint, you want to gag one of its members from saying anything at all on the ABC?

I know your head's a bit full, but you really should look up that 'hypocrisy' word.

I think that the real reason for your desire to ban popular moderate Muslims like Yusuf Islam or Waleed Aly is that you're terrified that Islam will become accepted as just another religion in Australia. That many Australians admire and respect these people regardless of their religion is an affront to you, so you want them "banned".

They're not following the Islamophobic script, so they must be silenced. Sheer hypocrisy.

I realise that none of this has the slightest relevance to "Human Settlement and the need for Collectivization", but it's you who obstinately refuses to stay on topic for some bizarre reason.

Oh hang on. I think I know the reason.

Boaz,

Marxism at the UN!
Let me guess the The Boy scouts are an arm of the Communist/Islamic push to take over the world!

Seriously, No matter which way you try to argue world domination/world government by Marxist's influences(?) in the UN one has to accept unsupportable asinine "troother" conspiracy theories.

Agreeing on a common point for a common good between sovereign governments is hardly world power. It self interest. Beyond that your posts are becoming progressively unrealistic and speculative to the point of farce.

I'm sure the Palin for president cheer squad would agree with your notions. (PS they're considered the noisy minority in the Republicans).

Pelican...that was good.. but did you look at the links in my 2nd post?

Let me link then again.

"Finally, communism is the positive expression of annulled private property – at first as universal private property."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm (end of Para 2)

UNITED NATIONS. Vancouver Conference on Human Settlements 1976

ACTION PLAN

http://www.un-documents.net/vp-d.htm

Preamble.
Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.

Recommendation D.1

(a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of...achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.

(d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements....

I've repeated a chunk of that post because this is the important issue here.

The closeness between the Marxist view and the UN action plan is erily similar.

Examinator..no..not the boy scouts mate.. but the "Human Rights Tribunals" abso-bladi-lootly.

Figures of Influence.

Strong
Gore
Soros
Gorbachov
Joel Rogers (a new name) (various whitehouse connected Marxists)

http://randysright.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/obama-file-102-americas-little-lenin-joel-rogers-and-the-obama-movement/

See the vid where Van Jones praises Rogers and why.
Note that Van Jones was 'GREEN jobs czar' a recurring theme in all this. (The Gore/Strong Climate change scam Connection)

ALGOREisRICH, to worry that we're moving towards communism or whatever assumes that individual land ownership is the starting point, whereas in fact it's an illusion. Try getting behind in the mortgage or even just let the land rates slide long enough and the land will be plonked on the auction block regardless of one's situation.

I hold capitalistic greed and real estate agents responsible for the astonishing rise in home purchase rates.

This scheme is just a cul-de-sac. I agree with you; I don't like it and it takes us further yet away from home ownership (even though in essence we don't have that now anyway). There is nothing to say that once business is brisk that the prices won't go up and all of that - that could be presented from any number of directions - costs of further development; improvements; maintenance; expansion - whatever. If there is one thing that capitalism has taught us; it's that where there's greed there's a way to exploit others.

Therefore I don't see it as a move towards communism etc; but another capitalistic driven scheme that in the end will exploit the little folks' dream of a bit of security.

PYNCHEME...

that post was more true than I think you realize mate. The 'communism' angle is really a capitalist trick :) sounds weird I know.. but it is.

CAPITALISTS. (In methodology where it suits them)

SOROS (I broke the bank of England)

STRONG (I can call 100 heads of state to a scam about 'Global Warming')

GORE (I can restructure the whole Green movement in the USA and much of the world in terms of my own and my networks financial interests)

BLOOD (I worked for Goldman Sachs who gave us the Global finanial Crisis)

SOCIALISTS. (In ideology and public policy)

SOROS
STRONG
GORE
BLOOD.

THEIR WEAPONS of MASS DELUSION.

'Human Rights' law.
'International' law.
'United Nations'

THEIR INSURANCE.

Massive latino migration to the US to 'abolish the white race'
http://racetraitor.org/abolish.html

and ensure Democrat (aka Gore and gang) power over the only remaining superpower.

TRUST me...it's coming...and sooner than you think.

28/8 will be a decisive day in America.. I think that will be the day it either

Realizes
Wakesup
Lives

or..

dies...and us with it.