Michigan Law Would Make Sustainable Development Illegal

It’s hard to believe, but it’s true. Michigan Tea Party lawmaker, and former TV weatherman, Rep. Greg MacMaster (105th) has introduced legislation that would make it illegal for any governmental unit to promote or support sustainable development.

Patterned after a similar retrograde law recently passed in Alabama, Michigan’s new proposed legislation HB 5785 of 2012 (introduced on July 18th) would prevent any unit of government in Michigan from adopting any of the principles found in the United Nations Agenda 21 of 1992 — a non-binding and voluntary initiative that has been widely accepted and implemented throughout  the United States and has enjoyed broad bi-partisan support, until the Tea Party turned it into a dirty word.

Agenda 21 supports the implementation of sustainable development through environmental protections that do not burden economic growth. Among its tenets are combating poverty, promoting health, education, science, and cultural enhancement. These complimentary goals are encouraged at the local level and supported at higher levels of government.

Why do they object to Agenda 21?  

They believe it is a regulatory burden that will interfere with their property rights.  Apparently Mr. MacMaster and his Tea Party friends don’t understand the meaning of the words “non-binding” and “voluntary”.  So, in their confusion, they wish to limit our basic right to home rule by regulating our ability to pass so much as township ordinance that promotes any of the tenets of Agenda 21.

Write Rep. MacMaster and tell him to keep his paranoid Tea Party agenda out of our local politics.

Amy Kerr Hardin


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Michigan Law Would Make Sustainable Development Illegal

  1. Judi Briggs says:

    Sustainability is not a spawn of the devil, it is what will keep this world going. You are short sighted by supporting a law that blocks sustainability. No body will benefit from property rights on a dead planet! Even dogs know better than to foul their own food supply!

  2. Sandra Craig-Byrum says:

    The people who chose to live off the grid are saving money for everyone. There is less drag on the already declining Fossil fuel market. This type of living is a better plan than living on the streets and asking for government support when jobs are not available. It also provides food for low income familys, healthy food will save them Doctor bills. We live in America and we should be able to live the life we chose…home of the free, right? It is tough out there, we should have the right to survive the best we can. We are People not criminals. We are good people that care about the planet and try to make this world a better place!

  3. I’m not against ‘sustainable development’, I’m against anything that is in violation of our US Constitution. Pure and simple. If an organization wants to infringe on your constitutional rights to become ‘sustainable’, then “Houston, we have a problem”.

    There are ways to achieve sustainablity without belonging to a membership that has ties to the UN (Which the ECLEI does have). Look at how ECLEI was formed and how much they contributed to the building blocks of Agenda 21. Let’s protect our Constitution and private property rights.

    • admin says:

      Representative McMaster,

      Thank you for your brief comment on your model legislation. However, it behooves you as an elected representative of our state to further justify your position with actual details and specifics. Please site the exact passes of Agenda 21 which are troublesome, and why they are so, noting the constitutional issues with specificity.

      Show your math.

      As a sponsor of this bill this information should easily be at hand in your carefully checked notes…please do share your insights!

      Let’s review:

      1. Site the part(s) of Agenda 21 that is troubling,
      2. State why it violates the Constitution.
      3. Site exactly where the Constitution prohibits this.

      Be very specific and exacting in your reposnse.

      Thank You!
      Amy at Democracy Tree

  4. Dave Stewart says:

    This covers a few points you wish answered;


    I consider the Constitutional rights to property as worthy of answer to the concerns shared in the video and Mr. McMaster.

    As a land owner I have a lot to lose if true, so it has to be proven to me that there is NOT a UN/socialist constructed agenda to threaten yet another Constitutional right we assume is indisputable. (There are further issues regarding the First and Second Amendments that are more evidence of UN disapproval of our Constitution )

    Evidently the concerns are not without merit.
    Apparently there are a large number of property owners who found out that there is a concern when they lost their rights to property through these programs.

  5. Teacher says:

    If it’s so non binding, why are new zoning laws, new taxes, and new ordinances, listed in the goals of the regional boards, being implemented?

    Nice, you think you can fool the people but they are waking up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *