Update: Before reading about the tenets of ‘New Urbanism’ it might be interesting to read this file where one can compare the language and reasoning of both new urbanists and communists: The Ideal Communist City
What is ‘New Urbanism’? The AARP claims there is a “parallel trend of urbanization”, but who has dictated this trend? Or is it just propaganda? Have you ever heard anyone say they moved to the country because they wanted to “urbanize” their rural town?
The Bedford Planners have hired a private company, self-described “New Urbanists” from Tennessee (TPUDC-LLC) to oversee our Master Plan update process, due to be completed in November of 2019.
The definition of “New Urbanism”, as summarized below, was taken directly from a non-governmental organization (NGO) called the “Congress for New Urbanism (CNU)”, a private group that consists of perhaps 2,000 members total nationwide. Their website can explain their goals in even more detail.
“New Urbanism” is characterized by…
– “walkable blocks and streets, housing and shopping in close proximity, and accessible public spaces” (i.e. stack and pack housing)
– abandonment of “sprawling, single-use, low-density” development (i.e. your home on one acre+)
– abandonment of the use of cars to get from one place to another in favor of public transit, bikes
– lack of division by “race and income” (i.e. social engineering and redistribution of the wealth)
New Urbanists want to use the unaccountable Regional government make sure no town is lacking a “mix” of people of all socio-economic levels. This of course is called social engineering.
New Urbanists believe that your home on an acre+ of land, suitable for single-family occupancy, is known to “inflict negative economic, health, and environmental impacts on communities”. Their goal is the “reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs”.
Clearly, as expressed in the The Charter of the New Urbanism, the urbanist’s philosophy is NOT compatible with your rural/suburban lifestyle and clearly calls for the need for social engineering in order to make changes that include eradicating “separation by race and income” and promotes “the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts” rather than “bedroom suburbs”. “Transit, pedestrian, and bicycle systems should maximize access and mobility throughout the region while reducing dependence upon the automobile.”
To sum up, these “New Urbanists” emphasize that “regionalism” is the “new reality” and will define government subdivisions for the purpose of socialization, restriction of property rights, and more even taxation (redistribution of the wealth).
It should now become very clear to you as to why “New Urbanism” does not belong in Bedford.
But if you need further clarification, please continue reading additional information under this same tab to understand the sudden push to “urbanize” Bedford in addition to the helpful links that follow.