Texas House Bill HCR28

Texas 2017 - 85th Regular

Caption

Expressing opposition to United Nations Agenda 21.

Impact

If adopted, HCR28 would formally articulate Texas's opposition to Agenda 21, which could influence local policies and perceptions regarding sustainability initiatives linked to the UN framework. The resolution emphasizes the need for vigilance among state and local agencies against what it considers radical policies associated with sustainability and environmental legislation implying that such policies could undermine individual rights and local control.

Summary

HCR28 is a concurrent resolution introduced in the Texas Legislature expressing opposition to the United Nations Agenda 21. The resolution frames Agenda 21 as a comprehensive plan that promotes environmental extremism and social engineering, arguing that it threatens private property ownership, single-family homes, and individual transportation choices. The resolution critiques the initiatives that have sprung from Agenda 21, aligning them with perceived anticapitalist influences infiltrating American communities via organizations like ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability.

Contention

Notable points of contention revolve around the interpretation of 'sustainable development' and whether it truly poses a risk to personal liberties or property rights as suggested by supporters of HCR28. Critics may argue that the resolution mischaracterizes the implications of Agenda 21, which lacks binding authority over state and local governments. The bill also reflects wider ideological divides over environmental policy, property rights, and the role of governmental entities in regulating land use and community development.

Notable_points

This resolution not only serves as a rejection of international influences on state policy but also mirrors the broader national debate over sustainability and local governance. Supporters likely see this as an affirmation of private rights against an encroaching government role in environmental regulation, while opponents may view it as an effort to thwart beneficial local programs aimed at addressing climate change and urban development.