Gateway 1

The Implementation of Sustainable Development Through Comprehensive Planning By

Quote taken from The Model State Land Use Legislation for New England stating the reasoning for regional organizations like Gateway 1.

By Ted Cowan Version 1.1 7 Feb 2012

[email protected]

cost of printing $1.25

What is Gateway 1 Gateway 1, according to its promoters, is an organization being created to coordinate changes and improvements to the Route 1 Corridor between Brunswick and Stockton Springs, Maine. However beyond the faade of attractive projects for Rt 1, is a list of unadvertised but mandated radical land use changes, designed to prevent development in rural areas and direct development into designated core growth areas of the specified towns. From the Gateway 1web page (which has been removed), Brief History of Gateway 1.1 Paragraph 3 states; Gateway 1 is an organized entityallowing member communities to regionally coordinate land use development and strategically invest Route 1 transportation improvements. However, paragraph 4 states; The only viable long term plan for this corridor is a combination of prevention and strategic investment. Paragraph 5 states; The goal of Gateway 1 is to minimize the impact of future development on Route 1 while sustainably supporting and connecting new jobs, affordable housing and transit opportunities. The Action Plan proposes strategic transportation investments along the corridor, and asks municipalities to make adjustments to their local comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances to support more densely built core growth areas, protect specific view sheds and wildlife habitats, and create a more defined level of roadway access management. (Emphasis added) As presented to the communities in a brochure called: Gateway 1: Working together to keep Rte 1 moving2, Gateway 1 is self described as giving communities the unprecedented authority to prioritize new transportation infrastructure improvements in the corridor. And the tools to work together to develop alternative modes of transportation and to plan more carefully how and where new development and roads channel traffic onto Route 1. Some of these objectives appear to be very desirable. Generally everyone wants to incorporate well thought out plans for infrastructure investments, to coordinate development with neighboring towns, and to preserve the beauty and character where we live. However, beyond the selectively publicized projects put forth to gain public acceptance, the aspects shunned in public debate, and kept away from public view represent profound changes to how and where we will be allowed to live. This fact is acknowledged in Chapter 23 page 23 of The Action Plan, which states; The central feature is a balance between jobs and housing, locating these in close proximity to each other in compact centers this represents a dramatic shift in public land use and housing policies , achieving this pattern quickly would be too jarring to public and private decision makers alike.

(web page has been removed) (web page has been removed) (http://www.mainegateway1.com/Gateway%201%20Action%20Plan/Chapter%202.pdf)

Page 2

the best way is to build an interim pattern, this stepping stone aggressively guides job growth into compact core growth areas separated by rural spaces. Again, emphasis added. An organization which intends to bring about a dramatic shift in land use which is too jarring for the public to accept, and therefore deems it necessary to resort to gradualism to hide the ultimate goal, is automatically suspect, and deserves very close scrutiny. Where did the desire to do this and the mechanism to accomplish it come from? The Implementation Steering Committee members and other participants state that Gateway 1 is a 100% local, totally grassroots, effort. In light of the onslaught of new regulations and land use restrictions pouring out of the Federal, State and local governments, the uproar arising from communities around the country from the loss of private property rights and destruction of local economies attributed to these regulations, this claim bears scrutiny. The stated objectives of Gateway 1 bear a striking resemblance to the usurpation of power that is resident in the Sustainability4 and SmartGrowth5 movements which originated with the United Nations (UN) via Agenda 216. Without participation in the initial planning, there is no way to confirm or deny the claim of Gateway 1 being a 100% local grassroots initiative. In order to understand this claim we can only examine the circumstantial evidence. Starting with the Gateway 1 Corridor Action Plan itself, on Page iii there is a declaration by the Steering Committee that this Plan is the product of our work and recommendations. However the very first note at the top of the Action Plan Appendices7 is the statement that: All Gateway 1 materials are the property of the Maine Department of Transportation and the HTNB Corporation. The Gateway 1 project information is resident on the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT)8 web site, and is also listed as US Department of Transportation (US DOT) and Federal Highway Administration9 (FHWA) projects. Here they identify Gateway 1 as a Statewide Corridor Approach to implement the Livability Agenda, a project of the Livability Initiative10, following the CSS principles11. Lets identify the other declared owner of all Gateway 1 materials, the HTNB Corporation12, before seeking to understand the Livability Agenda and CSS principles.
4

(http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/sdtut.htm) (http://smartgrowthusa.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/boulder-exposed-brown-cloud-choked-highways-and-parking-meters/) (http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/agenda-21.htm) (web page has been removed) (http://www.gateway1.org/) (http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/case_maine2.asp) (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/case_studies/maine/) (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/cssqa.cfm) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNTB)

10

11

12

Page 3

HTNB is a private architectural, planning and consulting firm formerly known as, (Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff). They have contracts with the US Army Corp of Engineers, the naval facilities engineering command, the general services administration, department of homeland security, and the FAA, among other agencies. They are involved in the full range of civil engineering projects - from bridges, tunnels and rail, to intelligent transportation systems, and urban designs including sustainable design projects. Gateway 1 is listed as a project of the US DOT, under the FHWA, and DOT, with ownership of the materials going to MDOT and the HTNB Corporation. We also now know that Gateway 1 is a direct application of SmartGrowth principles and the Livability Initiative. Before moving on to learn about these, lets mention two more identifiers previously located on the DOT Gateway 1 home page13(which have since been removed). The following declarations were made:
Wednesday, December 1, 2010 the Environmental Protection Agencys 2010 National Award for Smart Growth Achievement in the Rural category was awarded to Gateway 1 and the Maine Department of Transportation. According to EPA, these award winners embody the principles behind EPAs work with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Transportation under the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. Not only do these acknowledge Gateway 1 as clearly a project of the Maine DOT, but identify it as a product of The Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

See the block diagrams at the end of this document to understand the origin of The Partnership for
Sustainable Communities .

The Livability Agenda, which the Maine DOT site claims Gateway 1 is a project of, was launched by Vice President Al Gore on Sept 2, 1998 in order to implement regional SmartGrowth principles. It did this by issuing directives for the DOT, HUD, and EPA to cooperate through an organization created for the purpose called, the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, the organization the Gateway 1 home page claims itself to be a product of. This same page mentions that The Partnership for Sustainable Communities led to ContextSensitiveSolutions.org, a resource for the proliferation of the methods to be used to implement such directives as Livability and SmartGrowth. Smart Growth was a creation of the American Planning Association for the specific purpose of creating Model statutes for Planning and the management of Change. The American Planning Association was so directed by The Presidents Council on Sustainable Development, a direct result of executive order 12582 by Bill Clinton. This executive order was designed to implement the specific policy recommendations included in Agenda 21, the UN document signed by George Bush and 179 other nations in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 2114 is a 300 page, 40 chapter policy document that seeks to reorganize society to protect the environment, promote social equity, and promulgate sustainable development. Through an enormous bureaucratic effort and the very deep pockets of international promoters, the tentacles of sustainable development reach into every aspect of life, through countless organizations and initiatives, smothering the rights of the individual for the supposed sake of the collective good.
13

(web page removed) (http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/)

14

Page 4

The following is one of the core principles of Agenda 21 as espoused by one of its chief architects, Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN Environment Program: : current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class- involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing- are not sustainable. The United States is the greatest threat to the global environment. It is guilty of environmental aggression against the planet Isnt the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse. Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about? Next is a policy statement from the UN Conference on Human Settlements; one of the guiding documents for Agenda 21, and the Sustainability and Livability principles, the implementation mechanisms for Agenda 21. This is also a key principle of Gateway 1, being a direct application of Sustainable development, SmartGrowth and Livability. Chapter D. Policy on land use.

Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. 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. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.

This is a call for the elimination of private property. As will be demonstrated later, (although the wording will change from one document to another) depending upon whether it is Sustainable Development, SmartGrowth, Livability, and Gateway 1, all call for the same restrictions on private property, leading eventually to public ownership of the land. This is at the very least socialism, and by definition communism. It does not work, and will always generate poverty and a police state. Without the right to ownership of private property we do not have liberty, which is one of our most basic fundamental rights. Some will say to attribute this intent to Gateway 1 is ridiculous; however the evidence for this is quite clear. To obscure the link between Agenda 21, the United Nations and local implementation schemes, the terms sustainable development, comprehensive planning and SmartGrowth were invented. J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to President Clintons Council on Sustainable Development stressed the necessity of doing this by saying: Participating in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out many who would actively work to defeat any elected official undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as, Comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth. In 1990, two years prior to Rio and Agenda 21, an organization called ICLEI15, The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, was created to set up the process of insinuating the sustainability agenda into communities around the world. Maine at present has 6 ICLEI dues paying community members,
15

(http://www.idrc.ca/openebooks/448-2/)

Page 5

Belfast, Falmouth, Portland, South Portland, Yarmouth, and York. Go here16, learn how ICLEI works, and here17 to read about communities that are now rejecting ICLEI and its programs after exposure to them. A thorough examination of Agenda 21 and ICLEI and their connections to Sustainable Development is covered in a 3 part series by author James Simpson and can be found here18. Part 3 has particular relevance to communities now opting out of ICLEI. To review, here is the family tree of Gateway 1: * ICLEI was created in 1990, as a global UN initiative to begin the process of introducing sustainable development policies into town governments around the world, including Maine. * George Bush signed Agenda 21 in Rio along with 179 other countries. The Agenda 21 Agreement is not legally binding, as it was never debated or adopted by Congress. *In 1993 Bill Clinton signed executive order 12582 creating Presidents Council on Sustainable Development , to implement the Agenda 21 protocols as sustainable development. The American Planning Association created 3 quasi government/corporate organizations to ghost write legislation: The United States Conference of Mayors, The National Governors Association, and The American Legislative Exchange Council.
19

* Commerce Secretary Ron Brown estimated that 60% of Agenda 21 policy directives can be implemented through Rule Making. * President Clinton directs the Department of Commerce and The Department of Housing and Urban Development to collaborate to funnel $5 million into the American Planning Association to fund Smart Growth across the country to create and disseminate the requisite Rules. * In 1998 Al Gore launched the Livability agenda directing the collaboration of the US DOT, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to fund a new organization, The Partnership for Sustainable Communities. The Gateway 1 Homepage identifies the project as a product of this organization. * Through the EPA, a new organization, The Center for Environmental Finance20 creates a network of 10 Environmental Finance Centers as a collaboration between the private sector and Universities to generate and disseminate model legislation and guidelines. * One such regional Center is located here in Maine at The University of Southern Maine Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service. In 2003, The Muskie School produced Model State Land
16

(http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/iclei_primer%3a_your_town_and_freedom_threatened_2009 0804364/)
17

(http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/iclei__the_good%2c_the_bad_and_the_ugly_20110215429/)
18

(http://biggovernment.com/author/jmsimpson/, James Simpson) (http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/) (http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/)

19

20

Page 6

Use Legislation for New England21. This is based on Maine Land Use Law, with suggestions on how to change the law to better enforce SmartGrowth policies. This guide is used extensively across the nation. *Model State Land Use Regulation for New England contains a proposal for the creation of Municipal Service Districts (page 8). On page 9, the document claims that Home Rule .has helped the New England town resist top-down efforts to impose regionalism. On page 14 in discussing the impediment that town borders pose to such an organization, it states One solution is to force a breaching of the borders by an imposed regional structure. Gateway 1 is that structure for the Route 1 corridor. * Today each state is broken down into Regional Councils of Governments. Maine has 11;
Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments Eastern Maine Development Corporation Greater Portland Council of Governments Hancock County Planning Commission Kennebec Valley Council of Governments Lincoln County Regional Planning Commission Mid-Coast Council of Governments Midcoast Regional Planning Commission Northern Maine Development Commission Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission Washington County Council of Governments Auburn Bangor Portland Ellsworth Fairfield Wiscasset Bath Rockland Caribou Portland Calais

Regional councils of every type have proliferated across the country, each covering a specific topic. Many provide a vital function legitimately coordinating activities. However, this concept of Regional Governance is slowly transforming representative government, eroding the authority and accountability of elected officials. An example of this is Cap and Trade. This program is an alternate taxing mechanism intended to drive up the cost of electricity to reduce consumption, and funnel the money to special interest groups. As Cap and Trade has been discredited and rejected by the public at large, the scheme is being implemented more discretely on a regional basis. The process was started with a Memorandum of Understanding with other Governors, and then utilized the Stakeholder process explained later in this paper. With support from environmental groups and oversight by the DEP and guided by professional facilitator, Raab Associates, Ltd, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative22 (RGGI) came to life. In 2007 Governor Baldacci signed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative linking Maine with 9 other states in a Carbon Trading scheme. Thus far it has siphoned off about a billion dollars in revenues, to fund pet environmental projects and successfully drive up electricity rates. Because the RGGI is a nonprofit corporation, just as Gateway 1 is intended to be, it has been able to avoid public scrutiny in its operations. Smart Growth was created to provide guidance in changing the nature of government. It did this by creating a manual called Model Statutes for Planning and Change. This lead to the creation of Nongovernmental organizations which could implement policy recommendations, bypassing elected representative government. Smart growth also provided grants as financial incentives to entice States and Local Governments to adopt the legislation needed to do this.

21

(http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/EFCModelLegislation.pdf) (http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/greenhouse/rggi.htm)

22

Page 7

Alan Caron founded GrowSmart Maine 23 in 2003, to promote Smart Growth in the State. Its literature lists Restructuring Maine Government as one of its objectives. The Brookings Institution was hired by SmartGrowth Maine to do a study which they published as Charting Maine's Future24. This is a left wing think tank partnered with the London School of Economics. The LSE was created by and is the mother ship for; Fabian Socialists. Both the Brookings Institution and the London School of Economics approach the issue of economic development and planning from the side of Socialism. The alternative to the Brookings Institution which approaches the issue from the side of free market economics and capitalism is the American Enterprise Institute. This bias for socialist approaches to development is the core of Charting Maines Future. Instead of addressing the onerous regulations imposed on Maine business and the massive tax burdens, to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit, the report expounds the need for more bonding to increase spending. Two examples are; $190 million for the Maine Quality Places Fund, and $200 million for the Maine Innovation Jobs Fund. The report then goes on to address the need to modify the town zoning laws which prohibit the high density development they desire, to create walkable neighborhoods. Then with specific reference to Gateway 1 on pgs 127 & 128, the report suggests that the state tie transportation investments to compliance by the towns with adoption of the specified land use ordinances and the removal of regulatory barriers which prohibit the proliferation of low income housing, now called Workforce Housing25. On the board of directors of SmartGrowth Maine is; Evan Richert, a former director of the State Planning Office26. He is now one of the chief consultant promoters of Gateway 1. Again lets review, Gateway 1 is a project with direct connections to The Presidents Council on Sustainable Development, and The Partnership for Sustainable Communities27, via HUD, the Dept of Commerce, the USDOT and the EPA, with its roots firmly planted in SmartGrowth, the Livability Initiative, and the State Planning Office. Key aspects of the project are the following: 1. Create range of housing opportunities. (This means the funding and creation of Low Income Housing which has been renamed Workforce housing.) pg 112 2. Create walkable neighborhoods. (This means create compact development incentives, community centered schools, businesses, services etc to eliminate the need for cars and thus gasoline. These are called core growth areas. Allow development in these centers at a FAR floor area ratio, of at least .7, without a minimum lot size, and reduce requirements for off street parking) pg 106, 113 3. Mix land uses ( Again this means create compact development incentives to locate business and industry in the core growth areas.) pg 106 4. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas, by restricting access. (Enact a maximum rural density standard of 1 unit per 5 to 10 acres.) pg 107 (Adopt land acquisition strategies.) pg 108, 117
23

(http://www.growsmartmaine.org/) (http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2006/10cities.aspx) (http://www.seacoastwhc.org/) (http://www.maine.gov/spo/) (http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/partnership/)

24

25

26

27

Page 8

5. Provide a variety of transportation choices ( This means bike paths, pedestrian walkways, light rail, and buses) 6. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities. 7. Take advantage of compact building design. There is a lot more here than just improvements to Route 1. Upon examination of the Corridor action Plan itself it is revealed the majority of the Plan concerns changes to land use to prevent development in rural areas, restrict access to the land in rural areas, and direct the growth into the core growth areas. If you look at the Gateway 1 Action Plan in Chapter 928, you can see the plans being drawn up for your town. The following is an example how Gateway 1 is but one tool of a much bigger arsenal being created to force the implementation of land use and zoning changes upon communities by bypassing the traditional representative government. This is from Model State Land Use Regulation for New England prepared by the Edward S. Muskie School of Public Service. This guide is based on existing Maine Law, and contains recommendations for changes in the law to better achieve the goals of Smart Growth. This excerpt is from Chapter 4, provision V. Clustered, Planned Unit, High Density, and In-Fill Development. Page 81. The guide suggests adding this amendment to existing law:
4361. Clustered, Planned Unit, High Density, and In-fill Development 1. Legislative intent. The Legislature finds that clustered development, planned unit development, high density development (that is, development that exceeds or in some cases approximates historic density patterns in the core areas of any municipality), and in-fill development are all mechanisms that prevent sprawl, reduce municipal expenses, conserve open space, enhance the amenity characteristics of new development, and reduce the public and private economic costs of new development. These advantages are achieved by channeling development onto a portion of larger parcels or onto existing unused parcels within or immediately adjacent to more built up areas of a municipality. Developments in these settings are most often able to take advantage of existing infrastructure (water, sewer, public utility lines); as a result, new infra-structure costs are eliminated or kept to a minimum; because they are often in close proximity to existing churches, schools, shops, and related municipal services, increasing the degree to which the developments function as part of a neighborhood. It is the intent of the Legislature that municipalities pursuant to their home rule authority shall authorize and facilitate these types of development. 4. Enforcement. Municipal ordinances or actions that have the effect of prohibiting , directly or indirectly, these types of development within the community are a violation of Legislative intent, entitling landowners or developers operating within the municipality and/or the Attorney Generals office to seek appropriate remedial relief. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The effect is local ordinances and zoning should be null and void if they interfere with the social engineering schemes inherent in the sustainable development directives, and implies that if local communities try to adhere to their chosen ordinances, they are subject to law suits and prosecution. Gateway 1 and other such Regional, Stake

28

(http://www.gateway1.org/documents/actionplan/chpt/chpt9.pdf)

Page 9

holder councils are an attempt to provide cover for what would otherwise be perceived as gross over reach by both federal and state authority over local control, and personal property rights issues.

Sustainable Development has been a curse across the entire nation, for the primary reason that it has successfully used a good cause to provide cover for a very bad plan. This deception has had devastating results to the communities where it has been implemented. Planning for development is worthy, justified and wise. However implementing radical changes to land use to generate overdevelopment into concentrated areas while restricting access to rural lands, through stealth and deception is not acceptable. The visioning and/or, Consensus Process29, and stakeholder councils are notorious as the engineered processes through which these type projects are promoted. In almost all cases, the outcome is predetermined by the hired facilitator or consultant. An entire industry has grown up based on the application of these CSS principles identified earlier, and Gateway 130 is prominently featured on its web site. The application to CSS for a Gateway 1 workshop is available here31. The Maine DOT uses a company called CH2M Hill, which also does work for the FHWA. Regional councils such as Gateway 1 can serve worthy purposes, and there is no doubt that good work could be accomplished through its structure. However at the same time it must be acknowledged they are intended to bypass the oversight provided by the ballot box, with a more easily manipulated and controlled process. The Model State Land Use Legislation guidebook clearly states this. Thus Gateway 1 is a grafting of a publically legitimate and acceptable transportation planning initiative with a not so acceptable radical land use regulation change agenda. Experience has shown the following subterfuges are used to manipulate the outcome of a group such as Gateway 1. When initially forming a group, extreme care is used to find people that support the stated objectives in sufficient quantity that they dominate the group. The first meetings are rarely advertised, with the people being personally invited. Several meetings will probably be held before the public ever learns that they are taking place, although it will almost always be stated that the meetings are open to the public. Most likely, when the public does learn of their existence, the group is already well organized and underway. The real purpose of these meetings is not to learn from the participants, but to educate or indoctrinate them. A consultant is usually hired to run the meeting who is most likely a trained facilitator. After the meetings this consultant will write a report The Plan, which will be identified as having been produced by the group. To give credibility to the entire process and the group, a spokesman of some prominence will be chosen, such as a local businessman or politician. Almost always there will be various Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), such as environmental groups, involved to assist in initiating the group, although their true role and associations may be kept hidden. A quick search of the internet will reveal several firsthand accounts of people that have participated in such visioning and stakeholder meetings and were outraged at the blatant manipulation. Participants are
29

(http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/conresponse.htm) (http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/gateway_1_corridor_action_plan/)

30

31

(http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/gateway_1_corridor_action_plan/resources/g1nationalcssdialog.pdf/)

Page 10

generally surprised at the success the facilitators have in directing the group to reach the conclusions desired by the facilitators. An enormous amount of work has gone into the development of Gateway 1. Obviously large sums of money have been spent on the engineering and consultant firms that did the research and analysis, and generated the materials. But that does not excuse or justify the continued implementation of misguided and destructive policies which will impact and hurt all of our citizens. The premises for the 3 scenarios used in formulating the various Gateway 1 action plans are also cause for concern. Putting aside the skewed and biased philosophical and political underpinnings of the study, time and events have so altered the demographical factors which formed the basis for the assumptions, that the plans offered are now obsolete. The population growth statistics used are included in Chapter 432 of the Action Plan. The 3 scenarios they present predict population changes of either, 1) a 71% increase, 2) a 30 % increase or 3) a 7.4% decrease. Scenario 1 is predicated on a rate of population growth greater than that experienced over the last 20 years accompanied by a booming economy. The current economy is in recession with no immediate prospect of relief. Businesses are shutting down, unemployment is continuing with the prospect of significant inflation. The true depth of the calamity is currently being masked by the printing of fiat money which can only stave of disaster temporarily. We are entering what has already been labeled The Greater Depression33. As nothing is being done to rectify the underlying structural problems, the wealth and demand experienced over the past 20 years is evaporating. The likely hood of continued development along the lines of the past 20 years is essentially zero. Scenario 2 predicts a sustained rate of population growth similar to what we have been experiencing, but with more modest economic growth. Given the economic realities stated above, this too is not realistic. But there are 2 other factors in scenario 2 that bear mentioning, to highlight the perspective of those doing the modeling. First it states the primary constraints to regional economic growth are the unaffordability of housing for working families. And second that Global warming trends continue and many coastal areas threatened by flooding. The belief that the chief obstacle to economic growth is the lack of low income housing is a socialist precept, which contradicts experience. Low income housing depresses an economy and a neighborhood, it does not enhance it. There is also no mention of tax policy or regulation and their effects on the business climate, or the actual global cooling trend, and the corruption of climategate, which have exposed and discredited the entire global warming hoax34. In Scenario 3 we come the closest to reality, with a prediction of a declining economy, rising oil prices, and a loss of federal and state funding dollars. This they claim will result in a slight 7.4% decrease in population. It is likely this scenario grossly underestimates the economic devastation we are about to experience which has a high probability of causing a significant loss of working families living in Maine. Other contributing factors will be skyrocketing oil35 and energy prices, likely to be exacerbated by a continuation of
32

(http://www.gateway1.org/documents/actionplan/chpt/chpt4.pdf) (http://www.caseyresearch.com/editorial/4060?ppref=CRX226ED0211C) (http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=970&idli=3) (http://howcanoneknow.org/blog/2010/12/20/wake-up-oil-is-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/)

33

34

35

Page 11

the cooling trend of the past 10 years, and the very real possibility of hyperinflation36. Any one factor is enough to cause a dramatic reversal of Maines past growth history. Together they foretell what could turn out to be a substantial migration out of the state as Maine becomes an increasingly uneconomical place to live. Given these challenges to the assumption of unregulated growth, coupled with the fact that governments at all levels are not only broke, but would be bankrupt if they were allowed this option, the massive expenditure of funds when we are in a severe struggle to meet even basic services is irresponsible. The day is not far off when all such funding will cease out of necessity. The argument for Gateway 1 has only one component; The Plan does contain a justified collaborative planning initiative. However the argument against has many. * It is an unwise shift to regional governance intended to replace local control with a more easily manipulated structure. * The Social justice themes are socialist in nature, and in direct opposition to our system based on personal property rights. These rights are the foundation for the prosperity of the people, and their independence from the government. * People generally do not want to live stacked and packed on one another, especially by edict. Unfortunately, most people will be kept distracted and in the dark until the imposed changes affect them directly. Forced over development, congestion, and public or low income housing depresses an area, compromising its beauty and sense of place, while repelling economic development, not fostering it. The Gateway 1 land use policies will produce urban clusters of overdevelopment which will destroy the very character they claim they wish to preserve. Most citizens will fight this once they learn of it. Over development means congestion, loss of privacy, increased poverty, crime, drugs and filth. The string of pearls Gateway 1 predicts is in actuality a bunch of slums. When people are warehoused, and do not own the land, they have no pride of ownership, and bear no sense of responsibility for its maintenance. It is regrettable the very necessary goal of cooperative planning has been grafted onto a heavy handed Sustainability agenda. Recently, budgetary realities have lead to the suspension of Gateway 1 by the Maine DOT. This is welcome news. The lavish spending on planning initiatives, by Gateway 1 promoters, when critical infrastructure repair and maintenance has been ignored, has been irresponsible. However the driving forces behind initiatives like Gateway 1 will not stop just because of shifting budgetary priorities. Expect the devotees intent on driving land from private ownership into public, to re-organize, adapt, and keep pushing. The sustainable development movement will not be stopped so easily. The regulatory structure of the nation has been poisoned with it, and corporations have taken full advantage of the public private partnerships which have been very successful in skirting local control and the informed consent of the people to expand their influence. Take a look at this organization; CNU37, the Congress for New Urbanism. A quick scan will clearly
36

(http://www.shadowstats.com/article/hyperinflation-2010) (http://www.cnu.org/cnu19/what_is_cnu)

37

Page 12

identify it as yet another implementation effort for Sustainable Development, Smart growth, and hence Agenda 21. The mission of this organization reads like a carbon copy of Gateway 1. At the center of the web page is a link to SCI38, the Sustainable Cities Institute, a public private partnership consisting of one of the countrys top big box building material companies39 and ICLEI, the aforementioned global organization set up specifically to implement the Agenda 21 protocols as Sustainable Development. Their mission statement again reads like a carbon copy of Gateway 1. Whether the people involved in Gateway 1 realize it or not, Gateway 1 is an attempt to supersede local control through a regional structure which reduces the ability of local governments to resist the top down implementation of land use regulation. And the land use regulation being imposed is rooted in Agenda 21 whether it is called SmartGrowth, Sustainable Development, Livability or comprehensive planning. Because it has always been the specific intention of the Sustainable development movement to distance itself from its roots in Agenda 21 and the United Nations, those involved in Gateway 1 should be given the benefit of the doubt over their innocent ignorance. The media, which many for some reason still look to for information, has failed to investigate any of these facts, and instead loyally promotes the Gateway 1 PR, and ridicules any dissent from the desired story line. However, over the past couple months, as more and more are bringing this connection to light, the veil is being pulled back, and the shroud of innocence is being lost. The continued denial by committee members, and their failure to investigate these connections, can henceforth only be interpreted as willful ignorance. And the refusal to advance any meaningful public dialog can only be interpreted as their need and desire to avoid educating the public. For many years, sustainable development has been advanced in unsuspecting ways, without drawing the attention it deserved. But now a critical mass of people is awakening to the dangers. Let us hope there is enough wisdom in the people of Maine to comprehend this threat and avoid turning the communities of mid coast Maine into experiments in social engineering more likely to resemble Newark than Bar Harbor. Update: Since the writing of this paper, the Maine DOT has cut the funding for Gateway 1, due largely to the efforts of local Tea Party members However, this did not terminate the program. The Sustainable Development, Comprehensive Planning, Livability and Smartgrowth land use regulations which Gateway 1 was cover for, are aggressively being pushed at the local level, by the same people. Only now they have gone underground, and are seeking alternate methods of funding. Also, information has been uncovered revealing both conflicts of interest and the fact that some of the committee members stand to profit handsomely should they succeed in implementing the Gateway 1 land use changes. This should not be a surprise, because the move to a regional
38

(http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/view/page.home/home) (http://www.homedepotfoundation.org/)

39

Page 13

type control apparatus such as Gateway 1, is specifically designed to breach the protections afforded by elected representative government. Placing the power to control where and how development is allowed or prohibited, behind the shield of a private nonprofit corporation, is the recipe for corruption, and it is already festering. Let us hope we can muster enough public outrage at this usurpation of our property rights, to free ourselves of this menace and regain the republic Benjamin Franklin feared we might let slip through our fingers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Since the writing of this document, several of the links resident in the document have been scrubbed from the internet and thus are inactive. The following links will provide educational references for further study:
gateway1.org

http://sovereignty.net/ freedomadvocates.org http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/ http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/ How your community is implementing AGENDA 21 (YouTube video)

Page 14