gateway 1: the implementation of sustainable development through comprehensive planning by ted...

8/12/2019 Gateway 1: The Implementation of Sustainable Development through Comprehensive Planning by Ted Cowan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gateway-1-the-implementation-of-sustainable-development-through-comprehensive 1/22

Gateway 1Te Implementation of Sustainable Development through

Comprehensive Planning By

“Forcing the breaching of town borders by animposed regional structure”

by Ted Cowan

Camp Constitution Presswww.campconstitution.net



1

ForwardCamp Constitution Press is pleased to be able to reprint this important article byed Cowan. Gateway 1 is just on o the many entities that have been created orthe purpose o implementing Agenda 21, a plan that was introduced to the worldin 1992 at the United Nation’s Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro.

Copies o this booklet are available by calling (857) 498-1309. It is also available

in PDF ormat on Camp Constitution’s scribd page: http://www.scribd.com/CampConstitution

Hal Shurtleff, Director Camp Constitution August, 2014



2



3

Gateway 1Te Implementation o Sustainable Development through

Comprehensive PlanningBy

“Forcing the breaching o town borders by animposed regional structure”

Quote in bold taken rom “Te Model State Land Use Legislationor New England” stating the reasoning or regional organizations

like Gateway 1.

By ed Cowan

What is Gateway 1?

Gateway 1, according to its promoters, is an organization beingcreated to coordinate changes and improvements to the Route 1 Corridorbetween Brunswick and Stockton Springs, Maine. However concealedbehind the cover o attractive projects or Rt 1, lies an agenda o imposingradical land use changes. Tese changes are designed to shif people awayrom rural areas and direct uture development and population growthinto designated core growth areas centered around the specified towns.

One o the original Gateway 1 web pages, titled “Brie History oGateway 1”. (which has since been taken down), contained these statements.

Paragraph 3 states; Gateway 1 is “… an organized entity…allowingmember communities to regionally coordinate land use developmentand strategically invest Route 1 transportation improvements.”

However, paragraph 4 states; “Te only viable long term plan or this

corridor is a combination o prevention and strategic investment.”Paragraph 5 states; “Te goal o Gateway 1 is to minimize the

impact o uture development on Route 1 while sustainably supportingand connecting new jobs, affordable housing and transit opportunities.Te Action Plan proposes strategic transportation investments along thecorridor, and asks municipalities to make adjustments to their local



4

comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances to support more denselybuilt core growth areas, protect specific view sheds and wildlie habitats,and create a more defined level o roadway access management .” (Emphasis added)

As presented to the communities in a brochure called: “Gateway 1:Working together to keep Rte 1 moving” , Gateway 1 is sel described asgiving communities “… the unprecedented authority to prioritize newtransportation inrastructure improvements in the corridor.” And the tools“… to work together to develop alternative modes o transportation and toplan more careully how and where new development and roads channeltraffic onto Route 1.”

Some o these objectives appear to be very desirable. Generally

everyone wants to incorporate well thought out plans or inrastructureinvestments, to coordinate development with neighboring towns, and topreserve the beauty and character where we live. However, beyond theselectively publicized projects put orth to gain public acceptance, thereare aspects which represent proound changes to how and where we willbe allowed to live.

Tis act is acknowledged in Chapter 2 page 23 o Te Action Plan,

which states;“Te central eature… is a balance between jobs and housing, locatingthese in close proximity to each other in compact centers…” this “…represents a dramatic shif in public land use and housing policies…” ,“… achieving this pattern quickly… would be too jarring to public andprivate decision makers alike.” “…the best way… is to build an interimpattern…”, “…this stepping stone… aggressively guides job growthinto compact core growth areas… separated by rural spaces.” Again,

emphasis added.An organization which intends to bring about a dramatic and

“aggressive” shif in land use which is too jarring or the public to accept,and thereore deems it necessary to resort to gradualism to hide theultimate goal, is automatically suspect, and deserves very close scrutiny.Where did the desire to do this, the details o the plan, and the mechanismto accomplish it come rom?

Te Implementation Steering Committee members and otherparticipants state that Gateway 1 is a 100% local, totally grassroots, effort.However the evidence indicates something very different. It is a littlemore than suspicious that communities around the country are battlingthe imposition o these exact same land use ordinances, supposedly alsoinitiated by local grass roots organizations, always under the supervisionand guidance o the state planning agencies, HUD and the Department o



5

ransportation, among others.We’ll take an in depth look at Gateway 1 in a moment, but or now

I will state that Gateway 1 is an attempt to implement what is known as“Sustainable Development” and/or “SmartGrowth” land use principles.

But where did the impetus or this initiative really come rom?Te story begins more than 30 years ago with radical environmentalistgroups that were convinced that over population and pollution weredestroying the environment and exhausting resources. Determined to takeaction, they worked out the blue print or a large scale, long range plan,which would in their minds, “save the planet”. Teir solution however,had a problem; no one in their right mind would ever accept the plan. Ipeople understood the end goal, and implications o the changes in lie

style demanded by the plan, it would be rejected en mass and discarded aslunacy.

What is this plan? It is called “Te Wildlands Project” and itsdevelopment was unded by grants rom the Nature Conservancy and theNational Audubon Society. Dr. Reed Noss was hired to develop the conceptenvisioned by Dave Foreman, co-ounder o the radical and violent “EarthFirst” movement, as outlined in his book Conessions o an Eco Warrior.

Statements made by the leaders o these organizations are indications othe underlying philosophy o their plans.First a statement rom John Davis (editor o Wild Earth) the publication

that introduced the Wildlands Project: “Does all the oregoing mean thatthe Wild Earth and the Wildlands advocate the end o industrializedcivilization? Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go!”

Next we hear rom Judi Bari o Earth First, the organization o radicalenvironmentalist Dave Foreman: “I we don’t overthrow capitalism, we

don’t have a chance o saving the world ecologically. I think it is possibleto have an ecologically-sound society under socialism. I don’t think it ispossible under capitalism.”

Next rom Reed Noss, author o the Wildlands Project “the collectiveneeds o non-human species must take precedence over the needs anddesires o humans”

And finally a quote rom Peter Berle, a ormer president o the

National Audubon Society one o the chie unders o the creation o theWildlands Project “We reject the idea o private property.” Te plan these groups advocate is to; collapse capitalism, de-

industrialize society, and orce the relocation o humans off o at least 50% o the land in the country and return it to strictly nature and wild liepreserves. Core wilderness areas will be connected by Corridors so animalscan roam reely within them. Corridors are on average expected to be at



6

least 50 miles wide. Humans will be barred orm the wilderness areas,and corridors, and will only be allowed in the buffer zones or specificlimited reasons. Humans will only be permitted to live in compact humanhabitation zones called cooperation zones.

As this plan is currently official policy o the United States incooperation with the UN, there are now at least 47 what are termed“biosphere reserves” in the US. Te buffer zones surrounding these“reserves” encompass millions o acres o privately held land over whichthe UN organization UNESCO has imposed restrictions, and the USmeekly complies. Public input over the nature o these restrictions is notallowed. In 1994 the State Department published a document to explainingthe program called the “Strategic Plan or U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program”.

As this plan at its heart is a socialist agenda to end capitalism andprivate property, strictly regulate human activity, orce the relocation opeople out o rural wilderness areas and corral them into high densitypopulation centers, there is a large political aspect to this. Tis is evidentin the intimate connection to and close cooperation between these radicalenvironmental groups and the communist dominated UN.

In the 1980’s the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),

the International Union or the Conservation o Nature (IUCN); the WorldWide Fund or Nature (WWF); and the World Resources Institute (WRI),began jointly publishing a series o documents which would evolve intoa general concept o land management. Tese publications were; WorldConservation Strategy (1980), Caring or the Earth (1991), and GlobalBiodiversity Strategy (1982). All o these documents adopted and espousedthe same land use management concepts outlined in the Wildlands Project.Only the terminology was modified sufficiently to create the appearance o

originality. It is not a coincidence that at the same time, the Conventionon Biological Diversity was held, Al Gore published his book, Earth inthe Balance, and a new organization ICLEI, Te International Council orEnvironmental Initiatives was created by the UN to acilitate the inusiono the orthcoming land use management initiatives into communitiesaround the world.

When it was all boiled down and packaged, it was revealed in 1992

at Te United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro under the title o“Agenda 21”. Signed onto by President Bush and the leaders o 178 othercountries, it would be pushed through in the US via executive order, byboth Republican and Democrat presidents. Tis is where the rubber hit theroad, and things began to pick up momentum. Te entire agenda shouldhave been stopped in its tracks on the simple act that the President has noauthority to make law. Only Congress has the authority to make law and it



7

is prohibited rom delegating that responsibility to any other branch. Teexecutive branch, the President, is tasked with executing the laws passedby Congress, period. Tus the rules and regulations propagated by theseexecutive orders, are unlawul and unconstitutional “edicts” generated by

bureaucrats. With Congress abdicating its responsibility, and the courtsunwilling to undertake a judicial review, we have essentially “returnedto a pre-constitutional mode o despotism” as stated by Proessor oConstitutional Law Philip Hamburger in his book “Is Administrative LawUnlawul”.

Te ailure o the other branches o government to curtail the abuseso power incorporated in these “edicts “, opened the flood gates, and a tidalwave o such directives is now the primary means by which the American

public is controlled and manipulated by the ederal government. Tus wehave the ollowing sequence o events creating the administrative structureto take control o land use in the United States, bypassing the consent othe people.

• 1992 George Bush signs Agenda 21 protocols in Rio

• 1993 Bill Clinton signs Executive Order 12582 creating “President’sCouncil on Sustainable Development” (PCSD) to implement the

Agenda 21 protocols as “Sustainable Development”.

• Te American Planning association creates 3 quasi government/corporate organizations to ghost write legislation to promote“Sustainable Development”: Te United States Conerence oMayors, Te National Governors Association, and Te AmericanLegislative Exchange Council. Note: Te APA is responsible or thenational certification o proessional planners. Te significance o

this will be demonstrated later in the paper.

• Commerce Secretary Ron Brown estimated that 60% o Agenda 21policy directives can be implemented through “Rule Making”.

• In 1997, the APA introduces “Growing Smart” and publishes“Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes or Planningand the Management o Change.” Tis would eventually becomeknown as “SmartGrowth”.

• President Clinton directs the Department o Commerce and TeDepartment o Housing and Urban Development to collaborate tounnel $5 million into the American Planning Association to undSmart Growth across the country to create and disseminate therequisite “Rules”.



8

• “Comprehensive Planning” promoted as chie tool or insertingAgenda 21 protocols, via SmartGrowth, and Sustainable developmentinto local land use ordinances.

• 1998 Al Gore launched the “Livability agenda directing the

collaboration o the US DO, Housing and Urban Development(HUD), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to unda new organization, Te Partnership or Sustainable Communities.

• Trough the EPA, a new organization, Te Center or EnvironmentalFinance, creates a network o 10 “Environmental Finance Centers” ascollaboration between the private sector and Universities to generateand disseminate model legislation and guidelines to enorce and

und SmartGrowth.• One such regional Center is located here in Maine at Te

University o Southern Maine Edmund S. Muskie School oPublic Service. In 2003, Te Muskie School produced “ModelState Land Use Legislation or New England”. Tis is basedon Maine Land Use Law, with suggestions on how to changethe law to better enorce SmartGrowth policies. Tis guide is

used extensively across the nation.• Te sort o changes this guide suggests is best exemplified by

this excerpt rom Chapter 4, provision V. Clustered, PlannedUnit, High Density, and In-Fill Development. Page 81. Teguide suggests adding this amendment to existing law:

§4361. Clustered, Planned Unit, High Density, and In-fill Development

1. Legislative intent.Te Legislature finds that clustered development, planned unit development,high density development (that is, development that exceeds or in some casesapproximates historic density patterns in the core areas o any municipality),and in-fill development are all mechanisms that prevent sprawl, reducemunicipal expenses, conserve open space, enhance the amenity characteristicso new development, and reduce the public and private economic costs onew development. Tese advantages are achieved by channeling developmentonto a portion o larger parcels or onto existing unused parcels within orimmediately adjacent to more built up areas o a municipality. Developmentsin these settings are most ofen able to take advantage o existing inrastructure(water, sewer, public utility lines); as a result, new inra-structure costs are



9

eliminated or kept to a minimum; because they are ofen in close proximity toexisting churches, schools, shops, and related municipal services, increasingthe degree to which the developments unction as part o a neighborhood. Itis the intent of the Legislature that municipalities pursuant to their home

rule authority shall authorize and facilitate these types of development.

4. Enorcement. Municipal ordinances or actions that have the effect of prohibiting ,directly or indirectly, these types of development within the communityare a violation of legislative intent, entitling landowners or developersoperating within the municipality and/or the Attorney General’s office toseek appropriate remedial relief.

What is suggested here is that local ordinances and zoning shouldbe null and void i they interere with the social engineering schemesbeing pushed by the sustainable development directives, and impliesthat i local communities try to prevent the sustainable developmentdirectives, and choose instead to adhere to their own ordinances, they

are subject to law suits and prosecution.• Model State Land Use Regulation or New England also

contains a proposal or the creation o Municipal ServiceDistricts (page 8). On page 9, the document claims that“Home Rule” ….”has helped the New England town resisttop-down efforts to impose regionalism.” On page 14 indiscussing the impediment that town borders pose to such anorganization, it states “One solution is to orce a breachingo the borders by an imposed regional structure.” Gateway1 was intended to be just such a structure. It is designedto diminish the effectiveness o local control, so land useordinances can more easily be dictated rom the ederal orstate level, bypassing the elected local government.

• oday each state is broken down into Regional Councils oGovernments. Maine has 11;

Androscoggin Valley Council o Governments Auburn Eastern Maine Development Corporation Bangor Greater Portland Council o Governments Portland Hancock County Planning Commission Ellsworth Kennebec Valley Council o Governments Fairfield



10

Lincoln County Regional Planning Commission Wiscasset Mid-Coast Council o Governments Bath Midcoast Regional Planning Commission Rockland Northern Maine Development Commission Caribou

Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission Portland Washington County Council o Governments Calais

Regional councils are being created across the country. Many servelegitimate coordinating unctions. However, the concept o RegionalGovernance is transorming representative government, and eroding theauthority and accountability o elected officials.

An example o how regionalism works to thwart the will o the people

is evident in the way Cap and rade came about in Maine. Tis program isan alternate taxing mechanism intended to drive up the cost o electricityto reduce consumption, and unnel the money to special interest groups,(a orm o corruption known as crony capitalism). As Cap and rade hasbeen discredited and rejected by the public at large, the promoters workedbehind the scenes, using “regional” bureaucracies to get it done.

Te process was started with a Memorandum o Understanding with

other governors, and a process known as the “Stakeholder Process” was usedto assimilate an image o public support. Tis was done with support romenvironmental groups, oversight by the DEP, and guided by a proessionalacilitator, in this case, Raab Associates, Ltd. Te end result; the RegionalGreenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). In 2007 Governor Baldacci signed theRegional Greenhouse Gas Initiative linking Maine with 9 other states in aCarbon rading scheme. Tus ar it has siphoned off about a billion dollarsin revenues, to und pet environmental projects and successully drive

up electricity rates. Because the RGGI is a nonprofit corporation, just asGateway 1 is intended to be, it has been able to avoid public scrutiny in itsoperations.

One o the purposes or the creation o Smart Growth was to provideguidance in changing the nature o government. It did this by creatinga manual called “Model Statutes or Planning and Change”. Tis lead tothe creation o non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) which could

implement policy recommendations, bypassing elected representativegovernment. Smart growth also uses grants as financial incentives to enticestates and local governments to adopt the legislation needed to do this.

When GrowSmart Maine was created in 2003, one o its objectives waslisted as “Restructuring Maine Government”. Te Brookings Institutionwas hired by SmartGrowth Maine to do a study which they published asCharting Maine’s Future. Te Brookings Institution is a lef wing think tank



11

partnered with the London School o Economics. Te LSE was created byand is the mother ship or; Fabian Socialists. Both the Brookings Institutionand the London School o Economics approach the issue o economicdevelopment and planning rom the side o Socialism. Te alternative to

the Brookings Institution which approaches the issue rom the side o reemarket economics and capitalism is the American Enterprise Institute.Tis bias or socialist approaches to development is the core o

“Charting Maine’s Future”. Instead o easing the onerous regulationsimposed on Maine business and reducing the massive tax burdens, tounleash the entrepreneurial spirit, the report proclaims the need or morebonding (debt) to increase spending. wo examples are; $190 million orthe Maine Quality Places Fund, and $200 million or the Maine Innovation

Jobs Fund. Te report then goes on to address the supposed need tomodiy the town zoning laws which prohibit the high density development“they” desire. Ten with specific reerence to Gateway 1 on pgs 127 &128, the report suggests that the state tie transportation investmentsto compliance by the towns with adoption o the specified land useordinances and the removal o regulatory barriers which prohibit theprolieration o low income housing, now called Workorce Housing.

So this is the structure o the bureaucracy which creates anddispenses to local cities and towns, the land use “edicts” contained inthe Agenda 21 protocols. o obscure the link between Agenda 21, theUnited Nations and local implementation schemes, the terms sustainabledevelopment, comprehensive planning and SmartGrowth were invented. J.Gary Lawrence, an advisor to President Clinton’s Council on SustainableDevelopment stressed the necessity o 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 somethingelse, such as, “Comprehensive planning,” “growth management,” or“smart growth.”

o urther emphasize the point that the Wildlands Project, Agenda 21,Sustainable Development and SmartGrowth are anti-capitalist, radicallysocialist, and bent on overseeing the de-industrialization o civilization,

here are 2 more quotes. Te first is a quote rom one o its chie architects,Maurice Strong, Secretary General o the UN Environment Program:: “…current liestyles and consumption patterns o the affluent

middle class- involving high meat intake use o ossil uels, appliances,home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing- arenot sustainable.” “Te United States is the greatest threat to the globalenvironment. It is guilty o environmental aggression against the planet.



12

‘ “Isn’t the only hope or the planet that the industrializedcivilizations collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Next is a policy statement rom the UN Conerence on HumanSettlements; one o the guiding documents or Agenda 21, and the

Sustainability and Livability principles, the implementation mechanismsor Agenda 21. Tis is also a key principle o Gateway 1, being a directapplication o Sustainable development, SmartGrowth and Livability.

Chapter D. Policy on land use.

• Land, because o its unique nature and the crucial role it plays inhuman settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlledby individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies o themarket. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument oaccumulation and concentration o wealth and thereore contributesto social injustice ; i unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the

planning and implementation o 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 isused in the interests of society as a whole.

Tis is a call or the elimination o private property. As will bedemonstrated later, (although the wording will change rom one documentto another) depending upon whether it is Sustainable Development,SmartGrowth, Livability, and Gateway 1, all call or the same restrictionson private property, leading eventually to public ownership o the land.Tis is at the very least socialism, and by definition communism. It does

not work, and will always generate poverty and a police state. Without theright to ownership o private property we do not have liberty, which is oneo our most basic undamental rights.

So now let’s start looking at Gateway 1 and its connections toSmartGrowth, Sustainable Development, Te Livability Agenda, Agenda21 and the Wildlands Project. We’ll start by challenging the suppositionthat the work is solely that o the members o the “grass roots” committee.

In the Gateway 1 Corridor Action Plan itsel, on Page iii there is a

declaration by the Steering Committee that “…this Plan is the product oour work and recommendations…”

However the very first note at the top o the Action Plan Appendicesis the statement that: “ All Gateway 1 materials are the property of the Maine Department of ransportation and the HNB Corporation.” TeGateway 1 project inormation is resident on the Maine Department o



13

ransportation (MDO) web site, and is also listed as US Department oransportation (US DO) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)projects. Here they identiy Gateway 1 as a “Statewide Corridor Approach”to implement the Livability Agenda, a project o the Livability Initiative,

ollowing the CSS principles. Let’s identiy the other declared owner o allGateway 1 materials, the HNB Corporation, beore seeking to understandthe “Livability Agenda” and CSS(Context Sensative Solutions) principles.

HNB is a private architectural, planning and consulting firmormerly known as, (Howard, Needles, ammen and Bergendoff). Teyhave contracts with the US Army Corp o Engineers, the naval acilitiesengineering command, the general services administration, department ohomeland security, and the FAA, among other agencies. Tey are involved

in the ull range o civil engineering projects - rom bridges, tunnels andrail, to intelligent transportation systems, and urban designs includingsustainable design projects. Either this corporation is doing a substantialamount o work pro bono or these good citizens, or the tax payer is ootingwhat I suspect is a rather substantial bill or services rendered.

Gateway 1 is also listed as a project o the US DO, under the FHWA,and DO, with ownership o the materials going to MDO and the

HNB Corporation. Beore moving on, let’s mention two more identifierspreviously located on the DO Gateway 1 home pages (which have sincebeen removed). Te ollowing declarations were made:

“Wednesday, December 1, 2010 the Environmental ProtectionAgency’s 2010 National Award or Smart Growth Achievementin the Rural category was awarded to Gateway 1 and the MaineDepartment of ransportation.”

“According to EPA, these award winners embody the principlesbehind EPA’s work with the U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development and the U.S. Department of ransportationunder the Partnership for Sustainable Communities.”

Not only do these acknowledge Gateway 1 as clearly a projecto the Maine DO, but identiy it as a product o “Te Partnership for Sustainable Communities.”

Te “Livability Agenda”, which the Maine DO site claims Gateway1 is a project o, was launched by Vice President Al Gore on September 2,1998 in order to implement regional “SmartGrowth” principles. It did thisby issuing directives or the DO, HUD, and EPA to cooperate through anorganization created or the purpose called, the “Partnership or SustainableCommunities”, the organization the Gateway 1 home page claims itsel to be



14

a product o. Tis same page mentions that Te Partnership or SustainableCommunities led to “ContextSensitiveSolutions.org”, (CSS), a resource orthe prolieration o the methods to be used to implement such directives asLivability and SmartGrowth.

Smart Growth was a creation o the American Planning Associationor the specific purpose o creating “Model statutes or Planning and themanagement o Change”. Te American Planning Association was sodirected by “Te President’s Council on Sustainable Development, a directresult o Executive Order 12582 by Bill Clinton. Tis executive order wasdesigned to implement the specific policy recommendations includedin Agenda 21, the UN document signed by George Bush and 179 othernations in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

As demonstrated throughout this paper, Gateway 1 is a directdescendant o “Te President’s Council on Sustainable Development”,and “Te Partnership or Sustainable Communities”, via HUD, the Depto Commerce, the USDO and the EPA, with its roots firmly plantedin SmartGrowth, the Livability Initiative, and the State Planning Office.In act, a ormer director o Te State Planning Office, on the board odirectors o SmartGrowth Maine, is one o the chie consultant promoters

o Gateway 1. I want to restate a act mentioned earlier, that the AmericanPlanning Association is responsible or the national certification oproessional planners, and it is a reasonable expectation that all plannersare now indoctrinated in the principles o SmartGrowth, and are wellaware where their bread and butter comes rom, and how best to keep the$$$ flowing to remain employed.

Key aspects o the project are the ollowing:

1. Create range o housing opportunities. (Tis means the undingand creation o Low Income Housing which has been renamedWorkorce housing.) pg 112

2. Create walkable neighborhoods. (Tis means create compactdevelopment incentives, community centered schools, businesses,services etc. to eliminate the need or cars and thus gasoline. Teseare called core growth areas. Allow development in these centersat a FAR –Floor Area Ratio, o at least .7, without a minimum lot

size, and reduce requirements or off street parking) pg 106, 113

(People generally do not want to live stacked and packed onone another, especially by edict. Forced over development,congestion, and public or low income housing depresses anarea, compromising its beauty and sense o place, while repelling



15

economic development, not ostering it. Te Gateway 1 landuse policies will produce urban clusters o over-developmentwhich will destroy the very character they claim they wish topreserve. Most citizens will fight this once they learn o it. Over

development means congestion, loss o privacy, increased poverty,crime, drugs and filth. Te string o pearls Gateway 1 predicts willin time become a bunch o slums. When people are warehoused,and do not own the land, they have no pride o ownership, andbear no sense o responsibility or its maintenance.)

3. Mix land uses ( Again this means create compact developmentincentives to locate business and industry in the core growthareas.) pg 106

4. Preserve open space, armland, natural beauty and criticalenvironmental areas, by restricting access.

5. Provide a variety o transportation choices ( Tis means bikepaths, pedestrian walkways, light rail, and buses)

6. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities.

7. ake advantage o compact building design.

8. Some o these may sound desirable and some aspects o the planare reasonable. However when you remember that this plan is buta stepping stone to get the camel’s nose under the tent, to acilitatethe more radical changes to come, we should tread with caution.Tis is a 75 year plan to be implemented incrementally. Te publichas a right to be made aware o the long range consequences ogoing down this road blindly. So let’s look at some o the things

that Agenda 21, the inspiration or the Gateway 1 land usechanges, deems un-sustainable and thereore must eventually becurtailed:

Ski runs, grazing o livestock, disturbance o soil surace, plowing osoil, building ences, commercial agriculture, modern arm production,chemical ertilizers, ossil uels, any industrial activity, human made caveso brick and mortar(houses), paved and tarred roads, railroads, technology,

range lands, fish ponds, plantations or range lands, harvesting timber andmodern hunting, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, straighteningrivers, power line construction. Tese items may not be showing up in theinitial list o land use modifications being put orth at the moment, but wemust be aware that these are the convictions o those pushing this stuff. Teyare looking at a 75 year time line to get it done, and have constructed an



16

intricate array o interconnected organizations, and unding mechanismswhich require compliance with any stipulated directives, to oversee andenorce it all.

Te strong opposition to much o this project, and others like it is

due to the act the proponents are either deliberately deceptive as to itstrue nature, or are naively unaware and rejecting efforts to be educated.Te secrecy, steadast reusal to allow any questioning or debate o theissues, complete dismissal o the concerns o those o the public that havedone the research, and the strong arm tactics used to silence critics (policepresence threatening to remove people who ask questions), should besetting off alarm bells. Such tactics would not be utilized unless there issomething more going on than just improvements to Route 1. Tey are

desperate to keep people rom discovering that the majority o the Planconcerns changes to land use to prevent development in rural areas,restrict access to the land in rural areas, and direct the growth into thecore growth areas. I you look at the Gateway 1 Action Plan in Chapter 9,you can see the plans being drawn up or your town.

People must be made aware that the Gateway 1 type regional councilstructure is intended to bypass the oversight provided by the ballot box,with a more easily manipulated, controlled , and corrupt process. Tequote in the title o this paper rom Te Model State Land Use LegislationGuidebook applies directly to the rationale or regional organizations likeGateway 1; “Forcing the breaching o town borders by an imposed regionalstructure” .

Te method used to control the outcome o any meetings organizedto promote projects such as Gateway 1 is known as the Delphi echnique.Proessional acilitators are used, and the meetings seeded with peopletasked to silence debate, and dissenters. When initially orming a group,extreme care is used to find people that support the stated objectives insufficient quantity that they dominate the group. Te first meetings are rarelyadvertised, with the people being personally invited. Several meetings will

probably be held beore the public ever learns that they are taking place,although it will almost always be stated that the meetings are open to thepublic. Most likely, when the public does learn o their existence, the groupis already well organized and underway. Te real purpose o these meetingsis not to learn rom the participants, but to educate or “indoctrinate” them.

A consultant is usually hired to run the meeting who is most likely atrained acilitator. Afer the meetings this “consultant” will write a report



17

“Te Plan”, which will be identified as having been produced by the group.o give credibility to the entire process and the group, a spokesman osome prominence will be chosen, such as a local businessman or politician.

Almost always there will be various Non Governmental Organizations

(NGO’s), such as environmental groups, involved to assist in initiating thegroup, although their true role and associations may be kept hidden.A quick search o the internet will reveal several firsthand accounts o

people that have participated in such visioning and stakeholder meetingsand were outraged at the blatant manipulation. Participants are generallysurprised at the success the acilitators have in directing the group to reachthe conclusions desired by the acilitators.

An enormous amount o work has gone into the development

o Gateway 1. Obviously large sums o money have been spent on theengineering and consultant firms that did the research and analysis, andgenerated the materials. But that does not excuse or justiy the continuedimplementation o misguided and destructive policies.

Gateway 1 uses 3 possible scenarios or growth trends in Mainein ormulating their intended land use strategies. Te premises or the3 scenarios display the skewed and biased philosophical and political

underpinnings o the study. And i one takes into account the current stateo the economy and realistic orecasts or the uture, it becomes immediatelyobvious that the demographical actors which ormed the basis or the theplan, are today virtually worthless. Te population growth statistics usedare included in Chapter 4 o the Action Plan. Te 3 scenarios they presentpredict population changes o either, 1) a 71% increase, 2) a 30 % increaseor 3) a 7.4% decrease.

Scenario 1 is predicated on a rate o population growth greater

than that experienced over the last 20 years accompanied by a boomingeconomy. Te current economy is in recession with no immediate prospecto relie. Businesses are shutting down, unemployment is continuing withthe prospect o significant inflation. Te true depth o the calamity iscurrently being masked by the printing o fiat money which can only staveo disaster temporarily. We are entering what has already been labeled “TeGreater Depression”. As nothing is being done to rectiy the underlying

structural problems, the wealth and demand experienced over the past 20years is evaporating. Te likelihood o continued development along thelines o the past 20 years is essentially zero.

Scenario 2 predicts a sustained rate o population growth similar towhat we have been experiencing, but with more modest economic growth.Given the economic realities stated above, this too is not realistic. Butthere are 2 other actors in scenario 2 that bear mentioning, to highlight



18

the perspective o those doing the modeling. First it states the “primaryconstraints to regional economic growth are the unaffordability o housingor working amilies. And second that “Global warming trends continueand many coastal areas threatened by flooding.” Te belie that the chie

obstacle to economic growth is the lack o low income housing is a socialistprecept, which contradicts experience. Low income housing depressesan economy and a neighborhood, it does not enhance it. Tere is alsono mention o tax policy or regulation and their effects on the businessclimate, or the corruption o climategate, and the global warming hoaxwhich conceals the actual global cooling trend.

In Scenario 3 we come the closest to reality, with a prediction o adeclining economy, rising oil prices, and a loss o ederal and state unding

dollars. Tis they claim will “result in a slight 7.4% decrease in population.It is likely this scenario grossly underestimates the economic devastationwe are about to experience which has a high probability o causing asignificant loss o working amilies living in Maine. Other contributingactors will be skyrocketing oil and energy prices, likely to be exacerbated bya continuation o the cooling trend, and the continued increase in inflationwith the very real possibility o hyperinflation. Any one actor is enough

to cause a dramatic reversal o Maine’s past growth history. ogether theyoretell what could turn out to be a substantial migration out o the state asMaine becomes an increasingly uneconomical, and cold place to live.

In 2010, Maine’s governor suspended unding or Gateway 1. Howeverthe devotees’ intent on pushing their socialist agenda have not let this slowthem down. Tey have simply gone underground, continuing to push thesame land use changes in comprehensive plans, and are seeking alternatesources o unding.

Because the Sustainable Development movement has beenconstructed to con well meaning people into unwitting accomplices, some,but not all o those involved in Gateway 1 should be given the benefit othe doubt over their innocent ignorance. Te media however has provenitsel to be lazy, incompetent and/or complicit in the deception, and doesnot deserve such a pass.

As many communities have now been under the thumb o Sustainable

Development or over 20 years, the track record can now be analyzed todetermine the consequences. Portland Oregon is a good example to reviewas it has embraced Smart Growth. In an article doing just this, RandalO’oole o the Toreau Institute says this; “From the resident’s point o view, Portland’s Smart Growth plan is a nightmare. Te regions congestionis rapidly growing, homeownership is out o reach o most residents whodo not already own homes, and urban open space is being replaced by



19

infill development. Far rom saving tax payers dollars, local governmentshave to raise taxes or reduce urban services to pay or planners’ transitand housing dreams.” Ten in reerence as to the “regional” organizationwhich took charge o planning (Metro) he provides this quote rom

Anthony Downs o the Brookings Institution, “that a regional governmentsuch as (Portland)Metro “can take controversial stands without making itsindividual members commit themselves to those stands. Each member canclaim that “the organization” did it or blame all the other members”. Tis isexactly what would happen with Gateway 1.

Te report is ull o items stating things such as: “irate neighborhoodresidents objected to densification”, “objections happened in almost everytargeted neighborhood”, voters…. recalled their mayor and most o their

city council rom office in protest against high-density zoning”, “vacant lotsthat might have been developed as a single amily homes were now slatedor row houses or small apartments. Zoning in many areas was so strictthat homeowners whose houses burned down were required to replacethem with apartments”, “Portland went rom being one o the nation’s mostaffordable housing markets beore 1990 to one o the ten least affordableby 1996”.

Ten there is this gem which is eerily amiliar to those o us thattried to question the Gateway 1 people here in Maine: “Metro quietlyadvised city planners to have “open houses”, that accepted no public inputrather than public hearings where speakers could stir up local opinionagainst rezoning.” But my avorite bit o wisdom is this rom a leasingmanager struggling with empty retail space in a mixed use developmentin a pedestrian–riendly neighborhood with wide sidewalks, and limitedparking, located near a light-rail station; “location might work or a store

that doesn’t expect to ever have customers show up, but that’s not the usualway retailing works.”

Te number o studies now being done which reveal the catastrophicailure that is smart growth is growing. A report by the National Center orPolicy Analysis reveals multiple cases where the crime rate has exploded inthe dense zoning mandated by Sustainable development.

Maine has always had a history o its people being independent and

sel sufficient. As a consequence we have steadastly resisted being toldwhat we should or shouldn’t do, and judged or ourselves what is in ourbest interest. Regional structures like Gateway 1 are a deliberate effort tobreak through this “obstacle” which is preventing “planners” rom orcingtheir ideas on local cities and towns. As the quote in the title o this paperstates, it is intended to “orce the breaching o town borders” to acilitate atop down imposition o “rules” they do not want to “justiy” to the public.



20

Where this has been done, the people eventually rise up and push it back, ithey can. Do we here in Maine have to wait to suffer through the devastatingeffects o Sustainable Development beore enough people rise up to thwartits advance? Or are we smart enough to stop it beore it overwhelms us?

gateway 1: the implementation of sustainable development through comprehensive planning by ted...

Documents