This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Te Implementation of Sustainable Development through
“Forcing the breaching of town borders by an
imposed regional structure”
by Ted Cowan
Camp Constitution Press
Camp Constitution Press is pleased to be able to reprint this important article by
Ted Cowan. Gateway 1 is just on of the many entities that have been created for
the purpose of implementing Agenda 21, a plan that was introduced to the world
in 1992 at the United Nation’s Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro.
Copies of this booklet are available by calling (857) 498-1309. It is also available
in PDF format on Camp Constitution’s scribd page: http://www.scribd.com/
Hal Shurtlef, Director Camp Constitution August, 2014
Te Implementation of Sustainable Development through
“Forcing the breaching of town borders by an
imposed regional structure”
Quote in bold taken from “Te Model State Land Use Legislation
for New England” stating the reasoning for regional organizations
like Gateway 1.
By Ted Cowan
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 concealed
behind the cover of attractive projects for Rt 1, lies an agenda of imposing
radical land use changes. Tese changes are designed to shif people away
from rural areas and direct future development and population growth
into designated core growth areas centered around the specifed towns.
One of the original Gateway 1 web pages, titled “Brief History of
Gateway 1”. (which has since been taken down), contained these statements.
Paragraph 3 states; Gateway 1 is “… an organized entity…allowing
member communities to regionally coordinate land use development
and strategically invest Route 1 transportation improvements.”
However, paragraph 4 states; “Te only viable long term plan for this
corridor is a combination of prevention and strategic investment.”
Paragraph 5 states; “Te goal of Gateway 1 is to minimize the
impact of future development on Route 1 while sustainably supporting
and connecting new jobs, afordable housing and transit opportunities.
Te 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 specifc view sheds and wildlife habitats,
and create a more defned level of roadway access management.”
As presented to the communities in a brochure called: “Gateway 1:
Working together to keep Rte 1 moving” , 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
trafc 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, there
are aspects which represent profound changes to how and where we will
be allowed to live.
Tis fact is acknowledged in Chapter 2 page 23 of Te Action Plan,
“Te central feature… is a balance between jobs and housing, locating
these 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 and
private decision makers alike.” “…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,
An organization which intends to bring about a dramatic and
“aggressive” shif 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, the details of the plan, and the mechanism
to accomplish it come from?
Te Implementation Steering Committee members and other
participants state that Gateway 1 is a 100% local, totally grassroots, efort.
However the evidence indicates something very diferent. It is a little
more than suspicious that communities around the country are battling
the imposition of these exact same land use ordinances, supposedly also
initiated by local grass roots organizations, always under the supervision
and guidance of the state planning agencies, HUD and the Department of
Transportation, among others.
We’ll take an in depth look at Gateway 1 in a moment, but for 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 for this initiative really come from?
Te story begins more than 30 years ago with radical environmentalist
groups that were convinced that over population and pollution were
destroying the environment and exhausting resources. Determined to take
action, they worked out the blue print for 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. If
people understood the end goal, and implications of the changes in life
style demanded by the plan, it would be rejected en mass and discarded as
What is this plan? It is called “Te Wildlands Project” and its
development was funded by grants from the Nature Conservancy and the
National Audubon Society. Dr. Reed Noss was hired to develop the concept
envisioned by Dave Foreman, co-founder of the radical and violent “Earth
First” movement, as outlined in his book Confessions of an Eco Warrior.
Statements made by the leaders of these organizations are indications of
the underlying philosophy of their plans.
First a statement from John Davis (editor of Wild Earth) the publication
that introduced the Wildlands Project: “Does all the foregoing mean that
the Wild Earth and the Wildlands advocate the end of industrialized
civilization? Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go!”
Next we hear from Judi Bari of Earth First, the organization of radical
environmentalist Dave Foreman: “If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we
don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible
to have an ecologically-sound society under socialism. I don’t think it is
possible under capitalism.”
Next from Reed Noss, author of the Wildlands Project “the collective
needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and
desires of humans”
And fnally a quote from Peter Berle, a former president of the
National Audubon Society one of the chief funders of the creation of the
Wildlands Project “We reject the idea of private property.”
Te plan these groups advocate is to; collapse capitalism, de-
industrialize society, and force the relocation of humans of of at least 50
% of the land in the country and return it to strictly nature and wild life
preserves. Core wilderness areas will be connected by Corridors so animals
can roam freely within them. Corridors are on average expected to be at
least 50 miles wide. Humans will be barred form the wilderness areas,
and corridors, and will only be allowed in the bufer zones for specifc
limited reasons. Humans will only be permitted to live in compact human
habitation zones called cooperation zones.
As this plan is currently ofcial policy of the United States in
cooperation with the UN, there are now at least 47 what are termed
“biosphere reserves” in the US. Te bufer zones surrounding these
“reserves” encompass millions of acres of privately held land over which
the UN organization UNESCO has imposed restrictions, and the US
meekly complies. Public input over the nature of these restrictions is not
allowed. In 1994 the State Department published a document to explaining
the program called the “Strategic Plan for U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program”.
As this plan at its heart is a socialist agenda to end capitalism and
private property, strictly regulate human activity, force the relocation of
people out of rural wilderness areas and corral them into high density
population centers, there is a large political aspect to this. Tis is evident
in the intimate connection to and close cooperation between these radical
environmental groups and the communist dominated UN.
In the 1980’s the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); the World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); and the World Resources Institute (WRI),
began jointly publishing a series of documents which would evolve into
a general concept of land management. Tese publications were; World
Conservation Strategy (1980), Caring for the Earth (1991), and Global
Biodiversity Strategy (1982). All of these documents adopted and espoused
the same land use management concepts outlined in the Wildlands Project.
Only the terminology was modifed sufciently to create the appearance of
originality. It is not a coincidence that at the same time, the Convention
on Biological Diversity was held, Al Gore published his book, Earth in
the Balance, and a new organization ICLEI, Te International Council for
Environmental Initiatives was created by the UN to facilitate the infusion
of the forthcoming land use management initiatives into communities
around 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 of
“Agenda 21”. Signed onto by President Bush and the leaders of 178 other
countries, it would be pushed through in the US via executive order, by
both Republican and Democrat presidents. Tis is where the rubber hit the
road, and things began to pick up momentum. Te entire agenda should
have been stopped in its tracks on the simple fact that the President has no
authority to make law. Only Congress has the authority to make law and it
is prohibited from delegating that responsibility to any other branch. Te
executive branch, the President, is tasked with executing the laws passed
by Congress, period. Tus the rules and regulations propagated by these
executive orders, are unlawful and unconstitutional “edicts” generated by
bureaucrats. With Congress abdicating its responsibility, and the courts
unwilling to undertake a judicial review, we have essentially “returned
to a pre-constitutional mode of despotism” as stated by Professor of
Constitutional Law Philip Hamburger in his book “Is Administrative Law
Te failure of the other branches of government to curtail the abuses
of power incorporated in these “edicts “, opened the food gates, and a tidal
wave of such directives is now the primary means by which the American
public is controlled and manipulated by the federal government. Tus we
have the following sequence of events creating the administrative structure
to take control of land use in the United States, bypassing the consent of
• 1992 George Bush signs Agenda 21 protocols in Rio
• 1993 Bill Clinton signs Executive Order 12582 creating “President’s
Council 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 Conference of
Mayors, Te National Governors Association, and Te American
Legislative Exchange Council. Note: Te APA is responsible for the
national certifcation of professional planners. Te signifcance of
this will be demonstrated later in the paper.
• Commerce Secretary Ron Brown estimated that 60% of Agenda 21
policy directives can be implemented through “Rule Making”.
• In 1997, the APA introduces “Growing Smart” and publishes
“Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning
and the Management of Change.” Tis would eventually become
known as “SmartGrowth”.
• President Clinton directs the Department of Commerce and Te
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
• “Comprehensive Planning” promoted as chief tool for inserting
Agenda 21 protocols, via SmartGrowth, and Sustainable development
into local land use ordinances.
• 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, Te Partnership for Sustainable Communities.
• Trough the EPA, a new organization, Te Center for Environmental
Finance, creates a network of 10 “Environmental Finance Centers” as
collaboration between the private sector and Universities to generate
and disseminate model legislation and guidelines to enforce and
• One such regional Center is located here in Maine at Te
University of Southern Maine Edmund S. Muskie School of
Public Service. In 2003, Te Muskie School produced “Model
State Land Use Legislation for New England”. Tis is based
on Maine Land Use Law, with suggestions on how to change
the law to better enforce SmartGrowth policies. Tis guide is
used extensively across the nation.
• Te sort of changes this guide suggests is best exemplifed by
this excerpt from Chapter 4, provision V. Clustered, Planned
Unit, High Density, and In-Fill Development. Page 81. Te
guide suggests adding this amendment to existing law:
§4361. Clustered, Planned Unit, High Density, and In-fll Development
1. Legislative intent.
Te Legislature fnds 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-fll 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. Tese 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 ofen 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 ofen 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.
Municipal ordinances or actions that have the efect 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 General’s ofce to
seek appropriate remedial relief.
What is suggested here is that local ordinances and zoning should
be null and void if they interfere with the social engineering schemes
being pushed by the sustainable development directives, and implies
that if local communities try to prevent the sustainable development
directives, and choose instead to adhere to their own ordinances, they
are subject to law suits and prosecution.
• Model State Land Use Regulation for New England also
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 eforts 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 was intended to be just such a structure. It is designed
to diminish the efectiveness of local control, so land use
ordinances can more easily be dictated from the federal or
state level, bypassing the elected local government.
• Today each state is broken down into Regional Councils of
Governments. Maine has 11;
Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments Auburn
Eastern Maine Development Corporation Bangor
Greater Portland Council of Governments Portland
Hancock County Planning Commission Ellsworth
Kennebec Valley Council of Governments Fairfeld
Lincoln County Regional Planning Commission Wiscasset
Mid-Coast Council of Governments Bath
Midcoast Regional Planning Commission Rockland
Northern Maine Development Commission Caribou
Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission Portland
Washington County Council of Governments Calais
Regional councils are being created across the country. Many serve
legitimate coordinating functions. However, the concept of Regional
Governance is transforming representative government, and eroding the
authority and accountability of elected ofcials.
An example of how regionalism works to thwart the will of the people
is evident in the way Cap and Trade came about in Maine. Tis 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,
(a form of corruption known as crony capitalism). As Cap and Trade has
been discredited and rejected by the public at large, the promoters worked
behind the scenes, using “regional” bureaucracies to get it done.
Te process was started with a Memorandum of Understanding with
other governors, and a process known as the “Stakeholder Process” was used
to assimilate an image of public support. Tis was done with support from
environmental groups, oversight by the DEP, and guided by a professional
facilitator, in this case, Raab Associates, Ltd. Te end result; the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). In 2007 Governor Baldacci signed the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative linking Maine with 9 other states in a
Carbon Trading scheme. Tus far it has siphoned of about a billion dollars
in revenues, to fund pet environmental projects and successfully drive
up electricity rates. Because the RGGI is a nonproft corporation, just as
Gateway 1 is intended to be, it has been able to avoid public scrutiny in its
One of the purposes for the creation of Smart Growth was to provide
guidance in changing the nature of government. It did this by creating
a manual called “Model Statutes for Planning and Change”. Tis lead to
the creation of non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) which could
implement policy recommendations, bypassing elected representative
government. Smart growth also uses grants as fnancial incentives to entice
states and local governments to adopt the legislation needed to do this.
When GrowSmart Maine was created in 2003, one of its objectives was
listed as “Restructuring Maine Government”. Te Brookings Institution
was hired by SmartGrowth Maine to do a study which they published as
Charting Maine’s Future. Te Brookings Institution is a lef wing think tank
partnered with the London School of Economics. Te 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. Te alternative to
the Brookings Institution which approaches the issue from the side of free
market economics and capitalism is the American Enterprise Institute.
Tis bias for socialist approaches to development is the core of
“Charting Maine’s Future”. Instead of easing the onerous regulations
imposed on Maine business and reducing the massive tax burdens, to
unleash the entrepreneurial spirit, the report proclaims the need for more
bonding (debt) to increase spending. Two examples are; $190 million for
the Maine Quality Places Fund, and $200 million for the Maine Innovation
Jobs Fund. Te report then goes on to address the supposed need to
modify the town zoning laws which prohibit the high density development
“they” desire. Ten with specifc 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 specifed land use
ordinances and the removal of regulatory barriers which prohibit the
proliferation of low income housing, now called Workforce Housing.
So this is the structure of the bureaucracy which creates and
dispenses to local cities and towns, the land use “edicts” contained in
the Agenda 21 protocols. 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 Clinton’s 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 ofcial
… undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something
else, such as, “Comprehensive planning,” “growth management,” or
To further emphasize the point that the Wildlands Project, Agenda 21,
Sustainable Development and SmartGrowth are anti-capitalist, radically
socialist, and bent on overseeing the de-industrialization of civilization,
here are 2 more quotes. Te frst is a quote from one of its chief architects,
Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN Environment Program:
: “…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the afuent
middle class- involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances,
home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing- are
not sustainable.” “Te United States is the greatest threat to the global
environment. It is guilty of environmental aggression against the planet.
‘ “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized
civilizations collapse. Isn’t 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. Tis 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 inefciencies 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.
Tis 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.
Tis is at the very least socialism, and by defnition 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.
So now let’s start looking at Gateway 1 and its connections to
SmartGrowth, Sustainable Development, Te Livability Agenda, Agenda
21 and the Wildlands Project. We’ll start by challenging the supposition
that the work is solely that of the members of the “grass roots” committee.
In 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 frst note at the top of the Action Plan Appendices
is the statement that: “All Gateway 1 materials are the property of the
Maine Department of Transportation and the HTNB Corporation.” Te
Gateway 1 project information is resident on the Maine Department of
Transportation (MDOT) web site, and is also listed as US Department of
Transportation (US DOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
projects. Here they identify Gateway 1 as a “Statewide Corridor Approach”
to implement the Livability Agenda, a project of the Livability Initiative,
following the CSS principles. Let’s identify the other declared owner of all
Gateway 1 materials, the HTNB Corporation, before seeking to understand
the “Livability Agenda” and CSS(Context Sensative Solutions) principles.
HTNB is a private architectural, planning and consulting frm
formerly known as, (Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendof). Tey
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. Tey 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. Either this corporation is doing a substantial
amount of work pro bono for these good citizens, or the tax payer is footing
what I suspect is a rather substantial bill for services rendered.
Gateway 1 is also 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. Before moving on, let’s mention two more identifers
previously located on the DOT Gateway 1 home pages (which have since
been removed). Te following declarations were made:
“Wednesday, December 1, 2010 the Environmental Protection
Agency’s 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 EPA’s 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 “Te Partnership
for Sustainable Communities.”
Te “Livability Agenda”, which the Maine DOT site claims Gateway
1 is a project of, was launched by Vice President Al Gore on September 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. Tis same page mentions that Te Partnership for Sustainable
Communities led to “ContextSensitiveSolutions.org”, (CSS), 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 specifc purpose of creating “Model statutes for Planning and the
management of Change”. Te American Planning Association was so
directed by “Te President’s Council on Sustainable Development, a direct
result of Executive Order 12582 by Bill Clinton. Tis executive order was
designed to implement the specifc policy recommendations included
in Agenda 21, the UN document signed by George Bush and 179 other
nations in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
As demonstrated throughout this paper, Gateway 1 is a direct
descendant of “Te President’s Council on Sustainable Development”,
and “Te Partnership for Sustainable Communities”, via HUD, the Dept
of Commerce, the USDOT and the EPA, with its roots frmly planted
in SmartGrowth, the Livability Initiative, and the State Planning Ofce.
In fact, a former director of Te State Planning Ofce, on the board of
directors of SmartGrowth Maine, is one of the chief consultant promoters
of Gateway 1. I want to restate a fact mentioned earlier, that the American
Planning Association is responsible for the national certifcation of
professional planners, and it is a reasonable expectation that all planners
are now indoctrinated in the principles of SmartGrowth, and are well
aware where their bread and butter comes from, and how best to keep the
$$$ fowing to remain employed.
Key aspects of the project are the following:
1. Create range of housing opportunities. (Tis means the funding
and creation of Low Income Housing which has been renamed
Workforce housing.) pg 112
2. Create walkable neighborhoods. (Tis means create compact
development incentives, community centered schools, businesses,
services etc. to eliminate the need for cars and thus gasoline. Tese
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 of street parking) pg 106, 113
(People generally do not want to live stacked and packed on
one another, especially by edict. 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. Te Gateway 1 land
use policies will produce urban clusters of over-development
which will destroy the very character they claim they wish to
preserve. Most citizens will fght this once they learn of it. Over
development means congestion, loss of privacy, increased poverty,
crime, drugs and flth. Te string of pearls Gateway 1 predicts will
in time become 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.)
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.
5. Provide a variety of transportation choices ( Tis means bike
paths, pedestrian walkways, light rail, and buses)
6. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities.
7. Take advantage of compact building design.
8. Some of these may sound desirable and some aspects of the plan
are reasonable. However when you remember that this plan is but
a stepping stone to get the camel’s nose under the tent, to facilitate
the more radical changes to come, we should tread with caution.
Tis is a 75 year plan to be implemented incrementally. Te public
has a right to be made aware of the long range consequences of
going down this road blindly. So let’s look at some of the things
that Agenda 21, the inspiration for the Gateway 1 land use
changes, deems un-sustainable and therefore must eventually be
Ski runs, grazing of livestock, disturbance of soil surface, plowing of
soil, building fences, commercial agriculture, modern farm production,
chemical fertilizers, fossil fuels, any industrial activity, human made caves
of brick and mortar(houses), paved and tarred roads, railroads, technology,
range lands, fsh ponds, plantations or range lands, harvesting timber and
modern hunting, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, straightening
rivers, power line construction. Tese items may not be showing up in the
initial list of land use modifcations being put forth at the moment, but we
must be aware that these are the convictions of those pushing this stuf. Tey
are looking at a 75 year time line to get it done, and have constructed an
intricate array of interconnected organizations, and funding mechanisms
which require compliance with any stipulated directives, to oversee and
enforce it all.
Te strong opposition to much of this project, and others like it is
due to the fact the proponents are either deliberately deceptive as to its
true nature, or are naively unaware and rejecting eforts to be educated.
Te secrecy, steadfast refusal to allow any questioning or debate of the
issues, complete dismissal of the concerns of those of the public that have
done the research, and the strong arm tactics used to silence critics (police
presence threatening to remove people who ask questions), should be
setting of alarm bells. Such tactics would not be utilized unless there is
something more going on than just improvements to Route 1. Tey are
desperate to keep people from discovering that 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 9,
you can see the plans being drawn up for your town.
People must be made aware that the Gateway 1 type regional council
structure is intended to bypass the oversight provided by the ballot box,
with a more easily manipulated, controlled , and corrupt process. Te
quote in the title of this paper from Te Model State Land Use Legislation
Guidebook applies directly to the rationale for regional organizations like
Gateway 1; “Forcing the breaching of town borders by an imposed regional
Te method used to control the outcome of any meetings organized
to promote projects such as Gateway 1 is known as the Delphi Technique.
Professional facilitators are used, and the meetings seeded with people
tasked to silence debate, and dissenters. When initially forming a group,
extreme care is used to fnd people that support the stated objectives in
sufcient quantity that they dominate the group. Te frst 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. Te 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. Afer the meetings this “consultant” will write a report
“Te Plan”, which will be identifed 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
(NGO’s), 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 frsthand accounts of
people that have participated in such visioning and stakeholder meetings
and were outraged at the blatant manipulation. Participants are 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 frms 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.
Gateway 1 uses 3 possible scenarios for growth trends in Maine
in formulating their intended land use strategies. Te premises for the
3 scenarios display the skewed and biased philosophical and political
underpinnings of the study. And if one takes into account the current state
of the economy and realistic forecasts for the future, it becomes immediately
obvious that the demographical factors which formed the basis for the the
plan, are today virtually worthless. Te population growth statistics used
are included in Chapter 4 of the Action Plan. Te 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. Te current economy is in recession with no immediate prospect
of relief. Businesses are shutting down, unemployment is continuing with
the prospect of signifcant infation. Te true depth of the calamity is
currently being masked by the printing of fat money which can only stave
of disaster temporarily. We are entering what has already been labeled “Te
Greater Depression”. As nothing is being done to rectify the underlying
structural problems, the wealth and demand experienced over the past 20
years is evaporating. Te likelihood 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 unafordability of housing
for working families. And second that “Global warming trends continue
and many coastal areas threatened by fooding.” Te 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. Tere is also
no mention of tax policy or regulation and their efects on the business
climate, or the corruption of climategate, and the global warming hoax
which conceals the actual global cooling trend.
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. Tis 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
signifcant loss of working families living in Maine. Other contributing
factors will be skyrocketing oil and energy prices, likely to be exacerbated by
a continuation of the cooling trend, and the continued increase in infation
with the very real possibility of hyperinfation. Any one factor is enough
to cause a dramatic reversal of Maine’s 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, and cold place to live.
In 2010, Maine’s governor suspended funding for Gateway 1. However
the devotees’ intent on pushing their socialist agenda have not let this slow
them down. Tey have simply gone underground, continuing to push the
same land use changes in comprehensive plans, and are seeking alternate
sources of funding.
Because the Sustainable Development movement has been
constructed to con well meaning people into unwitting accomplices, some,
but not all of those involved in Gateway 1 should be given the beneft of
the doubt over their innocent ignorance. Te media however has proven
itself to be lazy, incompetent and/or complicit in the deception, and does
not deserve such a pass.
As many communities have now been under the thumb of Sustainable
Development for over 20 years, the track record can now be analyzed to
determine the consequences. Portland Oregon is a good example to review
as it has embraced Smart Growth. In an article doing just this, Randal
O’Toole of the Toreau Institute says this; “From the resident’s point of
view, Portland’s Smart Growth plan is a nightmare. Te regions congestion
is rapidly growing, homeownership is out of reach of most residents who
do not already own homes, and urban open space is being replaced by
infll development. Far from saving tax payers dollars, local governments
have to raise taxes or reduce urban services to pay for planners’ transit
and housing dreams.” Ten in reference as to the “regional” organization
which took charge of planning (Metro) he provides this quote from
Anthony Downs of the Brookings Institution, “that a regional government
such as (Portland)Metro “can take controversial stands without making its
individual members commit themselves to those stands. Each member can
claim that “the organization” did it or blame all the other members”. Tis is
exactly what would happen with Gateway 1.
Te report is full of items stating things such as: “irate neighborhood
residents objected to densifcation”, “objections happened in almost every
targeted neighborhood”, voters…. recalled their mayor and most of their
city council from ofce in protest against high-density zoning”, “vacant lots
that might have been developed as a single family homes were now slated
for row houses or small apartments. Zoning in many areas was so strict
that homeowners whose houses burned down were required to replace
them with apartments”, “Portland went from being one of the nation’s most
afordable housing markets before 1990 to one of the ten least afordable
Ten there is this gem which is eerily familiar to those of us that
tried to question the Gateway 1 people here in Maine: “Metro quietly
advised city planners to have “open houses”, that accepted no public input
rather than public hearings where speakers could stir up local opinion
against rezoning.” But my favorite bit of wisdom is this from a leasing
manager struggling with empty retail space in a mixed use development
in a pedestrian–friendly neighborhood with wide sidewalks, and limited
parking, located near a light-rail station; “location might work for a store
that doesn’t expect to ever have customers show up, but that’s not the usual
way retailing works.”
Te number of studies now being done which reveal the catastrophic
failure that is smart growth is growing. A report by the National Center for
Policy Analysis reveals multiple cases where the crime rate has exploded in
the dense zoning mandated by Sustainable development.
Maine has always had a history of its people being independent and
self sufcient. As a consequence we have steadfastly resisted being told
what we should or shouldn’t do, and judged for ourselves what is in our
best interest. Regional structures like Gateway 1 are a deliberate efort to
break through this “obstacle” which is preventing “planners” from forcing
their ideas on local cities and towns. As the quote in the title of this paper
states, it is intended to “force the breaching of town borders” to facilitate a
top down imposition of “rules” they do not want to “justify” to the public.
Where this has been done, the people eventually rise up and push it back, if
they can. Do we here in Maine have to wait to sufer through the devastating
efects of Sustainable Development before enough people rise up to thwart
its advance? Or are we smart enough to stop it before it overwhelms us?
Te Implementation of Sustainable Development through
“Forcing the breaching of town borders by an
imposed regional structure”
by Ted Cowan
Camp Constitution Press
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.