Gateway 1 Exposed 1.1

7/29/2019 Gateway 1 Exposed 1.1

1/14

Page 1

Gateway 1The Implementation of

Sustainable Development

Through

Comprehensive Planning

By

Forcing the breaching of town borders by an

imposed regional structure

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


2/14

Page 2

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

preventionand 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 inChapter 23 page

23 of The Action Plan, which states;

The central feature is a balancebetween 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 .

1(web page has been removed)


3(http://www.mainegateway1.com/Gateway%201%20Action%20Plan/Chapter%202.pdf)
http://www.mainegateway1.com/Gateway%201%20Action%20Plan/Chapter%202.pdfhttp://www.mainegateway1.com/Gateway%201%20Action%20Plan/Chapter%202.pdfhttp://www.mainegateway1.com/Gateway%201%20Action%20Plan/Chapter%202.pdfhttp://www.mainegateway1.com/Gateway%201%20Action%20Plan/Chapter%202.pdf


3/14

Page 3

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 theSustainability4 andSmartGrowth5 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 Appendices7is 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) andFederal Highway

Administration9(FHWA) projects. Here they identify Gateway 1 as a Statewide Corridor Approach to

implement the Livability Agenda, a project of theLivability Initiative10, following theCSS principles11. Lets

identify the other declared owner of all Gateway 1 materials, theHTNB Corporation12, before seeking to

understand the Livability Agenda and CSS principles.

4(http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/sdtut.htm)

5(http://smartgrowthusa.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/boulder-exposed-brown-cloud-choked-highways-and-parking-meters/)

6(http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/agenda-21.htm)


8(http://www.gateway1.org/)

9(http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/case_maine2.asp)

10(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/case_studies/maine/)

11(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/cssqa.cfm)

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


4/14

Page 4

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 applicationof 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, 2010the 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 ofThe Partnership forSustainable 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 toContextSensitiveSolutions.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

directedby 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)

14(http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/)
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/


5/14

Page 5

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 statementfrom 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 treatedas 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 ofwealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in theplanning 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 isused 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 wordingwill 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, leadingeventually to public ownership of the land. This is at the very least socialism, and by definition communism. Itdoes 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 attributethis 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 termssustainable development, comprehensive planning and SmartGrowth were invented. J. Gary Lawrence, anadvisor to President Clintons Council on Sustainable Development stressed the necessity of doing this bysaying:

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 smartgrowth.

In 1990, two years prior to Rio and Agenda 21, an organization called ICLEI15, The InternationalCouncil for Local Environmental Initiatives, was created to set up the process of insinuating the sustainabilityagenda into communities around the world. Maine at present has 6 ICLEI dues paying community members,

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


6/14

Page 6

Belfast, Falmouth, Portland, South Portland, Yarmouth, and York.Go here16, learn how ICLEI works, andhere17 to read about communities that are now rejecting ICLEI and its programs after exposure to them. Athorough examination of Agenda 21 and ICLEI and their connections to Sustainable Development is covered ina 3 part series by author James Simpson and can be foundhere18. Part 3 has particular relevance tocommunities 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 introducingsustainable 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 creatingPresidents Council on SustainableDevelopment19, to implement the Agenda 21 protocols as sustainable development. The American PlanningAssociation created 3 quasi government/corporate organizations to ghost write legislation: The United StatesConference of Mayors, The National Governors Association, and The American Legislative Exchange Council.

* Commerce Secretary Ron Brown estimated that 60% of Agenda 21 policy directives can beimplemented through Rule Making.

* President Clinton directs the Department of Commerce and The Department of Housing andUrban Development to collaborate to funnel $5 million into the American Planning Association to fundSmart 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 anew organization, The Partnership for Sustainable Communities. The Gateway 1 Homepage identifiesthe project as a product of this organization.

* Through the EPA, a new organization,The Center for Environmental Finance20 creates anetwork of 10 Environmental Finance Centers as a collaborationbetween the private sector andUniversities to generate and disseminate model legislation and guidelines.

* One such regional Center is located here in Maine at The University of Southern MaineEdmund 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)

19(http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/)

20(http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/)
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/iclei_primer%3a_your_town_and_freedom_threatened_20090804364/http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/iclei_primer%3a_your_town_and_freedom_threatened_20090804364/http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/iclei_primer%3a_your_town_and_freedom_threatened_20090804364/http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/iclei_-_the_good%2c_the_bad_and_the_ugly_20110215429/http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/iclei_-_the_good%2c_the_bad_and_the_ugly_20110215429/http://biggovernment.com/author/jmsimpson/http://biggovernment.com/author/jmsimpson/http://biggovernment.com/author/jmsimpson/http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/EFCModelLegislation.pdfhttp://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/EFCModelLegislation.pdfhttp://www.epa.gov/efinpage/http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/http://clinton2.nara.gov/PCSD/http://biggovernment.com/author/jmsimpson/http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/iclei_-_the_good%2c_the_bad_and_the_ugly_20110215429/http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/iclei_primer%3a_your_town_and_freedom_threatened_20090804364/


7/14

Page 7

Use Legislation for New England21. This is based on Maine Land Use Law, with suggestions on how tochange the law to better enforce SmartGrowth policies. This guide is used extensively across the nation.

*Model State Land Use Regulation for New Englandcontains a proposal for the creation ofMunicipal Service Districts (page 8). On page 9, the document claims that Home Rule .has helpedthe New England town resist top-down efforts to impose regionalism. On page 14 in discussing theimpediment that town borders pose to such an organization, it states One solution is to force abreaching 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 AuburnEastern Maine Development Corporation BangorGreater Portland Council of Governments PortlandHancock County Planning Commission EllsworthKennebec Valley Council of Governments FairfieldLincoln County Regional Planning Commission WiscassetMid-Coast Council of Governments BathMidcoast Regional Planning Commission Rockland

Northern Maine Development Commission CaribouSouthern Maine Regional Planning Commission PortlandWashington County Council of Governments 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 RegionalGovernance is slowly transforming representative government, eroding the authority and accountability ofelected officials. An example of this is Cap and Trade. This program is an alternate taxing mechanism intendedto drive up the cost of electricity to reduce consumption, and funnel the money to special interest groups. AsCap 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 oversightby the DEP and guided by professional facilitator, Raab Associates, Ltd, theRegional Greenhouse GasInitiative22 (RGGI) came to life. In 2007 Governor Baldacci signed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiativelinking Maine with 9 other states in a Carbon Trading scheme. Thus far it has siphoned off about a billiondollars in revenues, to fund pet environmental projects and successfully drive up electricity rates. Because theRGGI is a nonprofit corporation, just as Gateway 1 is intended to be, it has been able to avoid public scrutiny inits 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 Non-governmental organizations which could implement policy recommendations, bypassing elected representativegovernment. Smart growth also provided grants as financial incentives to entice States and Local Governmentsto adopt the legislation needed to do this.

21(http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/EFCModelLegislation.pdf)

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


8/14

Page 8

Alan Caron foundedGrowSmart Maine23 in 2003, to promote Smart Growth in the State. Its literaturelists Restructuring Maine Government as one of its objectives. The Brookings Institution was hired bySmartGrowth Maine to do a study which they published asCharting Maine's Future24. This is a left wing thinktank 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 ofeconomic development and planning from the side of Socialism. The alternative to the Brookings Institutionwhich approaches the issue from the side of free market economics and capitalism is the American EnterpriseInstitute.

This bias for socialist approaches to development is the core of Charting Maines Future. Instead ofaddressing the onerous regulations imposed on Maine business and the massive tax burdens, to unleash theentrepreneurial 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. Thereport then goes on to address the need to modify the town zoning laws which prohibit the high densitydevelopment they desire, to create walkable neighborhoods. Then with specific reference to Gateway 1 on pgs127 & 128, the report suggests that the state tie transportation investments to compliance by the towns withadoption of the specified land use ordinances and the removal of regulatory barriers which prohibit theproliferation of low income housing, now calledWorkforce Housing25.

On the board of directors of SmartGrowth Maine is; Evan Richert, a former director of theStatePlanning 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 IncomeHousing 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 andindustry in the core growth areas.) pg 106

4. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas, by restrictingaccess. (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/)

24(http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2006/10cities.aspx)

25(http://www.seacoastwhc.org/)

26(http://www.maine.gov/spo/)

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


9/14

Page 9

5. Provide a variety of transportation choices ( This means bike paths, pedestrian walkways, lightrail, 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 ruralareas, 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 inChapter 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 ofany

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)
http://www.gateway1.org/documents/actionplan/chpt/chpt9.pdfhttp://www.gateway1.org/documents/actionplan/chpt/chpt9.pdfhttp://www.gateway1.org/documents/actionplan/chpt/chpt9.pdfhttp://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/EFCModelLegislation.pdfhttp://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/docs/EFCModelLegislation.pdfhttp://www.gateway1.org/documents/actionplan/chpt/chpt9.pdf


10/14

Page 10

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, andGateway 130 is prominently featured on its web site. The application to CSS for

a Gateway 1 workshop is availablehere31. 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)

30(http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/gateway_1_corridor_action_plan/)

31

(http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/gateway_1_corridor_action_plan/resources/g1nationalcssdialog.pdf/)
http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/conresponse.htmhttp://sovereignty.net/p/sd/conresponse.htmhttp://sovereignty.net/p/sd/conresponse.htmhttp://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/gateway_1_corridor_action_plan/http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/gateway_1_corridor_action_plan/http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/gateway_1_corridor_action_plan/http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/gateway_1_corridor_action_plan/resources/g1nationalcssdialog.pdf/http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/gateway_1_corridor_action_plan/resources/g1nationalcssdialog.pdf/http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/gateway_1_corridor_action_plan/resources/g1nationalcssdialog.pdf/http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/gateway_1_corridor_action_plan/resources/g1nationalcssdialog.pdf/http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/gateway_1_corridor_action_plan/http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/conresponse.htm


11/14

Page 11

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 inChapter 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 beskyrocketing oil35 and energy prices, likely to be exacerbated by a continuation of

32(http://www.gateway1.org/documents/actionplan/chpt/chpt4.pdf)

33(http://www.caseyresearch.com/editorial/4060?ppref=CRX226ED0211C)

34(http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=970&idli=3)

35(http://howcanoneknow.org/blog/2010/12/20/wake-up-oil-is-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/)
http://www.gateway1.org/documents/actionplan/chpt/chpt4.pdfhttp://www.gateway1.org/documents/actionplan/chpt/chpt4.pdfhttp://www.gateway1.org/documents/actionplan/chpt/chpt4.pdfhttp://www.caseyresearch.com/editorial/4060?ppref=CRX226ED0211Chttp://www.caseyresearch.com/editorial/4060?ppref=CRX226ED0211Chttp://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=970&idli=3http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=970&idli=3http://howcanoneknow.org/blog/2010/12/20/wake-up-oil-is-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/http://howcanoneknow.org/blog/2010/12/20/wake-up-oil-is-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/http://howcanoneknow.org/blog/2010/12/20/wake-up-oil-is-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/http://howcanoneknow.org/blog/2010/12/20/wake-up-oil-is-rising-the-dollar-is-falling/http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=970&idli=3http://www.caseyresearch.com/editorial/4060?ppref=CRX226ED0211Chttp://www.gateway1.org/documents/actionplan/chpt/chpt4.pdf


12/14

Page 12

the cooling trend of the past 10 years, and the very real possibility ofhyperinflation36. 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, andtheir 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)

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


13/14

Page 13

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 toSCI38, the Sustainable Cities Institute, a public private partnership consisting of one of the countrystop

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 localcontrol 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)

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


14/14

Page 14

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)
http://www.mainegateway1.com/http://www.mainegateway1.com/http://sovereignty.net/http://sovereignty.net/http://www.freedomadvocates.org/http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHWsdimVO4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHWsdimVO4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHWsdimVO4http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/http://www.freedomadvocates.org/http://sovereignty.net/http://www.mainegateway1.com/

Documents

Gateway 1 Exposed 1.1