LD 220 - "An Act To Ban the United Nations Agenda 21 in Maine"

72 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hay Farmer
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2011 - 1:53pm
LD 220 - "An Act To Ban the United Nations Agenda 21 in Maine"

Since last year’s legislature was unable to pass even a watered down version of LD 1810, what can we expect with LD 220.
http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/ld1810-relief-when-govt-regs-devalue-...

We do have a few new faces, so who knows.

LD 220
http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280046649

Current Sponsor list.
Sponsored By: Representative LONG of Sherman
Cosponsored By: Representative CRAFTS of Lisbon
Representative GIFFORD of Lincoln
Representative JACKSON of Oxford
Senator JACKSON of Aroostook
Representative JOHNSON of Greenville
Representative LIBBY of Waterboro
Representative STANLEY of Medway
Representative THERIAULT of Madawaska
Representative TIMBERLAKE of Turner
Representative WILLETTE of Mapleton

Mackenzie Andersen
Offline
Joined: 08/06/2010 - 5:25pm
The problem is that Agenda 21

The problem is that Agenda 21 is transferred with all that federal money that the federal government redistributes and our legislature so covets.The best and only way to prevent Agenda Twenty One is to cut the strings to federal money and that requires a massive re-education of the public as to why we are better off without it- a hard case to make in the current society.

Even if such a law was passed, our legislature might take it a s seriously as they take the Home Rule Amendment- which should be our protection against Agenda Twenty One as it is supposed to protect local authority but the culture in Augusta is that they stand above the Constitution of this state and do what ever they please- and they use federal money as a bribe that enables them to get a way with it.

Hay Farmer
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2011 - 1:53pm
If Agenda 21 is not approved

If Agenda 21 is not approved at the Federal or State level, but is implemented locally through land use regulations and regional agreements such as Gateway 1, how will LD 220 be effective in protecting individual property rights?

Roger Ek
Offline
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
"how will LD 220 be effective

"how will LD 220 be effective in protecting individual property rights?"

It would strike out words from state and local laws that are not even in the dictionary, such as "viewscapes" or "sustainable". These are words without meanings except in the imagination of the writer or speaker. Everything made of wood is "sustainable", yet the environmental industry "certifies" wood and paper products under that name if they have extorted enough payment from the company becoming "certified". It is the Jesse Jackson approach to corporate policy.

Hay Farmer
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2011 - 1:53pm
The Maine Municipal

The Maine Municipal Association has LD 220 listed in their “In the Hopper” section of the 2/15/13 Legislative Bulletin on page 6 (lower right)

http://www.memun.org/public/MMA/svc/SFR/Publications/LB/2013/2-15-13.pdf

Judiciary
LD 220 – An Act To Ban the United Nations Agenda 21 in Maine. (Sponsored by Rep. Long of Sherman; additional cosponsors.)
This bill prohibits the state or any political subdivision of the state, such as a municipality, from adopting or implementing policies that intentionally or recklessly infringe on or restrict private property rights without due process as may be required by policy recommendations originating in or traceable to the “Agenda 21” policies associated with the United Nations. The bill also prohibits municipalities from spending money, receiving money, contracting services from or giving financial aid to any nongovernmental or intergovernmental organization accredited or enlisted by the United Nations to assist in implementing “Agenda 21”.

Hay Farmer
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2011 - 1:53pm
The bipartisan sponsor list

The bipartisan sponsor list is encouraging!
One sponsor for LD 220 previously voted against LD 1810 last year.
Not exactly an “apples to apples” comparison, but both bills attempt to protect property rights.

Maybe there can be some hope with this legislature. I am ready to support these clear thinking sponsors!

Henry Simmons
Offline
Joined: 11/14/2010 - 11:37am
IMHO this bill is mostly

IMHO this bill is mostly symbolic, but I like it. Anything that get's the issue out of the political shadows is welcome.

I'm not sure how it would work in the real world, didn't Georgia (or another state) pass such a bill last year? I'm curious to hear how it helped them, if at all.

When the proposed Gateway 1 Project first became public, many of us had no way of knowing where the concept originated from, or really what it meant. It was a regional planning initiative, much like they are defined and discussed in the Agenda 21 "action plan". But the media was silent on this until after Gov. LePage pulled the financial plug on the whole affair. The media (BDN specifically) came up with a story "template", anyone that even question G-1 must be a kook - period. Look up the headlines - almost always "conspiracy highway" or some variation. No real facts were ever allowed into the storyline. This was not entirely the fault of the reporters, but the editors.

Roger is correct - even though the word sustainable is in the dictionary - the people that wrote Agenda 21 redefined it to mean something else. Now we have a large group of activist bureaucrats who have dreamed up entirely new words - be very careful not to take those words at face value - find out how they define them.

The American Planning Association is front and center on fighting T.E.A. party opposition nationwide. They are going before municipal governments and basically redefining our whole language - based on what I've heard so far. Try to keep in mind, that they do this at our expense, they operate with our tax monies - which is how so many of the proponents operate - usually backed by a non-government non-profit organization - which apply for government and corporate grants.

No matter what law get's passed, it will still require good people like the ones here on AMG to do our due diligence. The supporters of Agenda 21 will not give up, and they have enough "useful idiots" at the local level to keep pushing for "livable communities", "workforce housing", "consensus processes", "public private partnerships", "new urbanism", and all the other terms and phrases we've come to know may sound good, but when put into practice are not good at all.

ewv
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2000 - 12:01am
Hay Farmer Sat, 02/23/2013 -

Hay Farmer Sat, 02/23/2013 - 9:44am #2: "If Agenda 21 is not approved at the Federal or State level, but is implemented locally through land use regulations and regional agreements such as Gateway 1, how will LD 220 be effective in protecting individual property rights?"

It isn't effective in protecting anything. The assault on property rights did not originate with the UN and is continuing without regard to it.

The bill bans implementing restrictions on private property rights that are in "policy recommendations originating in or traceable to Agenda 21 or any international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Maine". So it bans laws that are already unconstitutional, and then only if you can prove that they "originated in" or can be "traced" to "Agenda 21" or "any international law" or "plan of action", whatever that means.

It prohibits Maine government financial collaboration with groups that are "accredited or enlisted by the United Nations to assist in the implementation of the United Nations policies related to Agenda 21". How are you going to prove that, what is UN "accredited or enlisted", and exactly what such "policies" are regarded as "United Nations policies" -- anything written in a "report" with or without any actual endorsement or vote?

The bill is worse than useless in protecting private property rights. In codifying in law the notion that ideas are prohibited depending on their source (if you could prove it at all) and how someone "traces" them to ambiguously defined sources and regardless of their content, it tries to put conspiratorial thinking into state law.

It you want to protect private property rights stop wasting time tilting at UN windmills rationalized with conspiracy thinking and instead concentrate on the ideology and strategies of the left, especially viros, in this state and in this country and how they are being implemented here in fact through the state legislature, DEP, Lurch, USFWS, EPA, etc. by Audubon, TNC, MCHT, NRCM, and all the rest. But that requires knowing something about the process here in reality and how to fight it.

mainemom
Offline
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
ewv is right. The one-world

ewv is right.
The one-world agenda and the enviro-crat agenda can be defeated only if we uphold property rights, period.
This means insistence on just compensation for takings, including regulatory takings, and cost-benefit analysis requirements before any such takings can occur.

ewv
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2000 - 12:01am
Requiring government to pay

Requiring government to pay for what it takes, including under the guise of 'regulation', would be a relative improvement, but the idea that government can take what it wants in the name of the "public" is fundamentally collectivist and corrupt from the start. There is no "fair price" for something that isn't for sale. Paying the victim who has had his rights violated does not address the destruction of rights that are inalienable.

Without a better understanding and acknowledgement of private property rights on a cultural scale there isn't going to much meaningful reform. Most of the public is still unaware of the damage being done, thanks largely to the leftist media covering it up, and the anti-private property mentality is thoroughly entrenched in government, which correctly sees its power threatened by private property rights.

That includes hostility towards and defiance of attempts to require "cost-benefit analysis" before any such takings can occur. Even that requirement is a utilitarian evasion of the principle of private property rights: Whose benefit and whose cost, and how are they supposed to be compared without regard to property rights?

Entrenched statists inside government, to say nothing of the viro lobby in particular, refuse to even identify the damage and loss of private property rights in their regulations. During the Reagan administration an Executive Order was issued, later rescinded by Clinton, requiring all Federal agencies to assess takings implications in new regulations. It was for all practical purposes meaningless because the bureaucrats defiantly responded with a routine, boiler plate section in new regulations denying there were any such implications.

Hay Farmer
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2011 - 1:53pm
The Judiciary Committee has a

The Judiciary Committee has a Public Hearing on LD 220 scheduled Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:00 PM,Room 438 State House.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?LD=220&snum=126

mainemom
Offline
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
ewv, all true. Nonetheless I

ewv, all true.
Nonetheless I wouldn't hold out for the ideal - a principled understanding and adherence to property rights - because too much damage will be done while we wait for that ideal to be achieved.

ewv
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2000 - 12:01am
... if ever, the way we are

... if ever, the way we are going. It shows how deep the problem is and how much has to change culturally before political progress is possible. The damage is already being done and is becoming worse. The defeat of even a minimal reform bill like last year's LD1810 because viros adamantly refuse to pay for what they steal is only one illustration. Those who have no concept of property rights cannot have a concept of theft -- by that mentality there is nothing to steal. To them, everything is rule by force.

ewv
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2000 - 12:01am
Here is another current

Here is another current example of how viros are seizing private property in the name of regulation and "permission" to use one's own property, this one in a short video by the Pacific Legal Foundation in a law suit against the California Coastal Commission. The state is demanding that the a property owner build a public pier and give land and public access rights to private property in exchange for renovating an existing building https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdJtsvz0CaE&feature=youtu.be&utm_source=...

Property rights won in the Dolan and Nolan decisions in the last several decades, and PLF may win at least most of this case, too, but look at how extreme it has become that requires so much money and resources to fight. We never actually "win" anything in these battles, only at great expense hold back ever more extreme losses, when that is possible at all. The Coastal Commission in CA has been doing this to people for decades and is still there, arrogantly exercising and expanding its entrenched power -- and it has absolutely nothing to do with the UN, either in source of agendas or source of power to impose them.

Islander
Offline
Joined: 02/13/2009 - 12:16pm
Heck, it happened in the

Heck, it happened in the Bristol area last summer when he was prohibited (temporarily) from storing his traps on it because they might shade seaweed.

Henry Simmons
Offline
Joined: 11/14/2010 - 11:37am
The proponents of Gateway 1

The proponents of Gateway 1 would (and did) argue it had nothing to do with the U.N. either. But research was done, the history exposed, "dots" connected. If it was just a locally generated idea to solve traffic issues, why are there so many regional planning initiatives across the country? (and none of them work, but continue to suck up federal funding by the billions $$ and gum up any proposed construction needlessly, pointlessly) We were told that G-1 would not violate our 5th amendment property rights, which in fact, it would have.

In regards to the California Coastal Commission, they are a quasi-judicial state agency. Even though they were established 20 years before Agenda 21 was written, doesn't alter my opinion that they are working hand - in - glove to implement the relevant points of Agenda 21 as it pertains to them. Where does the CCC get it's funding? I'll wager a good deal comes from the federal government. All I can find right now is their website, which admits to being partnered with other state agencies and federal, regional, and local park & recreation entities. The terms used on their website give them away as well.

All federal agencies are now working in a cohesive manner to implement "Sustainable America" policies, which is just the Americanized version of U.N. Agenda 21. They have tied funding to compliance with those policies. It has impacted decision making right down to the local level. Why do you think there has been so much construction of bicycle paths, sidewalks, and downtown renovation projects? The feds have diverted highway funding away from road work to these projects in an attempt to get people to move into central core areas, just as is recommended in Agenda 21.

I would also like to point out that smart growth started in California, but that entire concept was "borrowed" by the writers of Agenda 21. I've found that many things don't appear to fit together - not at first. Language and terms may get altered, but the usual "common denominator" is the people, usually activist types who spend their lives starting up non-profits, and dreaming up mission statements. If you look into it, you'll find smart growth, the CCC, and Agenda 21 probably have similar "ancestry".

ewv
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2000 - 12:01am
The California Coastal

The California Coastal Commission is a state agency, originally approved in a 1972 state ballot initiative. It isn't an arm of the UN acting as a quasi-state agency. All states receive Federal funding mandating state coastal planning. It isn't arranged by the UN. You can't make dots illegal.

Murphy
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2011 - 12:06pm
Has there ever been a

Has there ever been a temporal takings suit? I am land surveyor and it is astounding how much time I must dedicate to meeting the conditions for a town approval of a subdivision, site assessment, or pretty much any plat I produce. At what point do all the often arbitrary requirements become so onerous as to effect a takings of valuable time?

I have a minor in Planning (know thy enemy) and it will be the conditioning of permits that gets us. Koontz v St. John's is the case to watch right now as it deals with following two issues:

(1) Whether a land-use agency can be held liable for a taking when it refused to issue a land-use permit on the sole basis that the permit applicant did not accede to a permit condition that, if applied, would violate the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests set out in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)

(2) whether the nexus and proportionality tests set out in Nollan and Dolan apply to a land-use exaction that takes the form of a government demand that a permit applicant dedicate money, services, labor, or any other type of personal property to a public use. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/koontz-v-st-johns-river-water...

There is talk that the Pacific Legal Foundation dropped the ball on this one by making it a takings case instead of a due process case.

ewv
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2000 - 12:01am
Murphy Wed, 02/27/2013 - #17:

Murphy Wed, 02/27/2013 - #17: "Has there ever been a temporal takings suit? I am land surveyor and it is astounding how much time I must dedicate to meeting the conditions for a town approval of a subdivision, site assessment, or pretty much any plat I produce. At what point do all the often arbitrary requirements become so onerous as to effect a takings of valuable time?"

You could also try for "involuntary servitude", but good luck. Or, you could spend your time blaming it on a UN conspiracy and to do nothing at all, in achieving understanding or anything else.

... (2) whether the nexus and proportionality tests set out in Nollan and Dolan apply to a land-use exaction that takes the form of a government demand that a permit applicant dedicate money, services, labor, or any other type of personal property to a public use. - See more at: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/koontz-v-st-johns-river-water...
.
There is talk that the Pacific Legal Foundation dropped the ball on this one by making it a takings case instead of a due process case.

Contact them and ask. I wonder if it's for the same reason, in general, that courts won't consider "due process" -- with principles of "innocent until proven guilty", etc. -- in any bureaucracy case: They don't consider the punishing burden of taxes, bureaucratic harassment, demands for fees and 'conditions', etc. to be punishment for crimes -- you owe them the burdens demanded because you are an (innocent) citizen and because they tell you what to do without regard to any question of accusation of criminality. It's similar to how they say anything goes in oppression like Obama health control if it's called a "tax", and the way MRS gets away with murder trampling civil rights with no fear of being reigned in by the courts. But ask PLF why they specifically think appeals to due process is impossible, or less likely, to be given better consideration by the court than takings law with the established precedents they are using.

Jon Reisman
Offline
Joined: 08/23/1999 - 12:01am
I'll be testifying neither

I'll be testifying neither for nor against, and suggesting an amendment to require state agencies et al to clearly state whether or not they are implementing Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a prescription for increasing state control over resources, population, and the economy, and there's a reason the sponsors are from rural Maine. The problem is, the US Senate ratified the Earth Summit Treaty that contained Agenda 21. Bush 41 signed it. It's the law of the land. I don't think a State can ban it. Rep. Long says Alabama has passed this law- if so, I'm stunned the Obama/Holder "Justice" Department hasn't sued already. Maybe the environmental left will do it for them. I expect they'll be at hearing too.

thejohnchapman
Offline
Joined: 03/21/2000 - 1:01am
http://www.cbd.int/convention

http://www.cbd.int/convention/parties/list/

Didn't sign.

http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/parties/

Nope - not on the list.

Jon - might this be one of those treaties that didn't get ratified?

http://www.cbd.int/countries/?country=us

United States of America

Convention

Non Party

Cartagena Protocol

Non Party

Nagoya Protocol

Non Party

Nagoya – Kuala Lumpur Protocol

Non Party

It looks like we signed, but did not ratify same.

Roger Ek
Offline
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
It is like the Kyoto treaty

It is like the Kyoto treaty on global warming and carbon credits. It was never ratified so the progressive congress simply implemented it piece by piece. CARA was the Conservation And Reinvestment Act; better known in rural America as the Confiscation And Relocation Act. Now, Attorney General Holder has taken $2.4 billion (with a "B") from the BP gulf oil spill settlement and given it to environmental groups to buy up private land which will eventually become federal land.

By the way, Maine's treasurer before Bruce Poliquin was carrying carbon credits on the books at the purchase price of around $65 rather than the fifty cents they were actually worth before they collapsed completely. It would be interesting to know who thought those investments would be good for Maine's economy instead of paying the bills owed to Maine hospitals.

mainemom
Offline
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
Al Gore? (response to Roger

Al Gore?
(response to Roger Ek's comment)

Jon Reisman
Offline
Joined: 08/23/1999 - 12:01am
Bush 41 signed it...There was

Bush 41 signed it...There was a voice vote in the Senate approving the Climate Change convention part. And Roger is right, I stand corrected, the Earth Summit treaty was not ratified...no vote took place.

I'll stand by my proposed amendment though. We'll get farther forcing an open discussion of Agenda 21 then in attempting to ban it.

ewv
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2000 - 12:01am
Focus on the content, not an

Focus on the content, not an alleged threat claimed to be orchestrated by the UN. The open discussion required is to flush out the agenda the viro pressure groups are trying to put over on us, including their attack on the people of the UT. They are pushing for all of the oppressive goals in the UN document -- which only echoed the viro goals they were pushing at the Earth Summit. The UN connection was only as another means for the viro promotion to advance their political agenda by any means possible.

Roger Ek
Offline
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
They are progressives. Their

They are progressives. Their movement grows. We cannot outspend them. They print their own money. We can only win by standing by our Constitution. They are waiting for we elders who remember freedom to die. Then they burn the books.

thejohnchapman
Offline
Joined: 03/21/2000 - 1:01am
The history is still

The history is still important. Some (including opponents) might think that this stuff IS THE LAW. It is important to remind them how and why it is NOT the law, and why many liberal democrats could not stomach voting FOR this.

Roger Ek
Offline
Joined: 11/18/2002 - 1:01am
It is not the law. It is

It is not the law. It is practice. It the behavior of the progressives that want to rule us. They care nothing of the law as long as they can keep working their practices. From a common citizen's point of view, it is like the difference between constitutional law and case law where progressives shop for a progressive judge to render a progressive decision so progressive lawyers can go to another court and proclaim, "Right here in Scheckelgruber vs Jones it was decided that Scheckelgruber can cut down Jones' trees to improve Scheckelgruber's viewscape.

(My spell checker does not like the word 'viewscape'. neither do I, but Agenda 21 and the progressives love it because they invented it.)

Mackenzie Andersen
Offline
Joined: 08/06/2010 - 5:25pm
To my point of view if we

To my point of view if we just enforced our own constitution, we would be protected- but people don't take the enforcement of our own constitution seriously and so new statutes are invented as if the statutes can be enforced, where as our constitution cannot.

The entire network of government "economic development corporations" is unconstitutional but there is not enough public support for the Maine State Constitution to get rid of this insect which has taken over as the law of the land even though it is illegal by the true law of the land. Home Rule should protect us but it has been walked over since it was created when LURK soon after came into being there after.

To pass a new statute to forbid Agenda 21 only reinforces that the Maine State Constitution has been superseded by statutory law written by those who regard themselves as having no rule of law that govern's their own law writing agenda.

And why should the new statute be respected when the constitutional amendment- Home Rule - is not respected. Those who have superseded the constitution with their own authority will just do whatever they please. Home Rule was voted in by the WILL OF THE PEOPLE !. Our governing overlords laugh in the face of that concept!

Hay Farmer
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2011 - 1:53pm
Some other folks concerned

Some other folks concerned about Agenda 21.
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/contact-us.html
http://agenda21news.com/2012/12/rosa-koire-delivers-dynamic-presentation...
http://resist21.com/

These are two websites for ICLEI formerly 'International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives' and now 'ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability'.
www.ICLEI.org
http://www.icleiusa.org/
ICLEIUSA disputes any connections to UN Agenda 21 here.. http://www.icleiusa.org/about-iclei/faqs/faq-iclei-the-united-nations-an...

There doesn't appear to be any visible connections of ICLEI to UN Agenda 21, but I found this on www.ICLEI.org .
http://80.33.141.76/agenda21/documents/EN-Barcelona%20School%20Agenda%20...

Hay Farmer
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2011 - 1:53pm
Bangor Daily News Opinion

Bangor Daily News Opinion post on LD 220 and Agenda 21.
http://bangordailynews.com/2013/03/03/opinion/agenda-21-reduces-individu...

Pages

Log in to post comments