One of my most serious concerns about this highway involves the danger that it poses to our pristine and beautiful state.  Passing legislation for a quick feasibility study will not provide sufficient time for a complete Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), therefore will not take into account potential environmental impacts of this highway, particularly with respect to impacts to our water, air and forest wildlands. We have built our economic and development policies based on a human-centric model and assumed that nature would never fail to provide or that technology would save us. That is being proved to be a fallacy. I have lived in Maine long enough to note with dismay what has been continuing to happen to our beautiful state. Our natural resources are continuing to be eroded away. This destructive path that has been gradually occurring will be greatly exaccerbated by an East-West highway.

Maine has the highest percentage of forests in the east. It is the reason why Maine is a destination point for tourists who wish to enjoy one of the last remaining unbroken areas of wildlands. This highway would fragment this important resource, not only fragmenting the habitats of endangered species and closing the door to the return of other native, indigenous species, but it would seriously harm those businesses that make their living from promoting hiking, canoeing, white-water rafting, fishing, wildlife watching, bird watching, photography, etc. Touirism will suffer greatly as there are not many tourists who will wish to visit an industrial/commercial wasteland.

Another matter that concerns the vast majority of people in this state is that a feasibility study of the East-West highway as a private toll road should not be funded by taxpayers.  It is crazy to expect Maine taxpayers to pay for this private toll road, especially when it was originally presented as not being funded by taxpayers.

This bill is being rushed through to serve the interests of Cianbro, a private corporation, and Canadian businesses looking to cut transportation costs, without looking at the public interest of all Mainers, nor the protection of our natural resources.  Will the cutting down of our forests, the selling of our water, the degradation of our air by highway pollutants and being a transport throughway be in the best interest of Maine residents now and in the future?

Unfortunately I am currently out-of-state visiting relatives and consequently am unable to attend the public hearing in person to present my comments and strong opposition to any feasibility study of an East-West highway. Therefore this letter must serve to represent me and my objections. I shall look forward to receiving a response indicating how you plan to take into consideration these important concerns. I have also contacted my own representatives and senators, both in Maine and the U.S., on this critical issue so that they will be aware of this important issue and my strong opposition to it.

Thank you,

Marie Louise Morandi Long Zwicker

P.O. Box 230

149 Sanctuary Way

Sullivan, ME 04664

(207)460-8920

273 Manchester Road

Belgrade, ME 04917

Statement to the Transportation Committee regarding LD1671:

We are OPPOSED to An Act To Provide Funding to the Department of Transportation for a Feasibility Study of an East-west Highway

February 14, 2012 State House Room 126, 1pm

Testifying:  Chris Buchanan, Belgrade, 207-357-1443

chris@defendingwater.net

Defending Water for Life in Maine is opposed to LD 1671 for several reasons that we feel are critical to the wellbeing of Maine people and the land we live on.

First, it is unethical and dishonest to use $300,000 of taxpayer money to fund a private project, especially in the face of public cuts to healthcare, education, and social services.  As the committee is aware from previous testimony by Senator Doug Thomas, the east-west highway would be a private toll road.  Senator Thomas stated multiple times in his sponsorship of this study that it would not be funded by taxpayers, but rather, by private or federal funds.  On January 23^rd he told the Dover-Foxcroft selectboard that it would not be funded by taxpayers, despite asking for funding from the General Fund.[1]  We oppose using public funds for a private project.

Second, we urge the Committee to look into the future and ask what the people of Maine want long term?  Considering rising fuel costs associated with less supply and more demand, and the fact that we are facing Peak Oil, we feel it is unwise and irresponsible to support a project that promotes burning fossil fuels to transport goods.

As leaders and representatives of Mainers, sworn to protect our health and welfare, we urge you to focus on alternatives that will benefit Maine people and our local economy.  Although it may be beyond the scope of this Committee in a broader sense, as a voice for the people we urge you to support initiatives that would spur local health, like assisting Mainers in creating value-added products, and revitalizing smaller communities.  The east-west highway would reduce the health and accessibility of Maine’s environment by burning more fossil fuels, and we would be investing in infrastructure that will become more and more obsolete over time.

In addition to supporting increased fossil fuel consumption in a world running out of fossil fuel and facing climate change, there are many other reasons the east-west highway will not benefit Maine.  Its primary use will be as a costly toll road for Canadian transport trucks heading to and from Canadian ports.  The toll proposed is $75 to cross Maine.  There will be few on and off ramps, other than to refueling stations or rail yards like Brownville Junction.  The stated intention is not for tourists or for Mainers.[2]  To reiterate, the highway would certainly result in pollution, negative environmental impact, and ongoing decrease of land values.  This alone impacts local economic viability, but also reduces Maine’s tourist appeal, a significant source of income for Mainers.  The environmental ramifications are huge and need to be considered with much greater detail, but to be brief, the construction of the highway over three major rivers, numerous watersheds, and through unbroken forestlands will irreparably damage this land that is the heart of Maine’s identity.

Fourth, the project will create few jobs, especially in comparison to jobs in social services that are facing cuts.  It is a private project that is Cianbro president, Peter Vigue’s brainchild.  It will be their project.  Cianbro regularly performs huge infrastructure projects all over New England and moves their workforce.[3]  We are not looking at new job creation beyond a small number of gas station service jobs.  If toll worker jobs are created, they will become obsolete due to automation within the next three years.[4]

Finally and critically, the highway exposes Maine to exploitation of raw resources by multinational corporations that provide few jobs, do not spend their profits in Maine, and do not pay taxes here.  Our land is our primary source of stable wealth and welfare.  To export raw materials like lumber, bulk water, and gravel is shortsighted and will devastate the future of our home.  To create a potential super-corridor for future pipelines, and high voltage transmission lines from industrial wind projects that scar our mountains, would irreversibly define Maine.

Please take a look at our website, where we are compiling as much information that we can on the east-west-highway project: www.defendingwater.net/maine/east-west-highway/

I sincerely appreciate your time and consideration.

With most genuine regards,

Chris Buchanan

grassroots organizer, Defending Water for Life in Maine

(207) 357-1443

chris@defendingwater.net

www.defendingwater.net/maine

Defending Water for Life in Maine is a project of the Alliance for Democracy.  Our mission is to protect water from commodification or privatization, because water is necessary for life, and should not be used for profit.

note: due to conglomerate press ownership, some articles repeat.

1) Print

• http://www.pressherald.com/news/East-west-highway-idea-resurfaces-in-Legislature.html (same as below)
• http://www.pressherald.com/news/this-time-private-money-would-fund-east-west-road_2012-02-15.html (same as above)

• http://www.sunjournal.com/news/approved/0001/11/30/renewed-interest-east-west-highway-reaches-state-h/1155440 (same as below)
• http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/14/news/augusta/renewed-interest-in-east-west-highway-reaches-state-house/?ref=mostReadBoxBusiness (same as above)

• http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/20285/Default.aspx

• http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/071bc5ca7ef54de69738ad69cb7689ab/ME–East-West-Highway/ (same as below)
• http://www.htrnews.com/usatoday/article/38576715?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs (same as above)

• http://www.mainebiz.biz/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120215/NEWS0101/120219966

2)  TV

• http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/189491/2/Legislature-asked-for-300K-for-East-West-highway-study

• http://www.wlbz2.com/news/article/189491/3/Legislature-asked-for-300K-for-East-West-highway-study

• http://www.wmtw.com/video/30456758/detail.html

3)  Radio

• http://www.mpbn.net/DesktopModules/PDGNews/MediaPlayer.aspx?PDGNewsStoryID=20285&PDGNewsMediaID=4735&TabID=36&ModuleID=3478

• http://archives.weru.org/weru-news-report/weru-news-report-21512

Activists concerned that Coca-Cola might be influencing National Park Service policy were breathing a bit easier Tuesday after the Grand Canyon National Park announced it would eliminate the sale of bottled water inside the park within 30 days.

full story here:  http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/10340196-grand-canyon-banning-sales-of-bottled-water

At 1pm, LD 1671, An Act To Provide Funding to the Department of Transportation for a Feasibility Study of an East-west Highway, is scheduled for a public hearing and we want to be there!

We want to attract media coverage, and get our talking points out there.  Then, we’ll move inside to attend the hearing.

Pre-Rally Rendevouz!  9am, Tuesday, February 14.  Belgrade*.

Let’s meet to develop solid talking points, strategize our overall approach, make posters, and inspire each other!

*Place: 273 manchester road, belgrade, 04917

I’ll have some food and if someone can bring coffee and a coffee pot that’d be awesome.

Action items: Please sign up!

-Contact media:

-Develop talking points (at least send brainstorms via email):

-Bring banners and posters:

-Outreach and Bring people who will be impacted:

-If you can’t be there, write letters of opposition and email them to me.  I will include them in our testimony at the hearing!

Thanks and can’t wait to see you and your posse there!!!

Links: 

info:  www.defendingwater.net/maine/east-west-highway/

bill:http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?paper=SP0570&PID=1456&snum=125

We are expressing opposition to the East-West Highway because:

1)  It is dishonest to use taxpayer money to fund a private project.  The east-west highway would be a private toll road.

2)  The project does not bring any benefit to Maine.  Its primary use will be as a highly expensive toll road for Canadian transport trucks heading to East coast ports.  Not for tourists, or for Mainers.

3)  The project exposes Maine to be used for foreign companies to make money on us.  The highway would export profit from Maine, by opening Maine up to resource exploitation by multinational corporations that provide very few jobs if any, do not spend their profits in Maine, and do not pay taxes here.  And for that harm, most Mainers will lose access to affordable land to make a living on, and reduce Maine’s tourist appeal, a significant source of income for Mainers.

4)  The project will not create many jobs.  This is a private project.  During construction, more people may get employed.  However, as Cianbro regularly performs huge infrastructure projects all over New England, we expect they will provide a high percentage of the work force.  Many Cianbro employees live in Maine, and that is great, but we’re not looking at new job creation here.

Once the road is built, there may be a couple more gas station service jobs.

Wood chips for export to Europe, and jobs mining or bottling water, provide very few jobs compared to other local land uses.  And for the protection of our beautiful state, the Way Life Should Be.  What kind of jobs will be left for our children?

5)  The construction of the highway, over 3 major rivers, multiple wetlands, and through old growth forest would be very damaging to the environment.

6)  More roads are a waste of money in general.  As we approach peak oil, everyone will drive less.  Why spend more money on roads when we are just going to have less and less fuel?  Climate change activists say put the money into lasting infrastructure projects to benefit people and communities that are not reliant on fossil fuel.

Contact:

Chris Buchanan

chris(at)defendingwater(dot)net

(207) 357-1443

By Lauren Drasler, Assistant New Editor | The Vermont Cynic | Thursday, February 2, 2012

The sale of bottled water on campus will end Jan. 1, 2013, makingUVM one of the first institutions nationwide to pass this type of sustainable beverage policy, according to University Communications.

UVM will remove bottled water from its 57 vending machines and in retail outlets as well asmandate that one-third of the drinks in vending machines be healthy choices,University Communications stated.

Though the administration made this decision, Director for the Office of Sustainability Gioia Thompson said that student groups such as Vermont Student Environmental Program (VSTEP) really led the way.

“In 2010 and 2011, Mikayla McDonald and Marlee Baron each served as both VSTEP president and SGA senator,” Thompson said.  ”They were key in connecting with SGA committees and leaders, who responded with resolutions.”

Thompson said that UVM’s campus has 200 water fountains that can easily be retrofitted with water bottle filling stations like the ones in the Davis Center for about $300 each.

“Other fountains will need to be replaced, costing in the thousands,” she said. “There may be some new fountain locations requiring new plumbing, as is the case in the Waterman building’s recent fountain upgrade.”

Vice President of Finance and Administration Richard Cate estimates that the cost of updating and replacing water fountains throughout campus will be about $100,000.

“This action is not likely to save the University any money, but hopefully students will save

money by having better access to chilled drinking water for which they do not have to pay,” he

said.

The Coca-Cola contract, which gives the company exclusive pouring rights at the University and is set to expire in June, generates $482,000 in revenue for UVM, Cate said.  Of that revenue, some is used to directly benefit students.

“$157,000 of the $482,000 from the current contract goes to student financial aid,” he said.

Cate confirmed that revenue from the new contracts will also be directed toward student aid.

President of VSTEP Greg Francese said that his club has worked directly with the Office of Sustainability and student organizations in order to educate the community about environmental issues such as the impact of bottled water.

Francese said that VSTEP’s main goal for the past five years has been to ban the sale of bottled water, with campaigns such as Bring Your Own Bottle days, in which students are encouraged to not buy bottled water for one day.

“We wanted people to think about why they’re purchasing bottled water,” he said. “The way we’ve done that is basically just by educating people about why you can get virtually the same product for free out of a water fountain.”

Though the decision to end sales of bottled water on campus is finally official, Francese said the news has not sunk in yet.

“It feels surreal, I guess it hasn’t really hit me yet,” he said. “There’s been a lot of congratulatory emails, and I got interviewed by one of the local news stations, but it just doesn’t feel like it’s happening.

“When it happens it will be great,” he said.

Former VSTEP president Mikayla McDonald said that she is very supportive of UVM’s decision to let the Coke contract expire and to remove the sale of bottled water from campus.

“UVM has shown great leadership with this action and will undoubtedly motivate students in other American colleges and universities to take similar initiatives,” she said.

McDonald said she has a variety of issues with the bottled water industry.

“Single-serving, plastic-packaged bottled water is one of those products which has a 100 percent manufactured demand,” she said. “That means that there was essentially no need or want for it until bottled water companies started spending billions of dollars on advertising.”

These advertising campaigns have successfully convinced many Americans that municipal tap water is dirty and dangerous while bottled water is cleaner and healthier, McDonald said. In fact, the opposite is true.

Many students said they agree with the University’s decision to stop selling bottled water.

“I think it’s awesome,” senior Audrey Stout said.  “We don’t need any more plastic, so I’m all for this idea.”

Other students agreed that bottled water is a waste.

“There is plenty of opportunity to get free water from the fountains, and reusable water bottles are always being given away here,” sophomore Isaiah Cory said.

Though most students said they supported the administration’s decision, others said they didn’t like the idea of completely banning water bottle sales.

“Anytime there is a ban it’s an infringement,” senior Ben Zabriskie said.  “If the University put a $1 tariff on bottled water, then that money could be used to support conservation instead of completely banning bottled water sales.”

Editor’s Note: Bellingham has taken the first step in following the example of towns and municipalities like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who have recently explicitly asserted their rights as autonomous communities. Pittsburgh has outlawed all Hydraulic Fracturingpractices within its city limits. With support by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, No Coal!, a Bellingham citizen-led political action committee has introduced an ordinance to the City of Bellingham that would make coal transport a legal nuisance and prohibit the transportation of coal through Bellingham’s city limits, which would essentially paralyze the proposed Cherry Point Coal terminal. The ordinance technically violates theCommerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which leaves issues of interstate commerce—like coal trains—to the federal government, not local communities. For more on why No Coal! believes the City of Bellingham, and all communities need rights-based ordinances click here.

The Ordinance:

Proposal for a

Bellingham Community Bill of Rights

to be adopted by citizens’ initiative

Whereas, in America we have a tradition of deciding for ourselves – and for our children;

Whereas, the residents of the City of Bellingham possess the inherent and inalienable  right to govern their own community, on the basis, without limitation, of the statement within the Declaration of Independence’s that governments are instituted to secure the rights of people, and of the Washington Constitution’s recognition that ―All political power is inherent in the people;

Whereas, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Whereas, the assertion of constitutional rights, including civil rights, by the legal constructions known as Corporations has fundamentally unbalanced our system of government, and the people of Bellingham desire to restore a balanced and democratic system of government;

Whereas, the use of coal for energy production has furthered global climate change, with that climate change threatening the very survival of human and natural communities;

Whereas, the State of Washington has acknowledged the threat from the use of coal, and therefore decided last year to adopt the Coal-Free Future for Washington legislation which will close the last remaining coal-burning power plant in Washington State;

Whereas, the State of Washington and the United States hold a public trust from the people of the State of Washington and the people of the United States under which they are obliged to protect the climate of the State of Washington and of the United States from climate change, and the State of Washington and the United States have failed to act in accordance with the public trust, and the people of Bellingham find it necessary to act on their own behalf;

Whereas, the people of Bellingham find it necessary to reduce the progress of climate change by creating a new structure of law, which recognizes that the residents and ecosystems of Bellingham have the right to a healthy, natural climate unaltered by the transporting, handling and burning of coal, and which recognizes the rights of ecosystems to exist and flourish;

Whereas, that new structure of law is embodied in this ordinance, which recognizes a Bill of Rights for the residents and ecosystems of Bellingham, and which bans activities related to the transportation of coal through the municipality as a violation of those rights;

Whereas, existing concepts of law such as nuisance and toxic trespass may be expanded to support the right of the people of Bellingham to protect themselves from activities related to the transportation of coal through the municipality;

Whereas, since Corporations engaged in the extraction, distribution, and use of coal routinely use corporate ”powers” and ”rights” to overturn community lawmaking focused on building sustainability, this ordinance removes legal “powers” and “rights” from those Corporations to ensure that the powers and rights of the community are superior to the “powers” and “rights” claimed by those Corporations;

Whereas, certain distant corporate operators desire to mine coal in massive quantities in Wyoming and Montana, to transport such coal by rail from east to west across Washington State, from south to north in Western Washington, and through the center of the City of Bellingham, to build an ecologically destructive coal port at Cherry Point just north of Bellingham, to transport such coal in massive freighters across Puget Sound and the Pacific Ocean to Asia, where it will be burned in power plants, increasing the rate of global climate change (all the foregoing being referred to as the “Proposed Corporate Coal Project”);

Whereas, the Proposed Corporate Coal Project will cut off the city from its waterfront, impeding plans for development and for opening the waterfront for public enjoyment, and cutting out the resulting jobs;

Whereas, the adoption of this ordinance by the people of Bellingham is a necessary first step, but is insufficient by itself either to stop the coal trains on all their possible routes or the coal port or to bring about the structural legal changes that are necessary and the people of Bellingham stand ready to collaborate with the people of Whatcom County and Washington State and beyond in order to obtain these ends;

Now, therefore, the people of the City of Bellingham hereby adopt this Ordinance, which shall be known and may be cited as “The Bellingham Community Bill of Rights.”

Section 1—Findings and Intent

The people of Bellingham believe that the protection of human and natural communities from environmental threats constitutes the highest and best use of the police powers that this municipality possesses. We also believe that local legislation that embodies the interests of the community is mandated by the doctrine of the consent of the governed and the right to local, community self-government.  Thus, we hereby adopt this ordinance, which establishes a Bill of Rights for the residents, natural communities and ecosystems of the City, bans activities related to the transportation of coal within the City, and nullifies state and federal laws, constitutional provisions, permits, and other authorizations which interfere with the rights secured by this ordinance.

The people of Bellingham recognize that a healthy, natural climate – and environmental and economic sustainability – cannot be achieved if the rights of municipal majorities are routinely overridden by corporate minorities claiming “powers” and “rights”.  The people of Bellingham also recognize that sustainability cannot be achieved within a system of preemption which enables those corporate decision-makers to wield state and federal governmental power to override local self-government, and which restricts municipalities only to that lawmaking specifically authorized by state government.

The people of Bellingham are unwilling to accept an economic system in which  communities, people and eco-systems bear the massive costs of corporate operations in the social, ecological and economic spheres, and in which such a system is supported by the existing structure of law. Conventional economic ideology that characterizes these costs as “externalities,” and then proceeds to ignore them, is inadequate for the needs of society and for ecosystems.

The people of Bellingham find that the harms arising from the Proposed Corporate Coal Project are numerous and affect every sphere of life. Among them are:

1) Reduced access to the Bellingham waterfront, to the waterfront at the proposed coal             port and to the waterfront everywhere where the trains will run along the shore

2) Destruction of the peace of the parks along the waterfront, including Zuanich Park,             Boulevard Park, Port of Bellingham Marine Park, Teddy Bear Cove, and Larrabee             State Park.

3) Not being able to proceed with the community’s vision for waterfront redevelopment             (most especially of the Georgia Pacific site, now largely empty, and on the other             side of the tracks from downtown Bellingham

4) Not being able to preserve the beauty of the waterfront

5) Not being able to use existing rail facilities for other valuable uses, e.g. passenger trains.

6) Noise

7) Pollution of air, land and water from coal dust and freighter diesel exhaust

8] Heath threats, including without limitation

• a) Impaired pulmonary development in adolescents;
• b) Increased cardiopulmonary mortality and all-cause mortality;
• c) Measurable pulmonary inflammation;
• d) Increased severity and frequency of asthma attacks, ER visits, and hospital admissions in children;
• e) Increased rates of myocardial heart attacks in adults;
• f) Increased risk of cancer;
• g) Increased risk of chronic bronchitis;
• h) Increased risk of emphysema;
• i) Increased risk of pulmonary fibrosis; and
• j) Environmental contamination through the leaching of toxic heavy metals; all as             documented by Whatcom Docs.

9) Interruption of ambulances, fire trucks and police

10) Interruptions for people and local businesses

11) Loss of opportunity for local businesses

12) Safety threats

13) Threats to wildlife

14) Loss of property values near the tracks

15) Ecological harm to air, land and water in the vicinity of the proposed port at Cherry             Point

16) Harm to the fisheries in the vicinity of Cherry Point

17) Species extinction

18) Multifarious harm to the communities in the vicinity of Cherry Point, such as Birch             Bay, Custer, Ferndale, the Lummi Nation, and Blaine

19) Ecological harm in Puget Sound

20) Safety threats from increasingly dense freighter traffic in Puget Sound and from             increasingly large freighters

21) Ocean acidification

22) Furthering global climate change through the burning of the coal in Asia, which will             cause health and other impacts to the residents and ecosystems of the City of             Bellingham and around the world.

The people of Bellingham find that global climate change poses a significant threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the human and natural communities within the City, and that  those communities possess a right to a healthy, natural climate unaltered by coal emissions, and that certain proposed corporate activities violate that right.

The people of Bellingham recognize that merely regulating activities related to the transportation of coal through the City enables and legalizes these harms to occur, thus violating the rights of residents and natural communities.

Section 2—Definitions

(a) “City” and “Bellingham” mean the City of Bellingham, a Washington municipal

corporation.

(b) “Coal” shall mean any combustible sedimentary rock.

(c) “Corporation(s)” for purposes of this ordinance, shall include any corporation,             limited partnership, limited liability partnership, business trust, or limited liability             company organized for profit under the laws of any state of the United States or             under the laws of any country, and any other for-profit entity that possesses state             conferred limited liability attributes for its owners, directors, officers, and/or             managers.

Section 3—Statements of Law—Rights of Bellingham Residents and the Natural

Environment

(a) People as Sovereign. The municipal corporation known as the City of Bellingham shall  be the governing authority responsible to, and governed by, the residents of the City. Use of the City of Bellingham municipal corporation by the sovereign people of Bellingham to make law shall not be construed to limit or surrender the sovereign authority or immunities of the people to a municipal corporation that is subordinate to them in all respects at all times. The people at all times enjoy and retain an inalienable and indefeasible right to self-governance in the community where they reside.

(b) Right to Self-Government. All residents of the City of Bellingham possess the             fundamental and inalienable right to a form of governance where they live which             recognizes that all power is inherent in the people, that all free governments are            founded on the people’s authority and consent, and that corporate entities and their             directors and managers shall not enjoy special privileges or powers under the law            which make community majorities subordinate to them.

(c) Rights of Natural Communities. Natural communities and ecosystems, including, but not limited to, flora, fauna, the atmosphere, soils, wetlands, bays, streams, rivers, aquifers, and other water systems, possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist and flourish within the City of Bellingham. Residents of the City of Bellingham, acting individually or collectively, or the City itself, or the City acting together with one or more residents, shall possess legal standing to enforce those rights on behalf of those natural communities and ecosystems.

(d) Right to a Sustainable Energy Future. All residents, natural communities, and ecosystems in the City of Bellingham possess a right to a sustainable energy future and a right to adopt laws and policies to secure this future. That right shall include the authority to require the development, production, and use of energy from renewable fuel sources.

(e) Right to Climate. All residents, natural communities and ecosystems in the City of Bellingham possess a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthy, natural climate.

(f) Rights as Self-Executing. All rights delineated and secured by this ordinance shall be self-executing and these rights shall be enforceable against Corporations, in addition to governmental and other public entities.

Section 4—Statements of Law – Prohibitions Necessary to Secure Bill of Rights’ Protections

a) It shall be unlawful for any Corporation to engage in the transportation of coal through the City of Bellingham, whether by road or railway.  For purposes of this Section 4, a Corporation will be considered to be “engaged in the transportation of coal” if it transports coal through Bellingham, or if it owns coal being transported through Bellingham.

b) Corporations in violation of the prohibition against engaging in coal transportation or seeking to engage in actions that would violate such prohibition shall be deemed not to possess rights as legal “persons” under the United States and Washington             Constitutions, and shall not be deemed to possess any other constitutional rights.

c) Corporations engaged in the transportation of coal through the City of Bellingham shall not possess the authority or power to enforce State or federal preemptive law against the people of the City of Bellingham or to challenge or overturn municipal ordinances, when that enforcement or challenge interferes with the rights asserted by this ordinance or interferes with the authority of the municipality to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents.

d) No permit, license, privilege or charter issued by any instrumentality of a state or the federal government or any international body, any commission, or any municipality to any person or any Corporation, or any director, officer, owner, or manager of a Corporation, which would violate the prohibitions of this Ordinance or deprive any Bellingham resident(s), natural community, or ecosystem of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by this Ordinance, the Washington Constitution, the United States Constitution, or other laws, shall be deemed valid within the City of Bellingham.

Section 5—Enforcement

(a) The City of Bellingham may enforce this Ordinance through an action for damages and/or in equity brought in a court of competent jurisdiction. In such an action, the City shall be entitled to recover all costs of litigation, including, without limitation, expert and attorney’s fees.

(b) Any resident or residents of the City of Bellingham shall have the authority to enforce this Ordinance through an action for damages and/or in equity brought in a court of competent jurisdiction. In such an action, the resident shall be entitled to recover all costs of litigation, including, without limitation, expert and attorney’s fees.

(c) Any action brought to remedy the violation of the rights of natural communities or ecosystems shall list the natural community or ecosystem as a plaintiff in the action, damages sought must bear a relationship to the damage inflicted upon the natural community or ecosystem, and awarded damages must be payable to the municipality for the restricted use of repairing the natural community or ecosystem.

(d) Right to Know. Any corporation planning to engage in activities that may be prohibited by this ordinance shall disclose those activities to the City of Bellingham at least sixty (60) days prior to engaging in those activities. That disclosure, which shall be provided in writing to the City of Bellingham, shall explain why the proposed activities do not violate the provisions of this ordinance. Upon written request of a resident or residents or of the City, any corporation engaging in one or more of the activities described in Section 4 a) will disclose such information concerning such activities as such written request shall have specified, such disclosure to occur within 30 days of the date of the request. For purposes of this Section 5 d), “resident” includes a non-profit corporation controlled by one or more human residents of the City.

Section 6—Effective Date and Existing Permitholders

This Ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after the date of its enactment, at which point the Ordinance shall apply in accordance with its terms regardless of the date of any applicable state or federal permits.

Section 7—People’s Right to Self-Government

The foundation for the making and adoption of this law is the people’s fundamental and  inalienable right to govern themselves, and thereby secure their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If other units or levels of government attempt to preempt, amend, alter, or overturn this Ordinance, or parts of this Ordinance, the Bellingham City Council shall hold public meetings that explore the adoption of other measures that provide for adequate local control and the ability of residents to protect their fundamental and inalienable right to self-government, including without limitation the amendment of the City Charter.

Section 8 – State and Federal Law

By the adoption of this local Bill of Rights by this municipality, the people call for changes to state and federal law that would result in the recognition of a fundamental and  inalienable right to community self-government free of corporate control throughout this State and the United States. The people also declare their support for changes to state and federal law that would eliminate corporate constitutional rights and powers that currently interfere with, and prevent, the exercise of local self-governance. Those rights and powers include corporate authority to preempt community lawmaking, the “right” to obtain permits or licenses contrary to local law-making, corporate “rights” as “persons” under the State and federal constitutions, and other corporate “rights” under the State and federal constitutions.

Section 9—Severability

The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any court of competent jurisdiction decides that any section, clause, sentence, part, or provision of this Ordinance is illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect, impair, or invalidate any of the remaining sections, clauses, sentences, parts, or provisions of the Ordinance. The people of the City of Bellingham hereby declare that in the event of such a decision, and the determination that the court’s ruling is legitimate, they would have enacted this Ordinance even without the section, clause, sentence, part, or provision that the court decides is illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional.

Section 10—Repealer

All inconsistent provisions of prior Ordinances adopted by the City of Bellingham are hereby repealed, but only to the extent necessary to remedy the inconsistency.

P.S. from the editors:

See the Bellingham Herald Article:http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/12/29/2329380/activists-plan-initiative-to-outlaw.html

The Coal Free Bellingham website: http://coal-free-bellingham.org/

via: http://readthedirt.org/2012/01/27/bellingham-rights-based-ordinance-proposed-to-stop-coal-trains/

Visit the East-West highway page for all updates and actions: www.defendingwater.net/maine/east-west-highway

Here is the full article:

State senator pitches east-west highway proposal

By Stuart Hedstrom, Piscataquis Observer

DOVER-FOXCROFT, Maine — Having submitted a bill to fund a feasibility study of an east-west highway across Maine, Sen. Douglas Thomas, R-Ripley, discussed the proposal with the Board of Selectmen during a Jan. 23 meeting.

“It will connect to the new border station in Calais, and New Brunswick has already built a new superhighway to the border station,” Thomas said.

He said the highway would extend west across Maine, covering many areas where logging roads are in place now, to Coburn Gore and link up with Quebec. “It’s going to connect us to Canada. There are millions and millions of people in Montreal and we should be seeing some of that traffic.”

Thomas said his bill seeks approximately $300,000 for the feasibility study, using some federal planning money but no state funds.

“My understanding is it will be a four-lane highway and it’s going to be a private road,” he said, noting that a group of investors would fund construction, and tolls along the travel way would provide funding for the highway.

Thomas said Cianbro’s Peter Vigue has been researching the east-west highway concept, but the project would be open to bid. He said those involved in the project are hoping to get started by 2014, “and I’m guessing it will take a couple of years to build.”

“If we wait to do this with public money it’s not going to happen,” he added. “But if we can get this kind of commerce through this area, it’s going to help our economy.”

Thomas said the proposed highway “crosses the Interstate just north of Old Town, goes through north of Charleston, south of Sebec, south of Milo and it goes just north of Dover. But this isn’t set in concrete, this is a proposed map.”

“Someone’s got to have to plow that road, it’s going to need offices, and we are centrally located, and it’s going to need roughly 300 employees,” he added, referring to some of the possible economic benefits of the highway. “There would be $1.2 billion of construction money going into this area and people would be getting to work.”

Thomas said the proposal is now “in the concept stage and now we have to see if it’s even feasible.”

He said the study could take six to 12 months to complete.

The selectmen opted not to pass a resolution concerning the east-west highway proposal. “I think it’s too early,” Selectman Jim Annis said.

“I would just like to say the concept is intriguing but the devil is in the details,” Selectman Paul Matulis said. “I would say make an exit in this area. Otherwise what do we get out of this?”

via: http://bangordailynews.com/2012/01/27/news/piscataquis/state-senator-pitches-east-west-highway-proposal/?ref=latest

1)  The SBA opened up a loan guarantee program to mission-based and community lenders. Three groups applied for the program in Maine and were approved: Coastal Enterprises Inc., the Eastern Maine Development Corp., and the Northern Maine Development Corp..

As a primary proponent of the East-West Highway, it is critical to monitor what the Eastern Maine Development Corporation does with these funds.

2)  In addition, the head of the SBA, Karen Mills, expressed that the Obama administration has an infrastructure proposal on the table, which would mean $200 million in projects for Maine.

With a pre-existing relationship with EMDC, and the East-West highway project needing funding, we must monitor this “infrastructure proposal.”  If anyone has information please let us know!

Visit our East-West Highway page for all updates and actions: http://defendingwater.net/maine/east-west-highway/

Here is the full article:

SBA seeks to increase capital for small businesses that need it, Mills says

By Matt Wickenheiser, BDN Staff

photo by Joel Page

Karen G. Mills, administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration speaks Friday, Jan. 20, 2012 at the Portland Regional Chamber’s Eggs and Issues breakfast in Portland. Buy Photo

PORTLAND, Maine — As companies around the country seek to shake off the recession and grow, the Small Business Administration is bringing on new and different lenders to provide them with capital, the head of that federal agency said Friday.

Karen Mills, a Brunswick resident and administrator of the SBA, noted that her agency backed a record number of loans in 2011, hitting a total of $30.5 billion. Mills, speaking at the Portland Regional Chamber’s Eggs and Issues breakfast Friday, noted that there were still some capital areas that need work — specifically, small loans of $250,000 or less in underserved markets.

To address that need, she said, the SBA opened up its loan guarantee program to mission-based and community lenders. Three groups applied for the program in Maine and were approved, she said, Coastal Enterprises Inc., the Eastern Maine Development Corp., and the Northern Maine Development Corp.

Further opening access to capital is one way the Obama administration hopes to prod the economy toward growth. Another is through the president’s payroll tax cut proposal, which is aimed at both consumers and businesses, said Mills.

“That is important — if we want to come out of this recession, small businesses have to grow,” said Mills. “They’re not going to grow unless they have confidence. As I said to the president, the thing that gives small businesses confidence is cash in the balance sheet.”

Mills, a former venture capitalist, worked on economic development in Maine at the request of former Gov. John Baldacci until she was tapped by President Barack Obama in 2009 to head up the SBA. Last week, Obama elevated the SBA administrator position to a Cabinet-level post, giving Mills a seat at the table with his top advisers.

“I had a good week in Washington, as you might imagine,” said Mills. “It was a week ago today that the president asked me to be a part of his Cabinet.”

Mills said she was flattered by the elevation, and by comments made about her work by the state’s congressional delegation. However, what flattered her the most, she said, were the news headlines calling her a “Mainer.” Mills moved to Maine in 2001 when her husband, Barry Mills, took over as president of Bowdoin College.

“For those of us who are from away, we know there is no greater compliment than even for a small moment to be called a Mainer,” said Mills.

Mills noted that Maine had 620,000 jobs before the recession, and dropped to 590,000 after. Maine, she said, is never hit as hard in a downturn as many other states, but also never experiences the highs that other states do.

She said in addition to pushing for payroll tax cuts and increased capital flow, the administration has an infrastructure proposal on the table, which would mean $200 million in projects for Maine.

“$200 million in Maine is a big number — that’s the kind of investment we have to make now in order to continue to grow our companies here and make sure we’re competitive in places like Maine,” she said.

Mills said when she worked on economic development in Maine, she focused on building support for economic clusters — infrastructure and ties within specific sectors. A boat building cluster, making use of the state’s companies and composites technology infrastructure, was successful, she said.

“We used to be shoes and pulp and textiles, now we’re boat builders and disability insurers, and food — there’s a great food cluster,” said Mills. “We have blueberries, we have potatoes, we have seafood.”

She’s taking that same strategy in the work the SBA is doing nationally, she said. If you build the foundation for small business, give them the tools they need to be entrepreneurial, the skills, advice, capital and clusters, they can go forward and create jobs, she said.

“That’s how America is going to compete in the 21st century,” she said.

Wendy Wolf, president and CEO of the Maine Health Access Foundation, asked Mills about what the SBA was doing to make health care more affordable — a big limitation on growth, she added.

Mills said the administration’s Affordable Care Act does contain tax credits for small businesses, but noted that they were too complicated. She’s working with Health and Human Services and the Treasury Department to try to simplify them, she said.

But the real payoff, she said, would be the health insurance exchanges in each state. Today, she said, small businesses pay an average of 18 percent more for insurance than do big businesses, for the same coverage.

There has been no marketplace for small businesses to pool risk and seek competition for their insurance business, Mills said. The exchanges will provide that marketplace, and lower costs, Mills asserted.

David Barber, CEO of Barber Foods in Portland, noted that he had worked with Mills’ office when new U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations threatened the company. Mills’ staff worked with Barber and the USDA to tweak the regulations so the company would be able to continue operations.

“Our outcome was terrific, we actually became a poster child of how industry and government can work together to create something better,” said Barber.

Mills said a year and a half ago a new executive order required that agencies issue regulations specifically detail how they will not adversely affect small businesses, or note how they are being made flexible for small businesses.

She encouraged businesses who have a problem with a specific regulation to contact her office. Part of the responsibilities of the SBA, she said, was to ensure that unintended consequences of regulations don’t harm small business.

“That’s what we’re about,” she said.

via: http://bangordailynews.com/2012/01/20/business/administration-seeks-to-increase-capital-for-small-businesses-that-need-it-mills-says/?ref=latest 

Here is a link to information about the film: http://www.bottledlifefilm.com/index.php/nestle-and-water.html

If you watch it, please write a review by selecting “comment” below this post.  Thanks!