Gubernatorial candidate Steve Woods says 108 Maine towns ‘basically insolvent’ (Falmouth: 2013, subsidized)

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Because this is totally Maine related, I wanted to know what people thought about this. I've only lived here for three years, but from my experience here, I can't imagine that Maine's, "live and let live" attitude would accept this. Or are there really that many "plots" that are being subsidized?

This showed up in another thread, and I want to know what Mainers think about it.

Gubernatorial candidate Steve Woods says 108 Maine towns

Gubernatorial hopeful Steve Woods unveiled an economic strategy Tuesday that could result in the closure of more than 100 small Maine towns and redirect their state dollars — and potentially their residents — toward more urban centers.

To me, it seems to go against what Mainers stand for. Of course, again, I've only been here for three years, but this last line in the article sums up what I've seen from Mainers thus far:

Milo Town Manager Maynard had a warning for Woods and any other candidate who plans to reduce state aid to municipalities.

“Any candidate who thinks he can run roughshod over the rural part of Maine probably has another thing coming,” he said. “They vote in the cities, but if you stomp on the rural population, you’ll likely know it at the polls.”

That's how Mainers have come across, to me. They don't necessarily mind that things aren't instant access all the time, and they don't particularly want to live in an urban area. When I first moved here, I definitely moved to what I consider a small town, but even now, three years later I'm thinking, "No, there's still too many people...find something even more rural." I can't be alone in this, can I?

[mainebrokerman]

maybe this is part of the rural cleansing northern maine land man talks about..

[Maineac]

Nope. Ain't gonna happen. And wasn't it last January this guy announced for the State Senate? I'm not sure "gubernatorial candidate" is correct. And "rural cleansing" is just another hogwash scare tactic along the lines of "Agenda 21". I had to dig all the way through the article to find out this guy ran against Angus King as an Independent and is now running as a democrat. I actually thought I'd discover he was running as a republican. He's in Falmouth, for God's sake, the land of multimillionaires with their little red sweaters over their shoulders. What do you expect? Common sense? He is meaningless in the scope of reality, simply seeks power, probably not from Maine originally, has been soundly trounced each time he has run for anything, yet his stupid idea will undoubtedly be attributed to anyone that disagrees with anything that doesn't match the party platform for repeating. And repeating. Until it's true. I have to go up to the County next week. I'll ask around some of the municipalities and see how real people feel about it.

[Submariner]

There does seem to be a lot of government subsidies that towns rely on.

Federal or state? Nobody cares, so long as it does not come from their budget.

The root of all evil is the love of money. I can see where town leaders may have been 'lead' into accepting bribes to act in specific ways.

Have a veteran's memorial and the Federal government will give your town $1,000, you can use it to help children. What ever it takes, so you accept the bribe.

[Northern Maine Land Man]

Three Wolves in Snow gets it. Her instincts are correct. Some imagine that Agenda 21 does not exist because they have not read it. I have the book. I also have the book, "Convention on Biodiversity" which details the six bioregions in Maine slated for "no human use". Our legislature is happily Implementing it piece by piece.

[LordSquidworth]

Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow

To me, it seems to go against what Mainers stand for. Of course, again, I've only been here for three years, but this last line in the article sums up what I've seen from Mainers thus far:

Yes and no. Mainers harp on "self sufficiency" when a large portion of them are living off others.

Relocating people... Not a fan.

Ending tax dollar subsidies from other parts of the state, that could actually be used to increase Maine's place in the world with economic development, instead of floating areas that are unsustainable, sure.

A large part of Maine's problems is the size of the state and the lack of population. It doesn't generate enough taxes to both improve itself and keeping the dead end areas afloat, it has to cover to great an area.

[Coaster]

You do realize that the news article is over a year old and was thoroughly discussed in several threads, including:
//www.city-data.com/forum/maine...ing-108-a.html

[Northern Maine Land Man]

That specific plan came out of the 1992 Rio conference on biodiversity. Before that was the 1947 Bar Harbor Conference. Other towns would have their populations cut by 75%. Senator George Mitchell was the majority leader when environmentalists tried to get the Biodiversity Treaty approved by the US Senate. Dr. Mike Coffman appealed to Sen. Mitchell to take it off the docket. The environmentalists told Sen. Mitchell that the book, "Convention on Biodiversity" did not exist. Mike had a copy flown to Washington from Geneva, Switzerland. He picked it up at the air freight terminal and brought it to Sen Mitchell's office.

"Senator, Here is the book the environmentalists lied to you about. It does exist. The post-its marking pages are particularly egregious." The senator pulled the bill and it never was passed.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by Coaster

You do realize that the news article is over a year old and was thoroughly discussed in several threads, including:
//www.city-data.com/forum/maine...ing-108-a.html

As I stated, clearly, in my post, the link came from another thread I viewed. I came here to look for it, but did not find it, hence why I posted, asking the question. I don't care if it's a year old, I still want to know what Mainers think about it, so thank you for the link.

[Maineac]

I thought about it, and it's absolutely laughable. Some twit like this guy makes a likely CORRECT statement as to the financial viability of a number of municipalities and the conspiracy theorists latch on, slap it on the ass and try to ride it to a political blame party. I'm still giggling that there are people that actually believe this crap, since I figured this would be part of a Tea Party (cut government, taxes, etc., which is fine by me to a point) strategy. Nasty people telling the people of Milo their goose is cooked, you don't get any more support from society. It's all perspective, I guess. I did run a quick research session on the whole "Agenda 21" and "Convention on biodiversity" thing, and find the "facts" pretty gray, with NMLM's "facts" coming from conspiracy theorist websites that likewise promote "get rich quick" schemes and "buy gold here, we'll store it for you" (like the ads on VOM radio). The gold pirates are currently under Federal investigation for ripping off elderly people, but it always struck me as funny the ads that roll out of Beck's and Hannity's radio shows - like carnival hawkers, promoting the next big scam to people these stations and their "hosts" seem to know will take the bait.

The bottom line is, Agenda 21 was a proposal - an idea extended planet-wide (along with the Convention on Biodiversity) for sustainable growth based on population and needs into the 21s century. It was never a mandate. It's been made into a boogey man by the far right that would rather not have their profits interfered with. So there you have the two extremes on the spectrum. Clearcut and pave the Amazon, where earth's oxygen resources and consumption of CO2 takes place, and do it for the profit of a very few, very wealthy individuals, versus extreme planning on utilizing of resources worldwide. Billions are spent by companies such as Exxon to convince people that any science that impacts their bottom line is a "hoax" and that somehow any findings of the "environmental industry" (another hysterical coinage of terms) are suspect. Because all of those research scientists that don't goose-step with Monsanto are getting rich from reserach grants, and that's their sole purpose of existence. I suspect that the truth, and realities are somewhere in between, leaning well towards common sense rather than marching to the corporate drumbeat.