Before looking at our planning commissions [MidOhio Regional Planning Commission], please
review the history and intent of the establishment of regional planning commissions. You will most likely be shocked, because changes were made long ago that are now becoming more apparent, for instance the establishment of Public Private Partnerships.

Federal Regionalism

The Abolishment of Local Government

Below is the blueprint for the abolishment of state and county government by the institution of "Regionalism."

Centralization of power must be stopped because centralized power in the federal government, and the resulting loss of States' rights, is the one thing necessary for the success of a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.


"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of two or more States.; or parts of States without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as the Congress."

President Nixon, on March 27, 1969, through the Government Reorganization Act divided the United States into 10 Regions. To further implement this Regional Governance over the U.S.A., President Nixon signed Executive Order 11647 and entered it in the Federal Register February 12, 1972. (Vol .37, No.30) Through the authority vested in him as President of the United States, President Nixon established a Federal Regional Council for each of the 10 standard regions. It stated that, the President shall designate one member of each Council as Chairman of the Council and such Chairman shall serve at the pleasure of the President. The fact that State borders have been destroyed to create 10 REGIONS instead of 50 Union States is something your government doesn't want you to know.

There is no constitutional jurisdiction for the federal government to legislate for a municipal government in a Union State. The usurpation of state jurisdiction can only be achieved by conspiracy and fraud on the part of our duly elected public servants. It stands to reason that if there is no constitutional jurisdiction for the federal government to legislate for a municipal government in a Union state, there is also no jurisdiction for a federal bureaucracy to legislate for a municipal government in a Union state. As example: the EPA, the DEA, the IRS and the FBI, etc., have no Constitutional authority to legislate in a Union State. These are agencies of the Federal government, having jurisdiction only on federal territory. This is something your government doesn't want you to know.

Demeaning the authority of elected officials and replacement of these officials by appointed Federal "administrators" is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to representative government posed by Federal Regional Government. Outlawed by the Supreme Court decision of January 13, 1982 (Case #80-1350, "Community Communications Co, Inc v City of Boulder, CO) the ten regional capitols were dismantled by President Reagan's Executive Order #12407 on February 22, 1983.

However, grant making agencies of the ten Federal Regions remain in place assuring continuity of control over all Americans and their elected representatives by the central government.

Federal grants to state government are the fuel which make the Regional engines "go." The individual Union States are blackmailed, through the withholding of federal funds, if federal legislation is not enacted into State law, thereby opening the door to a power base for the silent revolution of Federal Regionalism.

There is a clear pattern of uniformity in all laws passed. On the state level, all fifty legislatures appear to become simultaneously concerned about solving a particular problem in an identical fashion. On the local level, the same thing happens in thousands of City Halls and County Seats. This strange coincidence is never publicized by the press, thereby it is rarely questioned by the public. Unknown to most of the public, all our laws are written by the Uniform Commission on State Law, also known as the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (ACIR)


PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS 2039 and 2040 March 6, 1933, March 9, 1933
Declaration of National Emergency and Declaration of War against the American People by the Government of the United States.

WAR POWERS ACT . . . March 9, 1933
TITLE 12 USC. Section 95(a) and 95(b)
This Act states that "During time of war or during any period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise investigate, regulate, prohibit, under such rules and regulationas as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as drfined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currancy, by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

FEDERAL REGISTER ACT . . . July 26, 1935
The Federal Register Act enabled the president to create unlimited bureaucracies and empower them with the force of law. All that was needed to implement bureaucratic regulations into law was to enter or publish those regulations in the Federal Register, by-passing all constitutional oversight.

THE BUCK ACT . . . October 9, 1940
Congress in 1940 passed the "Buck Act" 4 U.S.C.S. 104-113. By clever legal maneuvers from 1935 to 1940, the feds entirely circumvented the U.S. Constitution. In Section 110(e), this Act allowed any department of the federal government to create a "Federal Area" for imposition of the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, the imposition of this tax is at 4 U.S.C.S. section 111, and the rest of the taxing law is in Title 26, The Internal Revenue Code. The Social Security Board had already created an overlay of a "Federal Area."

As a result, the Federal Government created Federal "States" which are exactly like the Sovereign States, occupy the same territory and boundaries, but whose names are capitalized versions of the Sovereign States. (Remember that Proper Names and Proper Nouns in the English language have only the first letter Capitalized.) For example, the Federal "State" of ILLINOIS is overlaid upon the Sovereign State of Illinois. Further, it is designated by the Federal abbreviation of "IL", instead of the Sovereign State abbreviation of "Ill." So too is Arizona designated "AZ" instead of the lawful abbreviation of "Ariz.", "CA" instead of "Calif.", etc. If you use a two-letter CAPITALIZED abbreviation, you are declaring that the location is under the jurisdiction of the "federal" government instead of the powers of the "Sovereign" state.

As a result of creating these "shadow" States, the Federal government assumes that every area is a "Federal Area," and that the Citizens therein are "Federal" citizens.

PUBLIC LAW 79-404 entitled "Administrative Procedures Act of 1946."
This act set up the procedure yielding lawmaking authority to agencies in the executive sector of government (federal bureaucracies), and provided that administrative rules and regulations be printed in the Federal Register giving these regulations the force of law.

TITLE 3 USC Section 301, October 31, 1951: General authorization to delegate functions; publication of delegations.
This law authorized the President of the United States to designate and empower the head of any department or agency in the executive branch, or any official thereof who is required to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform without approval, ratification, or other action by the President (1) any function which is vested in the President by law, or (2) any function which such officer is required or authorized by law to perform only with or subject to the approval, ratification, or other action of the President: Provided, That nothing contained in the act relieved the President of his responsibility in office for the acts of any such head or other official designated by him to perform such functions. Such designation and authorization would be in writing, and published in the Federal Register.

PUBLIC LAW 86-380 and its amendment 89-733, 1959 under the Eisenhower Administration, created the Advisory Council On Intergovernmental Relations. (ACIR) This commission consists of 26 individuals, of which 14 are appointees representing groups such as the Council of State Governments, The League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the Governors Conference . . . all proponents and strong lobbyists for Federal grant programs that are subordinating local governments to Regional governing bodies.

PUBLIC LAW 89-136 entitled "Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965".
This act is the basis for the manner in which the 10 Federal regions are to be governed by a "Multi-State Regional Commission". It also states that the Secretary of Commerce has the power to "acquire in any lawful manner, any property (real or personal) whenever deemed necessary."

PUBLIC LAW 89-754. The Model Cities Act of 1966.
Section 204 of this act requires that a broad spectra of public facilities type projects which seek federal assistance must be brought under the aegis of area wide Regional comprehensive planning agencies, the clearing house system.

"To achieve the fullest cooperation and coordination of activities among the levels of government . . . to establish coordinated intergovernmental policy and administration . . . to provide for the acquisition, use, and disposition of land within urban areas by Federal agencies."

PUBLIC LAW 90-577 destroyed the separation of powers which is the principle of the U.S. Constitution. By its Title IV the U.S. Congress purported to yield legislative power to the president. He, in turn, allegedly transferred that law making power to his appointed directors in the grant making agencies of the Federal Regions per section 403 of the Bill. Out of that arrangement has grown the A-95 regional clearing house review system, designed by the Office of Management and Budget. The resulting Federal Region-Sub State control system straps regional governance (control by regulation) as a way of life over all America.

The separation of powers principle of the U.S. Constitution is destroyed by Title IV of this Regional Law in which Congress yields Legislative Power to the U.S. President. Through this act, the President was empowered to yield that lawmaking power to his appointees. (Section 403) From that arrangement has grown the controversial A-95 REGIONAL CLEARING HOUSE review system designed by the executive OMB (Office of Budget and Management). This system binds Regionalism over all of America by non-laws (administrative rules and regulations) which are not backed by LAW.

Congress thus legislated a system of government that is not permitted by our U.S. Constitution.

March 27, 1969, President Richard M. Nixon announced that he had divided the United States into eight (subsequently ten) Federal Regions. The President, by his act, set in motion a series of events which, unless reversed will dissolve sovereign state governments, disenfranchise the electorate, and merge the American pioneer spirit in an amorphous "world citizenship". The American people have been moved into the orbit of a financial/industrial cabal who control their corporate world state through the United Nations, the U.S. Congress, and other front organizations.

The fatal steps which transformed the Republic into a dictatorship of the financial elite are set out in the following Congressional statutes, executive orders, and proclamations which trace a seditious conspiracy of interlocking subversion in government departments during the period October 16, 1968 to 20 October, 1972.

27 March, 1969

Quoting the Reorganization Act, signed the same day, as his authority, President Nixon divided the United States into eight (later ten) Federal Regions or provinces, each with a new provincial capitol. Coordination and control of the ten Federal Regions would be administered from Washington. Formation of such "super states" is, of course, a violation of paragraph 1, section 3, Article IV, United States Constitution.

Objective: To transfer political power from the respective sovereign State government to appointed Federal agencies, whose controllers are the directors of the corporate world state.

30 October, 1969
EXECUTIVE ORDER #11490, "Assigning Emergency Preparedness Functions to Federal Departments and Agencies,". . . The Federal Register

E.O. 11490 consolidated executive orders of previous administrations into one omnibus directive, and provided for implementation of its powers "by an order or directive issued by the President in any national emergency type of situation."

E.O. 11490 authorizes the Office of Emergency Planning to put all controls into effect "in times of economic or financial crisis."

Takeover by government agencies includes: communications media; all electrical power, gas, petroleum fuels, and minerals; food resources and farms; all modes of transportation and control of highways, seaports, etc.; health, education, and welfare functions; airports and aircraft.

Provision is also made for the mobilization of civilians into work brigades under government supervision. The order directs the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons; permits the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, and grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in E.O. 11490, and to operate penal and correctional institutions.

29 December, 1970

PUBLIC LAW 91-596 known as the "Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970" was passed. This Act was necessary in order to gain control of private property "usage". The Act specifically limited itself to private businesses and excluded State, County, Municipal, School District, and Conservation District governing bodies.

It set forth that its enabling legislation must provide that the above State government and its political subdivisions must also abide by the standards set forth in the Federal Act.

15 August, 1971 EXECUTIVE ORDER 311615, "Providing for Stabilization of Prices, Rents, Wages, and Salaries," The Federal Register

E.O. 11615 designated the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System as the director of a Cost of Living Council, with authority to request the Department of Justice to bring actions for injunctions "whenever it appears to the Council that any person has engaged, is engaged, or is about to engage in any acts or practices constituting a violation of any regulation or order issued pursuant to this Order." (See EO 11490).

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board thus became czar over prices, rents, wages, and salaries, in addition to his control over money, interest rates, and the stock market, granted under the provisions of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

15 August, 1971
PROCLAMATION #4074, "Imposition of Supplemental Duty for Balance of Payments Purposes," The President.

The principal objective of Proclamation 4074 was to "declare a national emergency" and so establish stand-by authority to implement any or all of the of the provisions of Executive Order #11490 at such time as the American people had been conditioned to accept dictatorship. The people are now being brainwashed to accept, in fact demand, full government control over their lives and property.

12 February, 1972
EXECUTIVE ORDER #11647, "Federal Regional Councils", The Federal Register

E.O.#11647 established a Federal Regional Council for each of the ten standard Federal Regions" which Nixon effected by proclamation on March 27, 1969. The Office of Management and Budget was designed to be the control agency.

By this order the ten provincial capitols were staffed by the directors of grant-making agencies: Department of Labor, Health, Education and Welfare, and Housing and Urban Development, the Secretarial Representatives of the Department of Transportation, and the directors of the regional offices of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

The President of the United States subsequently appointed a commissar for each Federal Region.

18 October, 1972

PUBLIC LAW 92-500, which is known as the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972" was passed which set forth that States may assume pollution control enforcement on all businesses, land owners, and their equipment and land. This Act provides an effective "informer system" for citizens to squeal on their neighbors and/or employers. It also creates a body corporate to be known as the Environmental Financing Authority to have the power to acquire private property (real or personal) by whatever means and to also sell or lease said property. It also set forth that if the States desired to assume the enforcement duties of the federal government that it--the State--must enact enabling legislation which must be approved by the federal government.

20 October, 1972

"To . . . authorize Federal collection of State individual income taxes, and for other purposes." The primary function of P.L. 92-512 is to provide that, "after January 1, 1974, if two or more States request it of the U.S. government, and at the option of the individual States, all State taxes may be collected and administered by the federal government." (The decision is irreversible.) It further provides a "ceiling and floor" for State Income Taxes, and states that no State may thereafter alter its tax structure without first obtaining permission of the federal government. It further provides for the manner in which State and local "boundary changes, and government reorganization" could be handled.

Under this Act, state and county governments will, in time, wither for lack of tax funds, representative government will die (although the trappings of a republican form of government may be retained to fool the people), and dictatorial control over people and property will be imposed upon once free Americans.

**A Brief History of Metropolitan Planning Organizations**

by the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho


The U.S. government recognizes over 300 metropolitan areas. These areas are identified as “a core area containing a nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core.” This includes the notion that the vitality of regions depends on the large-scale circulation of goods and people over region-wide transportation networks, while acknowledging that fragmented political authority in most metropolitan areas makes it difficult to address regional transportation needs.

For the past 30 years, the federal government has sought to address this failing by requiring states to establish Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), composed of local elected officials and state agency representatives to review and approve transportation investments in the metropolitan area.

Improvements to the nation’s transportation system made growth possible in the early years of the country. The early 19th century saw the development of canals, railroads, and marine ports. Later 19th century innovations in transportation — including horse-drawn railways, electric streetcars, and automobiles — provided circulation systems needed for further growth

In the early 20th century, reformers known as the Progressives, wanted to impose order on the rapid and often chaotic growth of metropolitan areas; reformers laid the groundwork for eventual federal programs to support comprehensive regional planning, and sought to bring rational organization to growing, dispersed, piecemeal populations. This was generally a top-down approach (in which elite committees drew up plans based on “scientific” evaluations of data). Progressive reformers sought change in the following areas:
• Civil servants
• Sanitation
• Building codes
• Zoning ordinances

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, cities abandoned visions of promoting orderly urban regions as they struggled with social and economic conditions. But the regional planning experiences of the 1920s exerted a continuing influence, and research created a strong case for new institutions such as regional planning commissions to supplement fragmented political structures. The federal government carried the torch of regional planning as it intervened to revive the economy in the 1930s. New Deal programs were administered regionally, and encouraged cooperation among local officials. Planning, however, was to be in accordance with national standards as a condition for receipt of federal infrastructure aid.

This requirement set the pattern for future intergovernmental relations, where the federal government used aid as a lever for promoting achievement of national goals and for persuading state and local governments to invest in infrastructure and social needs.

Following the patriotic fervor of World War II, planning for a new post-war America became a national preoccupation. A decade of pentup demand for housing and consumer goods led to an unprecedented peacetime economic boom. Three-fifths of all new housing in the late 1940s was built in “the suburbs.” The explosive growth of suburbs increased the severity and complexity of regional-scale problems. As a result, the federal government expanded requirements for regional planning, which prompted formation of a variety of new intergovernmental bodies – such as Councils of Government (COG). These new bodies took a democratic and tentative approach to planning. They often lacked implementation authority and were limited to addressing issues on which consensus could be reached among local governments, notably in transportation and other infrastructure.

In the 1950s and 1960s, America built highways on a grand scale. With billions of dollars from federal gasoline taxes, 2000 miles or more of highways were built each year. The effort commanded wide public support and was backed by a powerful coalition of politicians, business leaders and interest groups.

The 1956 Federal Highway Act authorized construction of the multi-billion dollar, 41,000-mile interstate highway system, which constituted the largest construction program in the nation’s history (equivalent to 60 Panama Canals). The choice of routes was left to state highway departments, so many local officials found new cause to embrace cooperation through planning agencies – to avoid having routes imposed on them and to gain bargaining clout. The concept of “planning” was narrow and technical, and focused mostly on route alignments. The Act did not require routes to conform to metropolitan plans already in place or to give consideration to land use issues, and it all but neglected damage that could be done to urban transit systems, which were already in decline due to the automobile.

The Highway Act of 1962 made federal highway aid to areas with populations over 50,000 contingent on the “establishment of a continuing and comprehensive transportation planning process carried out by states and local communities.” This is the basis for metropolitan transportation planning used to the present day.

The 1962 Act recognized that growing areas needed dynamic regional plans that were subject to revision based on continuing data collection and feedback. By the end of the 1960s, the case for improved regional planning moved forward, thus expanding the role and authority of regional planning agencies. Legislation was a significant step towards comprehensive regional planning.

Metropolitan planning is needed to “teach us to think on a scale as large as the problem itself and act to prepare for the future as well.

Regional Planning Acts:
Planning Acts in 1940 and 1954 authorized federal aid to cities, which included support new regional planning efforts. Section 701of the 1954 Act gave federal grants to COGs and metro planning agencies to promote cooperation in analyzing and addressing regional problems.

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR),1959, explored new government structures and policies to address suburban growth problems and improve coordination of increasing number of federal programs.

The following legislation helped realize many of the ACIR recommendations for replacing ad hoc regional commissions with stronger metropolitan bodies:
1961 — Housing Act
1964 — Urban Mass Transportation Act
1965 — Housing and Urban Development Act
1966—Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act
1966 — Federal-Aid Highway Act; 1969 amendment required citizen participation in transportation planning
1969—National Environmental Policy Act, required Environmental Impact Statements.

The 1970s brought a wave of environmental legislation and a backlash against urban highway projects, which re-thought the long-held gospel that national progress was tied to the automobile. With rising inflation, government at all levels tightened transportation budgets, and the federal government implemented wage and price controls. Also, the post Viet Nam era saw more aggressive community organizations aided by laws granting the public greater input into the transportation decision-making process and by a growing number of “advocacy planners” who lent expertise to fights against highway routes through minority and poor neighborhoods. Opposition in urban neighborhoods, concerns about the environment, and funding shortfalls slowed highway projects by scaling back and even blocking them.

To help cope with the complex transportation policy environment of the 1970s, Congress required each urbanized area to establish Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) composed of local officials. Congress hoped MPOs would help build regional agreement on transportation investments that would better balance highway, mass transit and other needs and lead to more cost-effective solutions to transportation problems. Many urban areas began to recognize that they could not easily build their way out of congestion.

The new focus became multi-modal. Mass transit was encouraged, as were projects that could squeeze greater capacity from the existing transportation network without encouraging auto use, incur huge costs or inflict major environmental damage. In 1972-73, urban and environmental interests blocked passage of the highway bill until 1973 when Congress authorized the use of highway money for mass transit.

The interest in seeking a more balanced and multi-modal transportation system focused new attention on COGs and regional planning commissions composed of local officials. Although these regional agencies provided good technical advice, they often only met minimum federal requirements rather than facilitating good planning. Thus, federal officials pushed to strengthen regional planning and encouraged agencies to develop consensus on the most cost-effective approaches for solving transportation problems. This included balancing roads, mass transit, or other needs while addressing environmental, economic, and community concerns.

Highway Act 1973 dedicated a small portion of each state’s funding from the Highway Trust Fund for new Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to be established or designated in each urbanized area over 50,000. Thus, Congress gave federal officials the legal mandate and financing to transform the hodgepodge of regional bodies across the country into effective, multi-modal planning agencies. Many saw the new MPOs as a means to counter the domineering influence of state transportation departments in pushing highway projects.

The final rules governing MPOs were issued in 1975, noting that MPOs had to include “principal elected officials.” The most significant responsibility involved compiling and approving the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), a short-range component to the long-range plans developed in most urban regions. Also, for the first time both highway and transit projects had to be included in a single planning document, and state and local agencies were required to gain approval of MPOs to obtain federal transportation funds. Projects that better managed traffic were to be given highest consideration.

At the end of the 1970s, despite localized successes in finding innovative approaches to transportation problems, many people found that transportation planning had become too complex and cumbersome to address pressing needs in urban regions. A succession of laws and regulations had added layer upon layer of planning requirements intended to address concerns about the environment, neighborhoods, local economies, elderly and disabled, energy conservation, transit, among others. For many, acrimony, gridlock, and stagflation became the hallmarks of planning in the 1970s.

In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration wanted to turn-back federal responsibilities to state and local governments. As a result, 38 of 39 federal programs that underwrote regional planning were terminated, deregulated, or received major budget cuts. The one major regional planning requirement left on the books concerned MPOs. While they were still required to plan and approve transportation projects, new regulations left it up to each state to define their specific roles. For many MPOs capital planning was limited to confirming work in a fragmented region, rather than providing areawide leadership.

The enactment of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) ushered in something of a renaissance for MPOs. After a decade or more of being consigned to a minimal role in transportation planning, ISTEA gave MPOs more money, expanded their authority to select projects, and provided a mandate for planning initiatives in their regions. State transportation officials, for the first time, were required to consult with local representatives on MPO Boards. These changes stemmed from new political alignments and the need to address difficult transportation problems arising from suburban boom development in the 1980s. Many recognized that the problems could be addressed only through a stronger federal commitment to regional planning.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) emphasized transportation planning and guided the operations, management and investment in a surface transportation system. ISTEA strengthened the role of local officials, required public involvement, and encouraged integrated, modally mixed strategies. ISTEA increased funds available to metropolitan areas. MPOs, however, had to “fiscally constrain” their long-range plans and short-ranges TIPs. This meant that the plan and TIP could no longer contain “wish lists” of projects; rather MPOs had to create realistic, multi-year agendas of projects matched with available funds. TEA-21 – 1998 reauthorization strengthened ISTEA.

Ohio Association of Regional Councils

The Ohio Association of Regional Councils comprises 21 [NON] agencies serving 1525 municipalities, villages, townships and counties and representing 10,500,000 residents of those communities around the state.

Most of Ohio's regional councils are federally mandated Metropolitan Planning Organizations that bring local officials together to determine transportation priorities and how to allocate federal transportation dollars. Six of the councils are Areawide Water Quality Management Planning Agencies, designated under the Clean Water Act and certified by the Governor of Ohio. However, all the councils have long histories of coordinating transportation, environmental, and land-use planning, and helping local initiatives within the framework of state policy.Led by hundreds of local elected officials, they do more than just serve local governments. They are a unique forum for those local officials to discuss issues of the day. Geography and economy define a region, but provide no forum or structure for the disparate jurisdictions within a region. Regional councils are the glue that holds a region together. And they are the bodies that can deliver on the federal goods: infrastructure dollars and support for emerging issues like homeland security.

MidOhio Regional Planning Commission

MidOhio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) is another Public Private Partnership. It is NOT a government agency and is listed on Dunn and Bradstreet as a business. MORPC's membership includes: 21 cities, 15 villages, 5 townships and 4 counties. [Membership Map] No one votes for the MORPC employees, yet they have been granted the authority to distribute taxpayer dollars to local governments and private interests without the awareness of the majority of the public and most certainly without their consent (the public comment periods are a joke and a ruse).

MORPC is also a big cheerleader for globalization. From MORPC 2012 State of the Region:
"The Columbus Council on World Affairs Global Report, for which MORPC was a supporting investor, provides a baseline for discussion, and many of the details of that report are included in the 2012 State of the Region report."

To follow the money here is MORPC's 2012 Budget: