Bedford’s Master Plan for 2019

The target date to finalize Bedford’s Master Plan is November 2019. You have ONE year.


Update: These towns have also been convinced to join the urbanists:

Albany (July 2018)
Bartlett (July 2018)
Conway (July 2018)
Dover (July 2018)
Eaton (July 2018)
Freedom (July 2018)
Goffstown (June 2018)
Jackson (July 2018)
Madison (July 2018)
Portsmouth (June 2018)

If you are reading this article you have likely already been awakened and are aware of the fact that the international/federal “urbanization” agenda has trickled down into local governments in every state in the USA, endangering our ability to maintain local control of our towns.

You can easily see that it is the same agenda being promoted everywhere without exception; evident with the use of the same buzzwords, same stated goals, same methods of gathering “consensus” from limited numbers of people.

You have likely read multiple times on this website about how HUD (EPA and DOT), a federal agency, is imposing Obama’s “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Act” in order to level the playing field for people unable to live in wealthier towns. This is pure social engineering as it would enable them to live in these wealthier towns with assistance from the government, even before they would normally be able to afford it.

You are also aware by now that the influences shaping these ideas are NOT coming from accountable organizations that can be voted out, or from the masses themselves, but from PRIVATE, outside entities, whose “urbanist” philosophies are strikingly similar.

You may also have read about the new fad where local governments are promoting the idea of engaging in “Public-Private-Partnerships” (PPPs).

It is all related.


In NH, your town council or selectmen are elected, but they work with UNELECTED groups called “Regional Planning Commissions” (RPCs) which then facilitate the connections to PRIVATE GROUPS (some international) This is where most of these urbanist / globalist ideas originate.

NH’s Governor Sununu says he cares about outsiders imposing sales taxes upon NH. But does he care about this? These boondoggles often cause higher taxes and threaten to forever change the rural flavor and bucolic atmosphere of NH’s towns.

Alton, Rindge, and Brookfield have rejected participation in the Regional Planning Commissions, something EVERY TOWN IN NH SHOULD ATTEMPT TO DO.

Here is an accurate account (edited for clarity) of why your town’s voluntary participation in unelected Regional Planning Commissions is a danger to your town’s ability to maintain local control.

“The Regional Planning Commissions creates unintended negative effects upon local planning boards. The commission staff are unelected, highly trained professionals. The local planning boards are comprised of untrained volunteers elected by local residents. The effect has been for the local boards to rely more and more on the commission and effectively transfer responsibilities. If this trend continues all responsibilities and authority for local planning could be transferred to the regional body and eliminate local planning boards. A simple language change in the existing statute that governs Regional Planning Commissions would be all that would be needed to accomplish this. The elimination of local control may or may not be among the Regional Planners’ goals [1], but the negative effect on private property is troublesome. The Regional Planning Commission funding comes in three parts: contracted services, membership dues and Federal funds. The commissions, through the NH Association of Regional Planning Commissions, collectively work to incorporate agreements that were made with the international community. Those agreements are based on social, economic, and environmental sustainability. Why is this a concern relative to local planning boards? Local planning boards leverage their statutory authority against property owners through enforcement of land use ordinances voted by the town legislative body. If local boards are eliminated the international scheme of sustainable development will take center stage. Sustainable Development can only be effective if all land, air, water, energy and their social linkages are regulated and controlled. This effect should concern us all if unelected councils replace our elected planning boards. Many of our local Master Plan documents are prepared by the RPC’s using the American Planning Association templates. Read through your local planning documents and you will see the foot print of the international planning concepts that seek to put in place land use controls created by foreign councils of government. The effects of these controls are prevalent throughout the American system.”

[1] The goals of regionalism/new urbanism were made clear from the recommended readings posted on the website The following three points were taken from the recommended readings found in the Regional Plan Framework Appendices on Housing and Regionalism: “Restructuring Local Government” (Rusk, David. 1993. Cities without Suburbs. Washington D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press). The words emphasized in bold are the most troubling. (

1. Empowering Urban Counties
The most direct and efficient way to create metropolitan government in the majority of metro areas is to empower urban county government. In this scenario, the county government assumes the functions and responsibilities of the municipal governments within its boundaries, and municipalities are abolished.

2. Consolidating Cities and Counties
This involves creating area-wide governmental units, focusing on consolidating municipal governments with their surrounding county governments. Consolidation brings unification of the tax base and centralization of planning and zoning.

3. Combining Counties into Regional Governments
This involves combining several counties in the same metropolitan area into one regional government. Challenges to these regional approaches include potential loss of power at the local level.



The UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) has teamed up with American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) to promote a program that encourages towns to be more “senior friendly”. Three towns have joined; Goffstown and Portsmouth, with Bedford being the latest. We were alerted to the program when the town of Bedford sent email informing people that they were partnering with non-profits and the Regional Planners to survey “seniors” about what improvements they would like to see in the town’s Master Plan.

Exact wording from the assistant town manager:

“The Town is partnering with regional planners and non-profit organizations to help plan for changing demographics and ensure the community is as welcoming as possible to residents and visitors of all ages.”

Since they did not mention who these “non-profits” were, we investigated, and upon further examination we found that they had been approached by the AARP. Further investigation revealed this statement by the AARP about the program:

“The AARP Network of Age-Friendly Communities is an affiliate of the World Health Organization’s Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Program, an international effort launched in 2006 to help cities prepare for rapid population aging and the parallel trend of urbanization.”

“The AARP Network of Age-Friendly Communities program is a tool that can be used by AARP staff and others to help local leaders prepare and ultimately change their communities to become great places for everyone to live.”

“Members of the AARP Network of Age-Friendly Communities become part of a global network of communities that are committed to giving their older residents the opportunity to live rewarding, productive and safe lives.”

All throughout its website, the AARP more than suggests this is an “international” effort.

So there you have it. AARP is an affilate of the World Health Organization, a subdivision of the United Nations, and it wants to influence your local Master Plan by enabling social engineering and the promotion of “urbanization” (which is not really a trend with people as stated in your Master Plan, but seems to be only a trend with the globalists).

When approached by residents about why they would engage these outside groups when considering making decisions about changes to the town, Bedford officials have offered the usual excuses.

Despite all evidence to the contrary we continually hear:

“It’s a conspiracy theory” (cute but has no effect anymore)

“We did this on our own, there are no outside groups involved” (sorry, we can read)

“We created the Survey at the planning board with no outside help” (AARP’s toolkit shows otherwise…)

“We don’t do anything the same as other towns are doing” (no not much, just every other town across the nation…)

“We thought those groups who are saying these things had gone away” (the only group is residents of the town who you claim to want to involve)

If you’ve read the AARP website, you know it’s NOT a “conspiracy theory”.

You have already been told that non profits are involved and have seen proof.

A quick search of the internet will show that the exact same process is going on all over the country. Clearly there is a chain of NGOs that are involved, including but not limited to UN, WHO, American Planning Assn (APA), AARP, all enabled by the RPCs.

You can read about Aspen Co., where residents are not happy with decisions made by regional councils regarding “high density” growth. Residents of rural towns are NOT beating down the doors of the town offices demanding low income housing, mixed-used development, or overlay districts: Midvalley board, citizens at odds over density designation at The Fields

Finally, this Master Plan Manipulation is not being questioned by any “group” but by the taxpaying citizens of the town…the very same people the town claims they want involved.

The surveys that are being sent around to Bedford residents are not just about seniors. They also contain suggestions that did NOT come from the residents as claimed, but from the unelected RPCs and the NGOs they have committed to partnering with. Did any of you remember voting for this international agenda?

Take a look to see what Bedford’s Survey is all about, but do not fill it out if you don’t live in Bedford. Note the social implications? Do you think you needed the WHO to help you connect with socially with other people? Look over the questions, because chances are your town could be doing the same thing soon.

Please note that despite the fact that town officials are making a pretense of surveying residents, nearly all of the items in the Survey are already built into Bedford’s Master Plan, which includes such outlandish statements as there is “excitement” over a possible COMMUTER RAIL STATION for Bedford. Many other proclamations, such as “Bedford lacks a walkable downtown or village center and there is growing demand for more community gathering places” are simply NOT TRUE. People would just be happy if Bedford fixed its roads.

Note the buzzwords: Sustainable, livable, walkable, mixed-used, affordable, urbanism,community, public-private, consensus, regional, etc.

The most concerning dictates have been underlined in RED. Many of the conclusions (underlined sections) should be challenged vigorously.

Bedford NH Master Plan Update Proposal (Annotated Version)


What you should do now is to spread this information around with the intention of educating people.

– Ask them to look at the Bedford survey, take it if they live in Bedford.
– Ask them if their town participates in Regional Councils.
– Find out what programs those councils are promoting.
– Get a copy of their own town’s Master Plan and question all of it.

Everyone should have “eyes wide open” to what is going on in their towns and should watch for things that are happening or have the potential to happen.

Knowledge is power.