Comments about ‘Who's the boss? Utah Legislature, Salt Lake City battling over local issues’

This is hilarious. On one hand the legislature screams about "Federal interference" and claims the U.S. has no business dictating to states. But on the other hand, they turn around and try to dictate to cities and counties.

It would be very, very interesting to see exactly how much money each of them has received from the billboard lobby.

Utah. Hypocrisy elevated.

actually as much as it may hurt those in the state legislature to hear their laws are "subservient" to federal law as they have defined the word "subservient" (poor choice of words in my opinion but we will go with it) . The states cannot pass laws that violate federal laws and the federal consitution so the analogy by the city stands. sorry but nice try.

Let's face it, what really sticks in the legislator's collective craws is the fact SLC is one of those darned "Liberal" strongholds. As a result, the legislature feels just in punishing SLC and will continue to do so.

The protections extended to billboards are already ridiculous, and they're getting worse. According to state laws in place for several years, billboards enjoy protected status not given to any other property or business. This is not protection of property rights, it is a distortion of economic realties and an insult to the people of this state. Now the billboard companies not only want to be exempt from any local regulation, they want us to pay for their attorneys to enforce the favorable laws they bought and paid for. The billboard companies have the best legislature money can buy (and billboard companies pour an INCREDIBLE amount of money into the legislature).

The silliness has gone to the point that the Utah Legislature voted to alter reality. B billboards are not effective advertising at all. Honestly, have you ever purchased a product or service--or voted for any candidate--because of a billboard? So, the Utah Legislature simply passed a law making billboards effective advertising! With reality altered, the Legislature could then justify is extraordinary measures to protect them. NO OTHER PROPERTY OWNER ENJOYS THE SAME PROTECTIONS AS BILLBOARDS.

This must stop. Call your Legislator. Tell them to scale back this ridiculous corporate welfare. Boycott companies and candidates that advertise on billboards.

'The issues raise the ever-present local government question to the state: If you don't like the feds sticking their nose into your business, why do you meddle in ours?' - article

The Double Standard...

**'Herbert touts Utah's economy, blasts feds in State of the State speech' - By Dennis Romboy, Deseret News - 01/25/12

...continues.

**'Herbert seeks disaster declaration for Utah as a result of floods' - By Amy Joi O'Donoghue - DSNews - 01/21/11

**Utah to receive $60M in USDA disaster aid to states By Bill Draper AP Published by Dsnews 01/18/12

Billboards are the single most protected class of land use in the state.
Utah has the most pro-billboard laws in the west (if not the entire US)
NO other land use has the permanence, combined with lack of taxation, which billboards do.
Billboards can IGNORE local zoning and move wherever they want BY STATE LAW: who else gets to do that?
Billboards literally pay pennies in property taxes because the taxable value is amortized to only 8% of their original construction cost after 19 years. How much in tax revenue is suppressed by billboards locking up sites for development that would actually pay taxes, create housing and provide jobs?
Niederhauser's bill is NOT about protecting a poor victimized industry: it is about giving them special treatment that NO ONE else gets (because that âpoorâ industry donates thousands of dollars to individual Legislators every year)
Since Niederhauser is SO concerned about Yalecrest; how is he going to explain it to them when the billboards adjacent to East High are suddenly converted into 660 square foot television screens that will NEVER go away?

Someone tell the governor his logic might be a bit faulty. I'm sure the federal govt. says the same types of things in regards to its power over the states.

At any rate, the principle that most of the time, local government handles issues best dealing with local issues probably should hold some weight.

'At any rate, the principle that most of the time, local government handles issues best dealing with local issues probably should hold some weight.' - Howard Beal | 3:35 p.m. Feb. 2, 2012

I'll agree with this, in some scenerio's.

But what we are seeing, is some of the very SAME people condem federal goverment intrusion...

and then, turn right around and demand their help:

***'Rick Perry (R-Gov./Tx), After Raising Secession, Calls For Fed Help With Swine Flu' - Huffington Post - 04/27/09

Someone should post a billboard in front of the legislatures homes and see if they still feel the same way. Hey, maybe one advertising adult novelties. Or breast augmentation.

Seriously though, I think legislatures and city councils--any elected official should think "What's the worst that can happen if I pass this" and "What's the worst that can happen if I don't" I think the Legislature would back down of both of these issues if they did that.

Which legislatures get money from Reagan Signs? Anybody know?

Sorry, but there's a difference in opposing the federal government when it tries to regulate how states govern themselves and asking for federal funding in say, a disaster clean-up, or a project that qualifies for federal funding. "Self governance" does not equal "secession." Do we want the Feds telling us how to use our land? No. Do we want FEMA to step in and maybe help pay for damage caused in the Davis County wind storm, so the state/local governments aren't left footing the bill? Of course, why wouldn't we? That's part of FEMA's function.

I welcome the Leges into my Harv/Yale neighborhood.....Becker doesn't live there either, but he doesn't want me to build a walk-in closet in my house without the City of Salt Lakes permission.....So Yeah for the leges...its my house and if I want to improve it, I don't need Beckers permission? he doesn't make my mortgage payments or pay my taxes? I do!

'Sorry, but there's a difference in opposing the federal government when it tries to regulate how states govern themselves and asking for federal funding in say, a disaster clean-up, or a project that qualifies for federal funding.' - Shawnm750 | 4:54 p.m. Feb. 2, 2012

**'Utahns with HIV, AIDS upset with Legislative committee's indecision on federal grant program' - By James Thalman, Deseret News - 04/14/10

'The state budget approved last month by the full Legislature includes $1.4 million in state funds for the program, an expenditure that is MATCHED 3-to-1 by the Ryan White Fund.' - article

Please.

Claiming that we need to 'get goverment out of our lives'...

EXCEPT FOR...

means that you had no intention of being independant of, federal tax dollars.

Of which, Utah GETS more federal tax dollars in...

than Utah, pays out.

3-to-1.

3-1....3-1? Where do you get this stuff Pagan? Utah does not get 3-1 tax dollars from the fed! Try 1.3-1 and stick to the facts! Obama is lying enough for both of you!

' Try 1.3-1 and stick to the facts! Obama is lying enough for both of you!' - TRUTH | 6:51 p.m. Feb. 2, 2012

I cited the story Truth.

Again that's:

**'Utahns with HIV, AIDS upset with Legislative committee's indecision on federal grant program' - By James Thalman, Deseret News - 04/14/10

'The state budget approved last month by the full Legislature includes $1.4 million in state funds for the program, an expenditure that is MATCHED 3-to-1 by the Ryan White Fund.' - article

IF, I believed your claim, which you did not support, your 1.3-to-1 is still...

GREATER, than what Utah puts out in taxes.

In comparison to what Utah GET'S in taxes.

So, it is just semantics.

Regardless of which one of us is right, my point remains valid.

Utah GETS, more taxes than it pays OUT.

I have given not one, not two...

but FOUR examples of people against government intrusion...

asking, for federal aid.

That, is a Double. Standard.

And whoever supports them, should be ashamed.

I don't dispute the fact that local governments are political subdivisions of the state. However, that doesn't change the general conservative principle of self determination and that decisions are best made at the level closest to the people.

There may be cases where the State believes that local ordinances are in conflict with state law of the spirit of state law. Other than those cases, I don't believe that representatives from Sandy should be deciding what Salt Lake City residents want to do to control signage, or historical districts.

My Utah community of Kaysville has a historical district. If the Legislature was consistent they should dissallow that historical district and all others rather than pick on one community to say they can't have one. I'm familiar with the Yale area and grew up in that nieghborhood. If any place deserves to be a historical district that would be it.

It is also interesting to note that the last Republican Mayor of Salt Lake City, Jake Garn, actually got passed an ordinance prohibiting signs from sticking out into the street at 90 degree angles to the businesses. He also widened side walks and cleaned up the City's appearance. Should these changes be repealed by the legislature? I think not.

It is this type of short sighted and foolish over reaching by the legislature that causes ust to hop the session will be over soon, before they can do any more damage.

Bottom line, but out of local decisions unless there is a very good reason otherwise.

It is really very simple, follow the money ( or as my wife from New Jersey says "bribes")

Re: TRUTH
1 Cities require building permits to insure compliance with building codes to insure basic health and safety standards are met to allow banks to offer loans to allow you to have a mortgage
2 Yalecrest residents, not Salt Lake City, Mayor Becker or the City Council, requested becoming a historic district. Salt Lake City never made a decision one way or the other. Opponents ran to an out of town legislator to change the rules mid game for EVERYONE IN UTAH rather than talk with their neighbors.
3 Some may like the billboards near Yalecrest/East High to be converted to giant screen televisions, but the billboards in my neighborhood are inappropriate and should not be electronic. Yet this statewide law would force my neighborhood to be trashed for the benefit of only a few billboard owners who gave money to the legislature.

Usually I try to stick to the facts but the arrogance of the legislature angers me. This is supposed to be a conservative body that believes in limited govnernment and the best government is closest to the people. I'm a conservative but no fan of the legislature in recent years. They are more and more made up of radical individuals drunk with their own inflated view of their own intelligence. It is clear that it doesn't matter which party is in power for too long, the arrogance of power raises it's ugly head. The majority in the legislature think they know better than every one else and they stop listenting to any other view. Even conservative viewpoints are labeled liberal if it doesn't fit the blind orthodoxy.

It's a sad commentary, that once you give most people power they immediately begin to abuse it. I can't prove that many of these legislators serve only their business partners and buddies. Perhaps they are just acting out of their sincerely held beliefs. But it certainly seems there is a lot of evidence to suggest that their beliefs also just happen to coincide with their financial interests and those of their friends.

I long for the day, when the legislature served all the people, regardless of who they are and what they believe, rather than just serving the interests of those with whom they alresady agree. We need a shske up from within the Republican party if possible or from Democrats if necessary on Capital Hill. We need an end to the arroagance of power!