Published: Tuesday, June 17 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
"Failed federal policies are devastating forests, killing millions of
animals, spewing billions of pounds of pollution into the air and have decimated
watersheds for decades. This is not the case on private, state and tribal
forests. " Prove it!I believe much of Utah is in Federal
ownership because the Federal government purchased it from Mexico. Correct?
Why the difference?It is probably due to the fact that the millions
of Americans who took advantage of the Homestead Act, which gave free land to
farmers, would not have had a chance of producing a crop of anything except
rocks on that arid land, and so there was no point in including that land along
with the Homestead giveaway.Whatever the reason, it is what it
is.And it's a good thing. States by and large have proven
themselves much less responsible than the Federal government in responsibly
utilizing that land as consistent with the best interests of the people.
I think the simple reason that states don't "control" the federally
owned and controlled public lands is that the rest of the country does not trust
the various states to do the right thing.Imagine if one state or
another had control of now public property. I see nothing but mining pits the
size of New jersey or a sea of oil derricks. All of this "development"
would pollute not only the state but also the rest of the country. I see the
devastation of public forests, pollution of lakes and overgrazing of public
lands.Apparently, this is the estimation of the rest of the country
as well. Nope, don't trust some of the various states contending for
control of federal lands. It ought to be preserved for everyone.
Two pieces of information should give Utahns pause about having the US give this
massive handout to our state legislature:1. Over half of the land
originally set aside for Utahs's school children has been sold off, never
to benefit our children again. Now the legislature and other right-wing
fanatics are asking for more land, again to ostensibly benefit our school
children. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".2. One of our rural counties has convinced the state to sell over 1000
acres of state land to private interests, so the county can get more property
tax revenue. Any guesses how they would handle additional land given to
them?Does anyone seriously believe the Legislature would be able to
make wise decisions that will impact generations in the future? The Legislature
has difficulty resisting local economic interests for short term gain, and
actually, since there is no real conflict-of-interest laws prohibiting it, the
Legislators can shamelessly usher through laws that directly benefit them.Case in point: Ken Ivory is a real estate developer.
"Forever disclaim all right a title" That sounds pretty cut and dried to
me Rep. Ivory
This is a self-serving piece, meant to foment the issue, which means more
support for Ivory's lobbying group, which means a secure income for him.
Too bad he has never convinced me that other than serving the special economic
interests of a few, his plan would benefit Utahns as a whole. It doesn't.
By the way, visit West Virginia or Western Pennsylvania and take a look at the
strip mining. Go to the Hudson River Valley and look at all the fences around
beautiful, undeveloped land that tell folks to get lost. Go to any number of
streams in the East where fishing is prohibited because it means accessing
private lands. The folks like Ivory are selling something that would mean a
great loss to something that makes Utah special. You won't like it if he
gets his way.
Why the huge rush to privatize Utah public lands? The future of
Utah is intellectual capital, and we attract it with high quality of life. This
means clean air, well run governments, cultural venues, and outdoor
recreation.Worldwide, countries that live on mineral wealth are
corrupt, horrible places to live. Anyone want to move to Saudi Arabia, South
Africa, or Nigeria?We need more talk about education, and less
dreams of tar sands, coal mines, and oil shale.
Mr. Ivory is on the trail of the scent of MONEY again.
Mr. Ivory's second paragraph is a textbook example of taking selected
and/or false facts to prove a false conclusion. He is allegedly disposing of
the "arid" FACTOR in the majority federal ownership of western
states.He claims that "Oregon, Washington and Alaska are the
states with the most precipitation..."False. It is
indeed wet west of the Cascade Mountains and the Alaska panhandle is very
wet.#1 Hawaii 63 inches#2 Louisiana 60 inches#3 Mississippi 59 inches#29 Washington 38 inches#36 Oregon
27 inches#39 Alaska 22 inchesMr. Ivory should tour
Harney and Lake counties in Oregon. I would claim that aridity is the major
reason they contain 18,000 square miles and a total population of 16,000
people.Southeastern Oregon is often called their "Outback".
Like most of Australia, it is arid and with few people. The Rum Jungle near
Darwin does not prove that Australia is endowed with plentiful precipitation.Aridity is indeed a major FACTOR in the ownership and settlement of the
western states of the United States of America.
@10cc First of all a disclaimer, I don't know Ivory, nor did I know he was
the ivory of the property developer. There are some issues with what you said,
here they are; First if the federal government owns the land, taxes cannot be
collected from it. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (pilt) runs seriously below market
value. Second, The insustrial park that I work in was all School trust land.
It was sold off to private entities and those private entities pay property
taxes, I believe at a higher rate than residential. On my houses property tax,
over 75% of the taxes paid to the county, are alocated to the school district.
Your statement that "Over half of the land originally set aside for
Utah's school children has been sold off, never to benefit our children
again." is misinformed at best, or outright false at worst.
The far eastern states were largely settled into towns and communities before
the U.S. government even existed. The western states were largely purchased by
the U.S. government before being significantly settled by Americans. That's
the main difference.
Finally, a common-sense, educational statement on federal/private ownership of
land within a state's borders. Thank you, Mr. Ivory. (On a side
note, boy, the enviros are sure in a tizzy over this thread and still
haven't made a good argument.)
In my humble opinion Utah and other western states should be treated the same
way the eastern states have been. Federal control seems to not only shut down
energy development but is putting further restrictions on visitors to the point
of making even that source of income less likely.
Mr. Ivory. I suggest if you like the idea of your state owning all of the land
within it's boundaries that you move out East. Have fun paying insane
amounts of money for hunting on private land and good luck finding a spot where
you can camp your jeep and watch the stars without trespassing on private land.
The public lands in Utah are one of the things that make this state great,
without them a whole lot of us would move elsewhere. How would that be for
economic improvement?Most of the rest of us in this state love our
public lands and are quite upset with your crusade of trying to take them away,
privatize them, and give them to the state so they can be sold off for real
estate development (funny how that's your background isn't it) and
energy extraction. Last I checked Eastern Utah is in a huge oil and gas boom, so
it's a bit hard to feel sorry for you that you can't drill, mine, and
develop every acre of our state.
Read the Constitution. The Federal Government is not allowed to own land except
for a district that is 10 miles square, or for forts, magazines of for federal
buildings. The people of New York have no "joint ownership" of land in
Utah. The people of the commonwealth of Virginia have no "joint
ownership" of land in Utah. The State of Utah is separate and distinct from
all other States. We are not a "county" of the Federal Government. We
are a State. As a State, we have full autonomy, just as New York, or Virginia,
or Mississippi has.If the people of New York think that they own
Utah, then the people of Utah have equal claim to the property of New York. How
about handing over Manhatten to all the citizens of the United States?
Mike Richards -It is true that we the people of the United States
own that public land in Utah.You must as well accept and embrace
that fact.That means, BTW, that Utahns can't exploit that land
at America's expense.Get used to that too.
Mike Richards wrote: "We are a State. As a State, we have full autonomy,
just as New York, or Virginia, or Mississippi has."This is
There is big deception by the left.It is not between federal and
private but between federal and state ownership.And it is ludicrous
to believe the feds can control better than the state.It is
insulting to say the eastern state stares can control their lands but the
western state states cannot.When a state became a state the lands
should have turned over to them?The real question is why didn't
that happen? The eastern state didn't have that problem.
@liberal larry, you asked:"Why the huge rush to privatize Utah public
lands? "My response -Because I'd rather see America in the hands
of Americans than in the hands of China or any other Anti-Americans.You stated:"We need more talk about education, and less dreams of
tar sands, coal mines, and oil shale."My response- Are you also one to
think that we can just run to the grocery stores when the cattleman and farmers
are all put out of business? I agree with 'the truth' in the
statement, "It is not between federal and private but between federal and
state ownership. And it is ludicrous to believe the feds can control better than
the state.It is insulting to say the eastern state can control their lands
but the western states cannot".
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments