Utah governor signs bills to seize federal land
Two measures OKd by Gov. Gary R. Herbert would allow use of eminent domain to take valuable sites. A long court fight is likely.

RELATED
In Utah, a move to seize federal land

Associated Press
March 28, 2010 | 5:53 p.m.


Salt Lake City - Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert has signed two bills authorizing the state to use eminent domain to seize some of the federal government's most valuable land.

Supporters hope the bills, which the Republican governor signed Saturday, will trigger a flood of similar legislation throughout the West and, eventually, a U.S. Supreme Court battle that it hopes to win -- against long odds.

More than 60% of Utah is owned by the U.S. government, and policy makers complain that federal ownership hinders their ability to generate tax revenue and adequately fund public schools. Governments use eminent domain to take private property for public use.

Initially, the state would target three areas, including the Kaiparowits plateau in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which is home to large coal reserves. Eminent domain would also be used on parcels where Interior Secretary Ken Salazar scrapped 77 oil and gas leases last year.

Great, another total waste of taxpayers money. Eminent domain doesn't work when you're going UP the food chain.

And the federal government DOES in fact pay the states monies in lieu of taxes for federal lands. The notion that the state is losing all that money because the feds own the land is BS. If they want the land and minerals developed, this isn't the way to go about it, and it will cost both the state and federal taxpayers money to jam up the courts with this kind of nonsense.

MTV

Maybe they hired an ex tree hugger lawyer. That is how they get thier way.

Tim

State stimulus plan for lawyers.

Oh and the federal govt has eminent domain powers too. So the state can have it, paying the nation's taxpayers fair value, then the federal government can take it back and hand the money back over. Sans interest of course

But I'm sure the governor will pick up a few votes in the meantime. Wonder how many dollars spent per vote?

There are reasons that we do not trust the fed govmt. This is kind of interesting. http://www.kcsg.com/news/local/85159827.html

Tim

Tim,

So, what's your point? The states do not have the power of eminent domain over the federal government. So, this is a publicity stunt/campaign fund raiser....at the expense of the taxpayers of Utah.

Hell, I don't trust the federal government either. What does THAT have to do with some A-hole politician trying to raise campaign funds on the backs of taxpayers?

MTV

I think they know they do not have that power. Maybe just throwing a jab, an expencive one, but a jab non the less. And yes they are playing to the majority of there voters. All polititions do that.

More amd more voters are feeling that their goverment is out of controle. I am for less goverment, not more. I want them to do less for me not more.

Tim

qmdv wrote:I think they know they do not have that power. Maybe just throwing a jab, an expencive one, but a jab non the less. And yes they are playing to the majority of there voters. All polititions do that.

More amd more voters are feeling that their goverment is out of controle. I am for less goverment, not more. I want them to do less for me not more.

Tim

Hey Tim, you have five (5) misspelled words above!

58Skylane wrote:

qmdv wrote:I think they know they do not have that power. Maybe just throwing a jab, an expencive one, but a jab non the less. And yes they are playing to the majority of there voters. All polititions do that.

More amd more voters are feeling that their goverment is out of controle. I am for less goverment, not more. I want them to do less for me not more.

Tim

Hey Tim, you have five (5) misspelled words above!

That is good for me. Maybe I can get back into college. Witha govmt grant of corse. I mean course.

tim

58Skylane wrote:
Hey Tim, you have five (5) misspelled words above!

This from the man that once told me I had "good writting"! And, for the record, there are SIX misspelled words!

But, we digress. Less government, please!

After further thought: Less government!

Isn't the governor "government"?

LOL

qmdv wrote:I think they know they do not have that power. Maybe just throwing a jab, an expencive one, but a jab non the less. And yes they are playing to the majority of there voters. All polititions do that.



Tim

You never know what might happen. You have Montana to thank for the fact that your drivers license isn't also your passport right now. After 9/11 the Feds mandated that all drivers licenses had to have certain information on it and in a certain format. And if you didn't do it the Feds weren't going to allow the residents of noncomplying states to use the drivers license as a legal ID to get on an airplane. The majority of you sheeple states walked away drooling and made the changes. Not us. He dared the Feds to stop the people of this state from using their DL from getting on a plane. The Feds went, "Uh, OK, never mind." An excerpt from this story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=87991791




Governor Schweitzer, why are you against Real ID?

Governor BRIAN SCHWEITZER (Democrat, Montana): Well, we are putting up with the federal government on so many fronts, and nearly every month they come out with another harebrained scheme, an unfunded mandate to tell us that our life is going to be better if we'll just buckle under on some other kind of rule or regulation. And we usually just play along for a while, we ignore them for as long as we can, and we try not to bring it to a head. But if it comes to a head, we found that it's best to just tell them to go to hell and run the state the way you want to run your state. And unfortunately, this time around, they have - they really got a harebrained scheme.

kevbert wrote: And, for the record, there are SIX misspelled words!

I think eight....

Gump

Beyond all the politics involved and the obvious state's rights vs. federal wilderness designation, probably the goal on the part of Utah would be to open the areas for gas, coal and oil gaining them a mineral depletion allowance/tax for the state's budget. North Dakota is awash in this type of income and nearly has to think up ways to spend it. That aside, how would transferring these areas back to the state of Utah affect back country access?

I wish Oregon would do that and take back Reds Wallowa Horse Ranch. The Forest Service traded some property for it, and shut it down. It was on the tax rolls and now it is not. It was a going concern and now they are letting it melt down. You can land on the runway but they don't take care of it. They say no motorized vehicles. so you have to take horses or mules in and use the mower to cut the grass on the strip. It is a big joke how the Federal Government takes all of the best property.

skybobb wrote:I wish Oregon would do that and take back Reds Wallowa Horse Ranch. The Forest Service traded some property for it, and shut it down. It was on the tax rolls and now it is not. It was a going concern and now they are letting it melt down. You can land on the runway but they don't take care of it. They say no motorized vehicles. so you have to take horses or mules in and use the mower to cut the grass on the strip. It is a big joke how the Federal Government takes all of the best property.

Did the private property owner decide to dispose of the property? I don't know, just asking.

Maybe it wouldn't hurt to go back and read the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The States have a lot more power than most of those in the Federal Govt. would like to admit.