Utah owning more of its state. I think this could be good? Bad?
- Thread starter kmboren
- Start date
- Location
- Stinkwater
And then he says they want this so they can exercise eminent domain for "infrastructure, transportation and telecommunications". And he says they want property tax income - how are these lands going to generate property tax income without being sold to developers first?
Naw. I'm no fan of the BLM, but I don't trust public lands in the hands of the state at all. Our politicians are ALL either property developers or owned lock stock and barrel by property developers. The BLM may restrict access, but at least it's still public property. The state hasn't ever seen an acre of land that they don't wanna wring every ounce of income out of.
kmboren
Recovering XJ owner anonymous
- Location
- Southern Utah
I actually wonder if Sand hollow is part of this. We did have one developer try to build on some of it. It was fought and won but how much harder would it be to fight if The state owned it. Then everything is for sale for the right price.
- Location
- Grantsville, Utah
Mixed for me as well. I absolutely do not trust Cox.
- Location
- Sandy, Ut
Yeah.... about that... no.
- Location
- West Bountiful, UT
Bad. Bad, bad.
- DAA
- DAA
Houndoc
Registered User
- Location
- Grantsville
My biggest concerns are :
1) There are many developers in the legislature.
2) Super majority rule means it will be very hard to have multiple sides of an issues presented and honestly discussed.
Land use needs to be a careful balance of access, extraction, environment protection and economic concerns.
Obviously with federal management no one is happy with how these are balanced (which may indicate a reasonable middle ground).
But with one party dominating the state legislature, it will be nearly impossible to get all aspects considered.
1) There are many developers in the legislature.
2) Super majority rule means it will be very hard to have multiple sides of an issues presented and honestly discussed.
Land use needs to be a careful balance of access, extraction, environment protection and economic concerns.
Obviously with federal management no one is happy with how these are balanced (which may indicate a reasonable middle ground).
But with one party dominating the state legislature, it will be nearly impossible to get all aspects considered.
glockman
I hate Jeep trucks
- Location
- Pleasant Grove
We should have WAY more sway to convince our state legislators than the feds. All the issues with state government exists with Federal but with the issue of being way to far removed.
- Location
- Bountiful, land of rocks
We better get organized and ready if we want to maintain access
- Location
- West Bountiful, UT
Better get rich and get lawyered up. Oh, wait, then we would just buy it all and kick everyone else off so we could do what we want with it. Like the already rich lawyered up state legislature old boys club is going to do.
- DAA
- DAA
- Location
- Sandy, Ut
- Location
- Stinkwater
Or voting boundaries, or marijuana laws, or...Try that logic on a LCC Gondola
glockman
I hate Jeep trucks
- Location
- Pleasant Grove
I know, I know BUT we do have medical marijuana and we don't have a gondola so maybe it's kinda working?
02SE
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Millcreek, UT
I've been following dirt road closures around the West since the early 90's.
It's ALWAYS liberal elitists who want to limit access to everyone who isn't able to spend days or weeks hiking to see some areas of public lands. Have a physical disability? Too bad. You can't drive that road that's been there for over 150 years, because since it's not pavement, we consider it Wilderness...
This effort by the State of Utah, sounds like a positive thing for those of us who want to be able to continue to drive on dirt roads on public land.
It's ALWAYS liberal elitists who want to limit access to everyone who isn't able to spend days or weeks hiking to see some areas of public lands. Have a physical disability? Too bad. You can't drive that road that's been there for over 150 years, because since it's not pavement, we consider it Wilderness...
This effort by the State of Utah, sounds like a positive thing for those of us who want to be able to continue to drive on dirt roads on public land.
- Location
- West Bountiful, UT
I just don't see the state taking on actual administration of public land. Where would that money come from? It wouldn't be trivial.
I think it would be all about making money off that land. Not spending money to keep it public.
I have zero confidence in our state government to do anything except make as much money as possible from it. This state has always followed the Golden Rule. Which is he who has the gold makes the rules.
- DAA
I think it would be all about making money off that land. Not spending money to keep it public.
I have zero confidence in our state government to do anything except make as much money as possible from it. This state has always followed the Golden Rule. Which is he who has the gold makes the rules.
- DAA
- Location
- Stinkwater
DAA's right. They wouldn't BE public, anymore.
The state's PR machine is talking a big game about reopening roads and whatnot, but that's all smoke and mirrors. Plenty of them have said the quiet part out loud - the state wants money. Public lands don't make money. The state will either restrict access and charge admission, or sell it off to private owners (who will restrict access).
- Location
- Bountiful, land of rocks
Dave outlines what I think would happen if the state takes over. Check out any of the State Parks. I think that will be the "model". We'll be using BRC to maintain primitive access like we currently have (maybe that's better? maybe not?)
Welcome to:
State of Utah Pritchett Canyon route ($15 fee)
State of Utah Temple Mountain Wash ($25 fee). This includes improved campgrounds with overnight charges per campsite
02SE
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Millcreek, UT
OTOH, if we get Kammunism in November, I can see her creating her 'legacy' by creating new monuments under the antiquities act. Or just issue an edict by Executive Order, eliminating ALL motorized travel on 'Public Land'.
Last edited:
- Location
- Eagle Mountain, Utah
So I just read BRC's statement that they just emailed out detailing their stance on this. And it left me with conflicted feelings. Before I felt much as everyone has said already, that Utah would use this as a cash grab and be worse than even the BLM.
But BRC made a good point of basically saying that it'll be much easier to fight for access in an Utah court than it is in DC. As well as the fact the BRC and the State of Utah are already working together on multiple lawsuits together against DC and feel they have a good relationship.
Maybe I read and/or interpreted their stance wrong, but basically, before I was more pro leave it in the BLM hands. But now I'm more in the middle and don't necessarily think it's the worst thing if Utah had control of it all.
But BRC made a good point of basically saying that it'll be much easier to fight for access in an Utah court than it is in DC. As well as the fact the BRC and the State of Utah are already working together on multiple lawsuits together against DC and feel they have a good relationship.
Maybe I read and/or interpreted their stance wrong, but basically, before I was more pro leave it in the BLM hands. But now I'm more in the middle and don't necessarily think it's the worst thing if Utah had control of it all.