posted
Hey, fellas, you know I don't always read every off-topic post, but a few I've seen lately are creeping back to the level at which I started deleting posts last year (or maybe the year before?). Anyway, try to remember that some of us go way back, so when we tease each other, it may look like an attack, but it's tongue-in-cheek rough-housing. If you're not sure, it's OK to ask, even in a PM.
But please don't just assume that mock insults make it OK to be really insulting. When that starts, the level of dialog goes south--in a hurry. (Try this for a rule-of-thumb: If you're not friendly with the poster, don't assume she or he will "get the joke.")
Plus, some posters out on the stock threads start mirroring the behavior, and I have to intervene and hose everybody down.
Many of us enjoy a spirited debate, and even a well-crafted zinger from time to time. But when insults become too common, it ruins the whole experience, for everyone. Let's stick to the merits of the argument, eh?
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of exchanging "personal attacks"...
My "Arch-Nemesis" hasn't been seen posting here in over a year. Did he leave by choice or did he finally lose his posting privileges?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess bdgee was more of a nemesis, Relentless. At least up until shortly before he stopped posting here. Was just curious what happened to the old codger, and the thread title reminded me of some of my earliest exchanges with him...
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: don't think so--he supported that Salt Lake project, remember?
Still working on that project Tex, I even managed to make a trip to Utah and Nevada last summer, brought back some great pictures, but didn't find any Aztec gold.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
unless you find some minerals on it? the land is less than worthless.
you have to pay taxes on it and it will produce no income unless you spend alot of money on something like ultra deep water wells or solar cells...
if you draw a line a little bit west the ND MN state line and go straight to San Antonio? water availability decides the value of all land west of that line.
check out the satellite version on this map and see that the private areas are in the greenest areas:
quote:Originally posted by Peaser: Anyone got a land graph on how much of Utah is federally owned?
Pretty much anwhere that isn't within city limits. Big Fed owns something like 63% of Utah thanks to Clinton and predecessors.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL SF you see the bogeyman everywhere dontcha?. the State of Utah agreed to cede those lands to teh govt when they were granted statehood. it's like that all over the west...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: LOL SF you see the bogeyman everywhere dontcha?. the State of Utah agreed to cede those lands to teh govt when they were granted statehood. it's like that all over the west...
posted
having lived in 8 different states for an extended period of time now? i can tell you that i prefer having federal lands to go "disappear" in for a few hours or days, i kinda miss it, and i used to do it alot. it's perfectly legal as long as you respect the land.
here in MS there's almost no federal land, the MS river front is all privately owned, i can get to the river front nearby at one point only without trespassing, and they shoot people first and ask questions later for trespassing here. and that's in spite of the hundreds of millions of Federal tax dollars that are spent to maintain the levee to protect the very same landowners who shoot first.
there's a hunt club called "27 break" that leases land here and has vidoe surveilance covering hundreds if not thousands of acres.. of course anybody can join 27 break, if they are invited, and if they have 100 grand plus dues to pony up.
27 break refers to wher the levee broke in '27 as heard in the Led Zep song- If it keeps on raining
the "funny" part in this "problem" is that "your state" is really just like "my state"- the Representatives want the land back from the Feds so they can have it for themselves, not for YOU.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alot of our School Trust lands are held 'hostage' by Federal Lands here, Glass. We literally can't get to our own lands because Clinton and others annexed a big circle around them and won't let us even drive on the roads to get there. There's a big Court battle brewing right now here to try and fix that.
(shrug)
We'll see what comes of it. Public Domain where the Feds are the ones losing land...kinda has a nice ring to it for me. Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: LOL SF you see the bogeyman everywhere dontcha?. the State of Utah agreed to cede those lands to teh govt when they were granted statehood. it's like that all over the west...
that was federal land before Clinton signed it into "protected land" tho, right?
the real problem is still water.
Utah is trying to block Nevasda development to protect thier watter table no?
A day after Utah and Nevada officials released a proposed Snake Valley water-sharing deal, the Millard County Commission sharpened its attack on the plan and a conservation group sent a public-records request seeking insight into secret negotiations.
On Thursday, Utah Department of Natural Resources Executive Director Mike Styler said the draft agreement with Nevada would divide equally the water in the west desert valley that hasn't already been allocated.
Millard County adamantly disagreed Friday in a 3-page letter outlining its discontent with the proposal, which the commission says gives away too much Utah water and isn't at all equitable.
"They've deliberately misled the public to create the false illusion that there's a 50-50 split," said Mark Ward, a Utah Association of Counties attorney speaking on behalf of Millard County.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority wants to build a 285-mile pipeline that would ship water to Las Vegas from Snake Valley, which lies mostly in Utah, along with water from other Nevada valleys that form the Great Salt Lake groundwater flow system. A 2004 federal law says the two states must agree on how to share Snake Valley water.
The agreement proposes to split 132,000 acre-feet of water the U.S. Geological Survey estimated is available in Snake Valley, with 66,000 acre-feet a year going to each state as long as stringent conditions are met. An acre-foot is roughly 326,000 gallons, enough water to cover an acre of land with a foot of water or supply up to two households for a year. The total amount of water in the calculation includes 55,000 acre-feet already allocated in Utah. But there's a problem: 20,000 of those acre-feet are Utah water rights dedicated to Fish Springs National Wildlife Refuge, which isn't in the Snake Valley basin. That means the split would really be 59 percent to 41 percent in favor of Nevada, Millard County officials say.
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Alot of our School Trust lands are held 'hostage' by Federal Lands here, Glass. We literally can't get to our own lands because Clinton and others annexed a big circle around them and won't let us even drive on the roads to get there. There's a big Court battle brewing right now here to try and fix that.
(shrug)
We'll see what comes of it. Public Domain where the Feds are the ones losing land...kinda has a nice ring to it for me.
seeArticle 4 section3 of the constitution...
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Utah already lost on this once before.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i finished reading the Wiki article and at the bottom i found this:
There are contentious issues peculiar to the state of Utah. Certain plots of land were assigned when Utah became a state (in 1896) as School and Institutional Trust Lands (SITLa, a Utah state agency), to be managed to produce funds for the state school system. These lands included scattered plots in the Monument that, critics claimed, could no longer be developed for the sake of Utah's school children. The SITLa plots within the Monument were exchanged for federal lands elsewhere in Utah, plus equivalent mineral rights and $13 million dollars cash by an act of Congress, the Utah Schools and Lands Exchange Act of 1998, supported by Democrats and Republicans, and signed into law as Public Law 105-335 on October 31, 1998.[7]
A more difficult problem is the resolution of United States Revised statute 2477 (R.S. 2477) road claims. R.S. 2477 (Section 8 of the 1866 Mining Act) states: "The right-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." The statute was repealed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, but the repeal was subject to valid existing rights. A process for resolving disputed claims has not been established, and in 1996, the 104th Congress passed a law which prohibited Clinton-administration RS2477 proposed resolution regulations from taking effect without Congressional approval.[8] As of 2005, dirt roads in the Monument are highly disputed, with Kane County officials placing Kane County signs on roads they claim and occasionally applying bulldozers to grade claimed roads, while the BLM tries to exert control over the same roads. Resolution of this dispute is unlikely in the immediate future.
it sounds like they made allowances for the school trust lands in like kind?
keep in mind that the 1996 & 1998 Congress was GOP controlled.
it sounds to me like the Utah politicians use this to raise funds.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether the politicians are playing games or not with this (always assume they are until proven different) I can't say. The Govenor was on the radio the other day talking about it and seemed to believe that their suit had a good basis in Supreme Court ruling. (Shrug) He's up for election this year but it's not even a close race by any measure.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
he's blowing smoke if he's saying the new eminent domain bill will work. i can see the issue on the access roads being solved by a Congressional earmark for the Feds to build them according to the fed specs.
thing is? earmarks are wastes of money , (right?? )
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tex, tried to send you a PM but your box is full.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
