# That was fast. Yet another attack on our public lands



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

https://www.ksl.com/?nid=1070&sid=4...al-lands-worth-state-going-to-try-to-find-out

It's only going to waste another 20k just for the study. 
When will Utah get rid of these idiots.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Hoopermat said:


> https://www.ksl.com/?nid=1070&sid=4...al-lands-worth-state-going-to-try-to-find-out
> 
> It's only going to waste another 20k just for the study.
> When will Utah get rid of these idiots.


Probably never.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Just to be clear, I think this study and demand to the feds is dumb and a waste of time and money. However, I’m failing to see how it is an attack on public lands? It’s not asking for a transfer, but simply for the feds to increase their PILT payments to the state. 

If this passed and was agreeed to by the feds, all that would happen is the state would get more money in the form of PILT and the lands would stay in federal control. Which of these two things are you objecting to?


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Are you serious vanilla. 

I would chalk this up to the next trick in the book for these guys. 
Everything they do is about land transfer and they will never stop. They are trying to ruin this state. 

Do you support Ken ivory and his ideas just asking


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The thing that bugs me is that the state is saying we are "losing" tax money because of the amount of federal land Utah has. I would be curious to know the amount of money "gained" because of increased tourism dollars flooding the state to not only visit our National Parks but to also recreate on federal land. Granted, we may lose some property tax money (how much? if any?), but I bet we more than make up for that in gained sales tax revenue from tourism dollars spent.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Hoopermat said:


> Do you support Ken ivory and his ideas just asking


I think I already answered that pretty clearly.



Vanilla said:


> Just to be clear, I think this study and demand to the feds is dumb and a waste of time and money.


Aside from that, I've got years fighting this fight to preserve public access against those that would attempt to take it. People like Ken Ivory and paddler know my position and zeal on this because I have opposed their misguided plans in person, not just online. And yes, I know clearly what Ken Ivory's goals are. This is not Ken Ivory's goals. This was not just those "evil Republicans," but literally every single elected legislator in our state. This law that was passed and this study is different and for a different purpose. That is simply a fact. So yes, I am serious. And I ask again, which of the two results of this coming to fruition do you object to?

1- Utah gets more money in PILT payments; or
2- The land stays entirely in federal control?

Because that is the only two results that will come if this goes exactly as the legislature passed.

There are battles to be fought on this front. When people try to fight stuff like this it shows some level of ignorance and doesn't win any favors or allies. And yes, I'm serious. Just to be clear.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

I think it is extremely important to be vigilant and aware of the Public Land Issues facing the state. Not everything is a direct assault on our public lands though.

Truthfully, this could end up being a positive. If PILT payments are in line with the tax revenue that would be generated if privately held(as they should be), that gives the pro-transfer crowd one less thing to point to.

It's hard not to have a knee-jerk reaction to seeing legislation sponsored by Ken Ivory, but there was also a concurrent resolution sponsored by Dabakis, who may be agreeing with Ivory for the 1st time.

I could also see a scenario where this research from the study is used by Ivory in the future for whatever nefarious plans he has in store, but that is just stemming from my general distrust of his aims as a politician, especially concerning public lands.

For now, this appears to be a positive measure that may help Rural Utah counties warm a little bit to having huge percentages of their tax base as public land that we can all use.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Kwalk3, not just a concurrent resolution from Dabakis, but every member of the House, including democrats, co-sponsored the legislation. And every member of both the House and Senate voted to support it. Maybe there is more going on here than a land grab after all? 

Yes, be vigilant. But for the love of all that is holy, let’s be educated on these issues so we don’t alienate ourselves when the real fights need to happen. I promise that this new age idea of fight against everything we can and burn down a Starbucks along the way does not win over anyone that is needed to be won over.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> Kwalk3, not just a concurrent resolution from Dabakis, but every member of the House, including democrats, co-sponsored the legislation. And every member of both the House and Senate voted to support it. Maybe there is more going on here than a land grab after all?
> 
> Yes, be vigilant. But for the love of all that is holy, let's be educated on these issues so we don't alienate ourselves when the real fights need to happen. I promise that this new age idea of fight against everything we can and burn down a Starbucks along the way does not win over anyone that is needed to be won over.


Agree 100%.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

It will be interesting to see how they classify the federal land compared to private. And although this study is for Washington county every other county has individual rates for all kind of property.
I know for instance that property that is zoned recreational is taxed at a higher rate than that as agriculture.
And I kind of agree with W2U that they should take into consideration the sales taxes collected.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

This Is how I see it. 
This is another angle that they are using to get what they want once they place a value on these lands it will give them more ammo to spread the transfer idea. This is no different than a bill cutting funding for management and law enforcement. 
This bill is just another step towards their agenda. 

Utah is the little spoiled brat. The one that is never happy with anything they have. 
Everyone knows some kid that cries and complains about every little thing. And that’s this state. 

As others have said. Should the state recieve more money because the national parks are within the state boundaries No
If they think they are entitled to it then are we entitled to some more money for management of those lands directly out of what the tourism brings in. 

Should their be a higher tourism tax in the county’s that hold national parks?

It seems like they are jumping over the dollar here. 

Also look at the statement of ivory himself 

“The idea is that the federal government is withholding our lands and it made a promise that as long as it holds those lands, it will hold us harmless from the loss of tax revenue," said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan.

“Our lands” he’s not claiming we the people’s lands. He is claiming Utah’s lands

You don’t have to be a scholar to understand what this is about


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

What the state and some of the rural counties like Garfield and San Juan county should be arguing is that the method used to determine the amount of PILT money offered is not equitable or fair. In fact, counties such as Garfield and San Juan should be pushing legislation that changes how PILT is divvied up because the counties with the most public land are getting less than the counties with less public land and more people. PILT monies are based on both the amount of public and the county's population.

To me, I think this is a case where the Utah Legislature wants its cake and wants to eat it too. Ivory, and others are bemoaning the loss of property tax revenue but do not consider the gain of sales tax revenue. When considering how much money each county is owed in PILT money, they can't honestly say how much is "lost" because if that land were privately held and not open to the public, counties would lose a lot of money because of loss revenue associated with tourism and recreation.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Hooper, so it’s not clear to me exactly, but reading your post I guess you’re objecting to Utah receiving more PILT money at all? 

Or am I reading too much into your post. 

Still trying to figure which part of this is so objectionable to you. Because if it is that the state is trying a land grab, you’re misunderstanding this. But if you do understand it, just trying to understand myself better what is wrong with it.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Hooper, so it's not clear to me exactly, but reading your post I guess you're objecting to Utah receiving more PILT money at all?
> 
> Or am I reading too much into your post.
> 
> Still trying to figure which part of this is so objectionable to you. Because if it is that the state is trying a land grab, you're misunderstanding this. But if you do understand it, just trying to understand myself better what is wrong with it.


Loud noises!


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

First paragraph of the article lost me, and I was unable to read any further.



> Utah lawmakers want to find out just how much Utah's federally controlled lands are worth and deliver a bill to the U.S. government for the *revenue they would generate if privately held.*


That deserves every profanity laced "HELL NO" that is possible in the English language. I'm sick of seeing private property in public lands.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

You should have read the rest, then you'd understand what the purpose of it is. 

Spoiler Alert- It's not a bill to transfer ownership of any land.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> What the state and some of the rural counties like Garfield and San Juan county should be arguing is that the method used to determine the amount of PILT money offered is not equitable or fair. In fact, counties such as Garfield and San Juan should be pushing legislation that changes how PILT is divvied up because the counties with the most public land are getting less than the counties with less public land and more people. PILT monies are based on both the amount of public and the county's population.
> 
> To me, I think this is a case where the Utah Legislature wants its cake and wants to eat it too. Ivory, and others are bemoaning the loss of property tax revenue but do not consider the gain of sales tax revenue. When considering how much money each county is owed in PILT money, they can't honestly say how much is "lost" because if that land were privately held and not open to the public, counties would lose a lot of money because of loss revenue associated with tourism and recreation.


I don't trust Ivory and most of our delegation with regards to public lands one bit, but it does sound like this is bill to increase PILT. Increasing PILT is a good thing for our state, and would actually weaken some of the TPL arguments by their advocates.

As for the second paragraph, I agree with what you said.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

You're a trooper Vanilla. Great job in explaining this issue.


----------

