Public Lands in Utah, Yes or No?

According to the Constitution of The State of Utah, Article III, Section 2:

“[Right to public domain disclaimed. Taxation of lands. Exemptions.] Second:--The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they will forever disclaim all right and title to the unapropriated (sic) public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes. And that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States. . .”

This Constitution was ratified in 1896, and Utah became a state. The Constitution of The State of Utah is the law of our land. Utah disclaimed all right and title to the unapropriated (sic) public lands.

So why, you might ask, did the (Utah) Commission for the Stewardship of Public Lands pay $640,000 to Davillier Law Firm of New Orleans to analyze the legality of suing the Federal Government to allow Utah to take over all the public lands? (Salt Lake Tribune, February 2, 2016) And why won’t the legal team give the complete report to all members of the Commission, which consists of five republicans and two democrats? (Part of this report has been made available to the member of the commission and the public, it only outlines the “positive” effects of this proposed lawsuit.) Neither of the Democrats (Senators Debakis and Briscoe) have been allowed to review the entire report. Why not? What is the legal team afraid of? A conflict of interest on behalf of the law firm, or the chairman, perhaps? Or, more telling, that the State of Utah would lose this battle in court?

The head of the Davillier legal team has said Davillier is protected by client-attorney privilege and can only release the information to the chairman of the Commission, David P. Hinkins, or to others upon approval of Chairman Hinkins. What is the chairman afraid of?

Hold on just a taxpayer-fleecing minute. The entire commission voted to hire the legal team, not just the chairman. The entire commission should be entitled to the complete report, as should the voters of Utah! To withhold this information is to deny the commission, and the voters of Utah, the information they need to make an informed decision. We, the taxpayers, of Utah, paid for this report, and I for one want to read it, in its entirety, without redactions.

I also want to know who is going to benefit from the takeover of public lands in Utah. Will it be land developers, the extraction industries, the cattlemen, or the hospitality industry? What about hunting, hiking, camping, fishing, and off road enthusiasts, or antiquities thieves?

Is this just one more ploy of the American Lands Council, headed by Utah state representative Ken Ivory, to fleece the Utah taxpayers; to deny our children and grandchildren the right to enjoy all the outdoor vistas and experiences that Utah offers?

I fear it is. Please feel free to post your comments or thoughts.

Thank you, Senator Debakis and Robert Gehkre of the Tribune, for making this issue public.

Retrieved February 2, 2016, from : http://www.archives.state.ut.us/research/exhibits/Statehood/1896text.htm

The Frenzy over Riff-ruhs

Riff-ruhs, or Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, are all the rage in state legislatures across America  these days. According to the Associated Press (April 2, 2015), 20 states have passed some sort of RFRA, and another dozen are considering them.

So what is the cause of this? When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, some conservative business owners were incensed. They felt the law now demands they serve, in the normal course of business, same-sex couples that want to, say, buy a wedding cake or flowers for their wedding, have a photographer take pictures of their wedding, buy dinner in a local restaurant, or perhaps buy a house. Most of the opposition is based on the owner’s “strongly held religious beliefs” that same sex marriage is against their religion, and therefore they do not want to offer their goods or services to those engaged in the legal act of same sex marriage. Consequently, the lobbied their state legislators to pass laws that would allow them to legally deny goods or services to “those people,” based on their religious beliefs.

Why? Do they not realize the consequences of these actions? Is discrimination against same sex couples so important to them, that they would rather go out of business, than sell to the whole public?

When a couple is preparing to marry, they consult with friends and family members, as well as social media, when choosing photographers, florists, and bakers. After making a decision, based on the above recommendations, they go to that particular shop, perhaps only to find out they are being denied service, because they are a same sex couple. If this happened to you, what would you do?  Perhaps in a large city, you would go elsewhere to purchase the goods or services; but in small rural communities, that may not be feasible. Then what?

Henry Ford once remarked, if a person is satisfied, they will tell 3 people; if they are dissatisfied, they will tell 7. In this day of social media, I suspect the numbers, in case of dissatisfaction, are considerably higher. So, what does that matter, you might be thinking.

Do you remember when South Africa was still enforcing apartheid? Groups of people rallied against investment firms and companies that were doing business in South Africa, and slowly but surely the economic factors began to have a telling affect. Investment firms, retirement funds, and businesses changed models and the money to support apartheid dried up. The change happened. (And no, I am not minimizing the effect of Nelson Mandela and others within South Africa who worked so hard for change.) So it will be for businesses that discriminate, albeit supposedly legal to do so. 

As for me, I am in a heterosexual marriage, so on one hand, this doesn’t affect me. But, being who I am, and my strongly held beliefs, I will not knowingly patronize a business that discriminates against anyone, regardless of the reason.

Just some food for thought.

Your comments are welcome, as always.

R.M. “Bob” Hartman