Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 92
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: 7 Answers to 7 Questions About the Nevada Rancher Situation from The Blaze

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #21
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    35,723
    Lee responds to Salazar’s comments on Utah lands

    Written by or for St. George News on April 25, 2012 in News, State - 5 Comments





    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senator Mike Lee responded to comments made yesterday by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar regarding recent Utah state land transfer legislation. The bill sets a deadline for the federal government to transfer all lands not designated as “wilderness” or as a national park to state control by 2014. In a statement during a campaign-style press conference in Washington D.C., Salazar suggested Utah state legislators were not serious about the land transfer, calling it “political rhetoric you see in an election year.”

    “The White House remains in full campaign mode spending taxpayer funds to rally their political base with events such as yesterday’s press conference with Secretary Salazar,” said Lee, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “But let me assure the Secretary and the President that Utahns and their representatives could not be more serious about protecting our land rights and preventing federal land grabs.

    “More than two-thirds of all the land within Utah’s borders is owned by the federal government, which makes it very difficult to grow our state economy, pay for education, and create new opportunities for Utahns. The President and his advisers like to talk about “fairness,” yet how fair is it that the state of Utah must ask for federal permission to use the vast majority of their own land?

    “Thankfully, states like Arizona are joining Utah in standing up for their rights and I certainly expect more to support our effort soon.
    “Frankly, given the President’s terrible record on energy security, exploration and development, gas prices, and property rights, it is not surprising he would want to distract attention from his failed and economy-crippling policies and inject politics into these important issues. But we will not let him hide from his decisions that hurting families and communities.”

    http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/arc.../#.U06_bFWwIl8

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Quote Originally Posted by April View Post
    Excellent this is exactly what needs to be done....change the law, get the land under the control of the states,not the federal government. Focus on changing the laws.
    AB227
    Introduced in the Assembly on Mar 11, 2013.
    By: (Bolded name indicates primary sponsorship)
    Ellison, Wheeler, Hansen, Hickey, Hardy, Paul Anderson, Bustamante Adams, Carrillo, Duncan, Fiore, Flores, Grady, Hambrick, Healey, Kirkpatrick, Kirner, Livermore, Neal, Ohrenschall, Oscarson, Spiegel, Stewart, Woodbury, Goicoechea, Gustavson, Roberson, Hutchison, Hammond, Atkinson, Brower, Cegavske, Denis, Hardy, Jones, Kieckhefer, Kihuen, Manendo, Parks, Settelmeyer, Spearman, Woodhouse
    Creates the Nevada Land Management Task Force to conduct a study addressing the transfer of certain public lands in this State. (BDR S-594)

    Fiscal Notes
    View Fiscal Notes
    Effect on Local Government: May have Fiscal Impact.
    Effect on State: Yes.
    Most Recent History Action:
    (See full list below)
    Approved by the Governor. Chapter 299.

    Upcoming Hearings

    Past Hearings
    Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Mar 21, 2013 04:00 PM Agenda Minutes No action
    Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Apr 11, 2013 04:00 PM Agenda Minutes Amend, and do pass as amended
    Senate Legislative Operations and Elections May 07, 2013 08:00 AM Agenda Minutes No Action
    Senate Legislative Operations and Elections May 16, 2013 See Agenda Agenda Minutes Do pass

    Final Passage Votes
    Assembly Final Passage (1st Reprint) Apr 23, 2013 Yea 23, Nay 18, Excused 0, Not Voting 0, Absent 0, Vacant 1
    Senate Final Passage (1st Reprint) May 24, 2013 Yea 21, Nay 0, Excused 0, Not Voting 0, Absent 0



    Adopted Amendments Amend. No. 497

    Bill History
    Mar 11, 2013
    • Read first time. Referred to Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections. To printer.
    Mar 12, 2013
    • From printer. To committee.
    Apr 22, 2013
    • From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended.
    • Placed on Second Reading File.
    • Read second time. Amended. (Amend. No. 497.) To printer.
    Apr 23, 2013
    Apr 24, 2013
    • In Senate.
    • Read first time. Referred to Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections. To committee.
    May 18, 2013
    • From committee: Do pass.
    • Placed on Second Reading File.
    • Read second time.
    May 20, 2013
    • Taken from General File. Placed on General File for next legislative day.
    May 21, 2013
    • Taken from General File. Placed on Secretary's desk.
    May 23, 2013
    • Taken from Secretary's desk. Placed on General File for next legislative day.
    May 24, 2013
    May 27, 2013
    • In Assembly.
    May 28, 2013
    • To enrollment.
    May 31, 2013
    • Enrolled and delivered to Governor.
    Jun 01, 2013
    • Approved by the Governor. Chapter 299.
    • Effective June 1, 2013, and expires by limitation June 30, 2015.


    Creates the Nevada Land Management Task Force to conduct a study addressing the transfer of certain public lands in this State. (BDR S-594)

    Jun 01, 2013
    • Approved by the Governor. Chapter 299.
    • Effective June 1, 2013, and expires by limitation June 30, 2015.



    To whom, for whom, and who's land do they want to transfer!!!! It seems to me they changed the law and they want to get Mr. Bundy's land before the dealine of the 30th of June 2015

  3. #23
    April
    Guest
    “Thankfully, states like Arizona are joining Utah in standing up for their rights and I certainly expect more to support our effort soon.
    The more states jumping in on this the better, the more control the states have over public lands the better.

  4. #24
    April
    Guest
    Western states demand feds return public land amid clamor for more drilling

    Published March 27, 2012FoxNews.com




    Shown here is a section of the Colorado River in Utah.Utah Department of Natural Resources


    Several Western states, fed up with a federal government some claim is locking down public land against oil drilling, are demanding Washington return millions of acres to state control.
    The pleas mark a new front in the battle over states' rights, and one state has already codified its demand into law.
    Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican, signed a law several days ago that asks the federal government to return 20 million acres, which could be used to develop oil and other natural resources to bolster the state economy.
    Republican state Rep. Ken Ivory said Tuesday the land is worth trillions of dollars in oil and mineral resources, which would be developed in a responsible way.
    "The first thing you do is protect the national park, monuments and other open space," he told FoxNews.com. Then, he said, lawmakers would create a so-called "public lands commission" managed by the state -- that would hold sway over the natural resources buried in the rock.
    Ivory pointed to North Dakota, where the recent development of oil and natural gas has resulted in a booming state economy, with one of the country's lowest unemployment rates.
    A law similar to Utah's passed the Arizona Senate last month, and lawmakers in Colorado, Idaho, Montana and New Mexico reportedly are preparing similar legislation for next year.
    The Utah law also has backing from the state's GOP delegation on Capitol Hill.
    "This issue is as much about state sovereignty as it is about state economy," U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said in a written statement. "Utah can manage its priorities ... much more efficiently than the federal government. But the state needs resources, and Washington is standing in the way."
    Ivory and Herbert said the state hopes to reach a deal with the federal government by December 2014, and lawmakers then would pursue legal action that appears to have standing from a recent Supreme Court decision.
    However, Bob Abbey, the director of the federal Bureau of Land Management, recently said Utah lawmakers' efforts are "divisive and unproductive."
    "It's sad that they are spending so much time debating something that has absolutely no chance of ever happening in the real world," he told the Salt Lake City Tribune after a congressional hearing last month.
    Beyond the arguments about states' rights and 116-year-old promises by Washington to return the land, Utah lawmakers said the state desperately needs the land to generate money to cover a $2 billion funding gap for public education -- without raising taxes.
    Right now, Utah cannot levy state or local taxes on federal land to help support public education, and the state consistently ranks last in per-pupil federal funding.
    Herbert said the only alternative would appear to be "ruinous tax increases."
    "We don't agree with the effort," said Carl Fisher, executive director of Utah-based Save our Canyons. "It would be a huge disservice to turn national treasures over to the state for development purposes."
    This is not the first time that states west of Colorado have joined in asking the federal government to give them more control of the land.
    The so-called Sagebrush rebellion dates back in the 1970s and had the support of President Reagan in the 1980s.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...evive-economy/

  5. #25
    April
    Guest
    There are others who want federal land returned to them. This appears to be a hot issue on more than one front.

    November 01, 2013
    Federal Land Transfer Causes Controversy Between State of Idaho and Indian Tribes

    by John Haughey
    The Shoshone-Bannock, Nez Perce and Couer d’Alene nations are demanding that Idaho's 34 million acres of federal public lands be returned to them rather than transferred to state control.

    "If the federal government is going to transfer title to any lands, they should be transferred back to their rightful owner, which would be Indian tribes," said Helo Hancock, a lobbyist for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe.

    Leaders of the three tribes were among those who testified on Oct. 28 before the Idaho State Legislature's Federal Lands Interim Committee, which is pondering a resolution approved by state lawmakers in April requesting that the federal government “imminently transfer title” to more than 34 million acres of Idaho’s public land. The committee is expected to issue a report to the Legislature in 2015.

    The tribes, as well as many conservation, hunting and fishing groups, are opposed to the proposal. They said keeping public lands under federal ownership prevents the state from selling acreage for revenue or to companies seeking to extract resources. Tribal leaders also cited treaty rights guaranteeing off-reservation fishing and hunting rights on the "unoccupied lands of the United States."

    "You've got to understand that when we made that treaty, it means that we would have that opportunity to continue to come out into these areas," Shoshone-Bannock Chairman Nathan Small told the Associated Press. "We feel that this notion to transfer it all to the state is going to diminish that right that we have made with the United States."

    Public lands were not meant to be sold to private individuals or corporations, Small said during the hearing. When Idaho has allowed private entities onto public lands in the past, it hasn't turned out well for wildlife and public access, he said, noting 17 of Idaho’s phosphate mines, permitted to operate on state land, are classified as Superfund sites.

    Federal agencies manage more than 53,000 square miles of forest, rangeland and wilderness areas in Idaho; an area the size of Arkansas. The U.S. Forest Service oversees the majority of that land, estimated at 32,000 square miles, followed by the Bureau of Land Management.

    The Idaho Department of Lands projects the state could receive up to $75 million in revenue annually for public schools, universities and other institutions by allowing more timber harvest and other activities on public lands now managed by the federal government.

    It would cost it $46 million to manage the same public land that it cost the federal government $200 million to manage last year, the Idaho Department of Lands reported in August.

    Conservationists blasted that estimate, noting that it didn’t factor in basic upkeep such as road and trail maintenance.

    “The federal government spent $22 million alone on roads and trails in 2011,” Tom Flynn of Outdoor Alliance told the committee.” If roads and trails aren’t maintained, that would have serious consequences on our community.”

    “There has been a history of these types of proposals. Ultimately, the foundation for those proposals has effectively been refuted by the courts and proven unworkable,” Jonathan Oppenheimer of the Idaho Conservation League said during the hearing.

    http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/ope...o-and-indian-t

  6. #26
    April
    Guest
    A Legal Overview of Utah’s H.B. 148 — The Transfer of Public Lands Act
    http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/UtahPublicLandsWP.pdf




  7. #27
    April
    Guest
    Legislature Continue to Plot Ways to Gain Control of Federal Land in Idaho

    August 10, 2013 by IdahoReporter.com Leave a Comment



    For nearly seven hours Friday, the Federal Lands Interim Committee, comprised of members of both the Idaho Senate and the Idaho House of Representatives, heard presentations about the legal, practical and economic implications of the state of Idaho taking control of otherwise federally controlled land within the state.
    Members of the Idaho Legislature Federal Lands Interim Committee heard testimony Friday about the management and ownership of federal lands in Idaho.

    According to Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Boise, committee chairman, the Friday meeting was for background information for the legislators.
    On April 2, the Idaho Senate approved two legislative resolutions concerning Idaho taking control of more than 60 percent of land within the state, land that is currently under federal government control.
    House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 21, which passed 26-6 with one abstention, calls for a study to be conducted on how Idaho would best approach the federal government with a demand for the land. HCR 22 was approved by a narrower margin, 21-13. It requests the state issue a “demand for title” to the federal government.
    Both measures passed in the House on March 21.
    Jay O’Laughlin, professor from the University of Idaho, gave the committee an overview of federal land policy in Idaho. His view is that the U. S. Forest Service is not capable of fulfilling its management responsibilities in an efficient manner. His recommendation is that the federal lands be managed similar to the way in which Idaho endowment lands are handled, which he described as a trust management system.
    Steve Strack, Idaho deputy attorney general, presented details to the committee from the Idaho Constitution and the early Idaho founders’ view of state and federal land authority, as well as details of previous efforts undertaken by Idaho and other states to get the federal government to relinquish control of land.
    Of the early Idahoans involved in the founding of the state, Strack noted that they “plainly anticipated that the U.S. would continue to dispose of public lands.” That is, sell federally controlled land back to the state government or to private purchasers. However, Strack also said that the state’s founders believed that when the federal government and state government were at odds, federal authority should take precedence.
    During debate over HCR 21 and HCR 22 earlier this year, legislators who were in favor of the measures often cited the state of Utah as an example of how Idaho should proceed. A year prior, in the spring of 2012, the Utah Legislature passed measures similar to those in Idaho pertaining to federally controlled lands.
    To this end, Friday’s committee meeting included a presentation from Donald Kochan, professor of law at California’s Chapman University, who analyzed the legal foundations and ramifications of Utah’s legislative effort.
    Kochan said that “there has been a long history of conflict over control of lands in the western states,” and that there “is no precedent against the demand made by Utah.” He also noted that the debate over whether the federal government should retain control over large portions of land within the states is “an open legal question.”
    In presenting some of the history that led to Utah’s land demand last year, Kochan stated that the government of Utah originally wanted the federal government to secure vast portions of the state’s land. According to him, the intent was that the federal government would sell Utah’s public lands to private investors and the Utah government would obtain a percentage of the sales revenues. Yet that land sale has never occurred, and that’s what has led that state’s Legislature to demand that the federal lands be deeded back to Utah.
    Kochan also noted language that appears in what is known as the property clause of the United States Constitution that states, “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.”
    During questioning, Sen. Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, asked Kochan, “Is there a duty of the federal government to sell the land?”
    Kochan replied that “it can be regarded as a requirement that the federal government will sell the land, and it could be interpreted as an expectation of the states. The best interpretation is that it is further evidence of an expectation among the states.”
    By Austin Hill

    http://theketchumkeystone.org/2013/0...land-in-idaho/

  8. #28
    April
    Guest
    Legislature Continue to Plot Ways to Gain Control of Federal Land in Idaho

    August 10, 2013 by IdahoReporter.com Leave a Comment



    For nearly seven hours Friday, the Federal Lands Interim Committee, comprised of members of both the Idaho Senate and the Idaho House of Representatives, heard presentations about the legal, practical and economic implications of the state of Idaho taking control of otherwise federally controlled land within the state.
    Members of the Idaho Legislature Federal Lands Interim Committee heard testimony Friday about the management and ownership of federal lands in Idaho.

    According to Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Boise, committee chairman, the Friday meeting was for background information for the legislators.
    On April 2, the Idaho Senate approved two legislative resolutions concerning Idaho taking control of more than 60 percent of land within the state, land that is currently under federal government control.
    House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 21, which passed 26-6 with one abstention, calls for a study to be conducted on how Idaho would best approach the federal government with a demand for the land. HCR 22 was approved by a narrower margin, 21-13. It requests the state issue a “demand for title” to the federal government.
    Both measures passed in the House on March 21.
    Jay O’Laughlin, professor from the University of Idaho, gave the committee an overview of federal land policy in Idaho. His view is that the U. S. Forest Service is not capable of fulfilling its management responsibilities in an efficient manner. His recommendation is that the federal lands be managed similar to the way in which Idaho endowment lands are handled, which he described as a trust management system.
    Steve Strack, Idaho deputy attorney general, presented details to the committee from the Idaho Constitution and the early Idaho founders’ view of state and federal land authority, as well as details of previous efforts undertaken by Idaho and other states to get the federal government to relinquish control of land.
    Of the early Idahoans involved in the founding of the state, Strack noted that they “plainly anticipated that the U.S. would continue to dispose of public lands.” That is, sell federally controlled land back to the state government or to private purchasers. However, Strack also said that the state’s founders believed that when the federal government and state government were at odds, federal authority should take precedence.
    During debate over HCR 21 and HCR 22 earlier this year, legislators who were in favor of the measures often cited the state of Utah as an example of how Idaho should proceed. A year prior, in the spring of 2012, the Utah Legislature passed measures similar to those in Idaho pertaining to federally controlled lands.
    To this end, Friday’s committee meeting included a presentation from Donald Kochan, professor of law at California’s Chapman University, who analyzed the legal foundations and ramifications of Utah’s legislative effort.
    Kochan said that “there has been a long history of conflict over control of lands in the western states,” and that there “is no precedent against the demand made by Utah.” He also noted that the debate over whether the federal government should retain control over large portions of land within the states is “an open legal question.”
    In presenting some of the history that led to Utah’s land demand last year, Kochan stated that the government of Utah originally wanted the federal government to secure vast portions of the state’s land. According to him, the intent was that the federal government would sell Utah’s public lands to private investors and the Utah government would obtain a percentage of the sales revenues. Yet that land sale has never occurred, and that’s what has led that state’s Legislature to demand that the federal lands be deeded back to Utah.
    Kochan also noted language that appears in what is known as the property clause of the United States Constitution that states, “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.”
    During questioning, Sen. Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, asked Kochan, “Is there a duty of the federal government to sell the land?”
    Kochan replied that “it can be regarded as a requirement that the federal government will sell the land, and it could be interpreted as an expectation of the states. The best interpretation is that it is further evidence of an expectation among the states.”
    By Austin Hill

    http://theketchumkeystone.org/2013/0...land-in-idaho/

  9. #29
    April
    Guest
    I thought this was an interesting read.

    Introduction to Property Rights: A Historical Perspective


    Everyone seems to have an opinion about property rights, whether about one’s own rights, those of someone else, or the rights of a community. Property rights discussions can reveal diverse and controversial opinions and are often related to larger issues such as land use, regulation, planning, and the like. Since there is no universal definition of property rights, considering different perspectives and the historical background can be helpful in understanding property rights issues.
    According to Neil Meyer, professor of agricultural economics and rural sociology at the University of Idaho, “what is often referred to as property is really the access right to a stream of benefits from a given set of resources.” In the United States today, access to that stream of benefits is controlled in four basic ways: private ownership, public open access, public closed access, and state ownership.

    Who Owns What Property and Where Do Property Rights Come From?

    Property rights come from culture and community. One person living in isolation does not need to worry about property rights. However, when a number of people come together, they need to define and enforce the rules of access to and the benefits from property. In this way, the group or community defines the stream of benefits.
    “This land is mine to use, enjoy, and treat as I wish.” Many property owners feel this way about their rights to land, and certainly, landowners possess many rights to the properties they hold. However, historical actions by governments and courts suggest that the property rights of private owners are shared with the public. Therefore, the definition of property rights can, and has, changed over time. Although the issue of property rights has received a great deal of attention in recent years, it is valuable to remember that property rights have been debated in the United States since the country was formed over 200 years ago.

    What Are Property Rights?

    Property rights establish relationships among participants in any social and economic system. Holding the rights to property is an expression of the relative power of the bearer. Holding such power or rights commands certain responses by others that are enforced by the community or our culture. For example, a producer owning 100 acres of cropland is entitled to the returns from his property, management ability, and good sense. He is protected from trespass by his neighbors’ cultural customs and the laws of the community. The production, or stream of benefits from the land, is his to sell, give away, or otherwise dispose of as he sees fit.
    Property rights are a function of what others are willing to acknowledge. The limits on an owner’s actions result from expectations and rights of others as formally sanctioned and sustained by law. The boundary between obligation and right is variable. Patterns in rights and obligations reflect prevailing judgments on what is fair, and people’s values determine fairness. Laws and rules generally reflect the values held by a sufficient number of the people in a social group.

    A Bundle of Rights

    Property rights have been likened to a bundle of sticks where each stick represents a right or stream of benefits.
    The bundle expands as “sticks,” or rights, are added and gets smaller as sticks are taken away.
    Some important landowner sticks include the right to sell, lease, mortgage, donate, subdivide, grant easements, etc. The community also has a bundle of rights, such as to tax, take for public use, regulate uses, etc. Some more recent issues have also been added to and taken from the bundle by our culture and community, such as the rights to farm, to air and water quality protection, to species conservation and preservation, etc.
    A bundle of landowner rights may include the right to

    • sell
    • lease
    • mortgage
    • subdivide
    • grant easement

    A bundle of public rights may be somewhat more limited but can include the right to

    • tax
    • take for public use
    • control use of
    • dispose of in case of death

    Governments, acting for the public, have long exercised powers that may affect individual property owners’ use of their land, including the power to tax private property, take property under eminent domain (with compensation), and establish rules with the policing power to enforce them. These are more formal powers, but communities also have auxiliary powers to influence behavior, such as public spending, public ownership, and public opinion.
    History shows that previously accepted concepts of property have changed with new conditions and passage of time. Early communities treated land and other natural resources as a communal resource held in joint ownership. Under feudalism, status in the community was directly related to the rights a person held in land. Even though the distribution of rights has changed considerably over the generations, understanding this history is important because it provides the basis for our present concept of property rights.

    How Are Rights Defined?

    Five legal terms from feudal times are still in use today: property, fee, estate, interest, and right. These terms have similar meanings and are often substitutes for one another. Fee simple ownership means that the owner enjoys all the rights that one can hold in a property. Many citizens believe and cherish the notion that these rights have not changed since the frontier period in America. However, a review of the many programs adopted by local, state, and federal governments shows our culture has adopted a larger role for public rights than was recognized in the individualistic frontier perspective. This evolution over the past 200 years can be attributed to increasing population, rising incomes, more competition for available resources, environmental concerns, wider suffrage rights, etc.
    It is apparent that the rights we hold in property spring from society. Rights are real only when the sovereign power, acting as an agent for society, recognizes those rights and is willing to defend and enforce them.
    It is also important to remember that removing sticks from the bundle of rights does not necessarily mean less satisfaction for the owner or that property has less value. For example, residential easements that deliver electricity, water, and sewer service usually enhance property values and add comfort to the owner. The same may be said for regulations protecting water and air quality, controlling noise, avoiding health concerns, etc.

    Do Private and Public Rights Conflict?

    Depending on a person’s perspective, one set of rights may be in conflict with another’s perceived set of rights. Who is right or wrong, though, is not necessarily a question that can or should be answered. Since property rights are culturally defined and enforced, no one knows how or when public rights may be broadened over time. This situation can create concern or conflict since the interests of different groups of people vary greatly.
    Those who see private ownership as an opportunity for acquiring wealth have obvious reasons for being concerned about trends toward public ownership. Others view land as a fragile resource needing community protection and more public supervision. Most Americans are probably somewhere in the middle of these two views.
    As demands and pressure increase for stronger public programs to direct land use, private property owners may fear that such societal attitude shifts will adversely affect them. They may worry about being stripped of certain rights. Accepting this change requires recognizing the rights that owners enjoy in private property are balanced by responsibilities. Property owners need to use land or other streams of benefits in a manner that does not impact negatively on others and to use practices that serve the basic community interests. Defining what may be a negative impact or what specific practices to follow, however, can be a point of conflict. The community also needs to reflect on the value of private ownership to society and to remember that it is in private owners’ best interest to use their land productively.

    What Is Common Property?

    Although perspectives vary, the general aspects of private and public ownership and rights are fairly well understood in today’s society.
    Common property is a third category of ownership. Common property consists of benefit streams that are jointly owned and/or managed. Grazing on public lands or fishing on the open seas are examples of different types of common property ownership, jointly sharing the benefit streams between public and private. Common property can be more controversial and complicated because groups and individuals have different beliefs on how to manage the resource. In some parts of the United States today, many prominent property rights conflicts concern the management of commonly owned resources.
    Ownership and management can be easily confused when using the term common property.

    Public property can be divided into three types: open access, closed access, and state/government. With open access, there is no governance and everyone can use and take part in the benefit stream(s) of a particular resource. This situation may result in uncontrolled use that can destroy the resource. A second type of public property is the closed access, which is jointly managed and owned. Those who jointly own the closed access resource provide control, limit access, define rules, etc. Many fisheries are managed in this manner. The third type, state management, has governmental managers making decisions and rules about access, use, etc. These decisions can become controversial for the recipients of the various benefit streams—for example, the issue of grazing on public land.

    Summary

    When discussing private property rights issues, it is important to remember that property rights are not absolute but, instead, a function of what society is willing to acknowledge, defend, and enforce. The relationship between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community have been in constant flux throughout our history and will likely continue to change with time. Since the discussion of these shifting relationships can be extremely polarizing and controversial, adopting a historical perspective may help to improve the overall discourse on these issues.

    This material written by Neil Meyer, Extension Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of Idaho. Edited by John Church, Extension Educator, Natural Resources, University of Illinois. Reviewed by Donald L. Uchtmann Professor of Agricultural Law, University of Illinois College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences; and Gerrit Knaap, Associate Professor, Urban and Regional Planning, University of Illinois College of Fine and Applied Arts

    http://urbanext.illinois.edu/lcr/propertyrights.cfm

  10. #30
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    35,723
    It has to do with the Enabling Acts at Statehood. I remember reading hat the Supreme Court had ruled that he Lands Act of 1976, that he Congress passed that would NEVER honor the Enabling agreements was disputed and the Supreme Court ruled that the government had to honor the agreements of statehood. If anyone finds anything on this please post it.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •