Its a constant attempt to steal

Ken Ivory is an American politician and a Republican member of the Utah House of Representatives representing District 47 since January 1, 2011. He has made a living as a lobbyist promoting American Lands Council

-Wikipedia



The Mission of the American Lands Council is to secure local control of western public lands by transferring federal public lands

-ALC

The ALC is funded in part by Richard Berman front companies. Berman is a DC lobbyist hired by petro companies, and Koch Brothers to push states to fight for transefer.








From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Hoss, your post here is more than misleading. Every member of the House, including those righteous awesome Democrats, co-sponsored this legislation. Every member of the legislature, both the house and senate, both democrats and republicans, voted to pass it.

Why do you think that is?

Educate yourself on this one. You?re not on target.
 
SO what does that have to do with "Stealing"?

You are using a word which defines an unlawful act to describe actions which are completely within legal boundaries.

Look, I can understand you disagree politically with someone else's position but it is completely unnecessary and childish to dress those people and the people who agree with them as criminals. Have you ever thought if you deal with problems logically and not emotionally you might get some support.
 
$$$$$$

The dems want money for education.

The repubs are now spinning that somehow if they can just get the feds to "pay there fair share"(interestingly the same phrase used by dems for tax increases) the money would fund education.

But its an R dominate state, meaning the dems might get some ONE TIME money, the repubs would then be able to sell without much opposition.

Do you truly think the Petro companies are bankrolling this crap because they care about Utah school kids? REALLY? If so why don't they just donate what they are paying Berman and his ilk to Utah education?

Not to mention the $3million plus in the state legal fund to retain lawyers, the dues collected by ALC, etc, etc.

I remember the huge shortfalls in the state that were going to be fixed by tobacco lawsuits. How's that working out?

Would be fun to see the forest service send the state a $70million bill for fighting fires on "Utah land" this summer. Followed by the bill for management of "Utah Land".


I called Mike Lee, asked when his plan to fund fire fighting and management would be published. Did same with Bishop, Hatch, Curtis, Love, Steward.

For some reason I haven't heard back.







From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>SO what does that have to
>do with "Stealing"?
>
>You are using a word which
>defines an unlawful act to
>describe actions which are completely
>within legal boundaries.
>
>Look, I can understand you disagree
>politically with someone else's position
>but it is completely unnecessary
>and childish to dress those
>people and the people who
>agree with them as criminals.
> Have you ever thought
>if you deal with problems
>logically and not emotionally you
>might get some support.


Federally managed public land IS NOT "Utah land", it isn't part of Utah, as was set out, signed, and agreed to as a condition of statehood .

That's logic


"Its for the children", is emotion.




From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Vanilla.

Lets pretend Tommorow Utah had all the public land under its control

How does that generate a single dollar for education?


How does millions of acres of juniper, pine, sagebrush create revenue to fund schools?

When you truthfully answer those 2 questions you get to the REAL reason behind "transfer".


BTW why is public land a R vs D issue? Other than R addeding it just recently to their platform as a fund raising issue.?







From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Hoss, this isn't about a transfer. At all. Like I said, educate yourself. You?re winning over nobody by spewing falsehoods, whether intentional or not.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-18 AT 10:21AM (MST)[p]>Hoss, this isn't about a transfer.
>At all. Like I said,
>educate yourself. You?re winning over
>nobody by spewing falsehoods, whether
>intentional or not.

Sure it is.

Look who wrote the bill.

I respect you far too much to believe you don't know what this is.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
I have a choice between cheep hunting access or paying for a better education system and infrastructure for my kids.

"If they are cutting into my welfare hunting then they are thieves"...Hossblur logic.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-18 AT 12:55PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-18 AT 12:52?PM (MST)

>I have a choice between cheep
>hunting access or paying for
>a better education system and
>infrastructure for my kids.
>
>"If they are cutting into my
>welfare hunting then they are
>thieves"...Hossblur logic.

How does Texas pay for schools without selling land?


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Property taxes and state sanctioned gambling!

Much of rural Texas has really awesome schools because they collect property taxes on oil and gas. One of the towns near my mom has a football and baseball center that most professional teams wish they had. It's pretty cool.
 
Hoss, you're wrong. I have a duty to call it out when I see it. It's not my opinion you are wrong, it is an objective, verifiable fact.

You either don't understand this, or you are willfully misleading people. Either way, you should stop. You won't listen, but you should. You?ll do much more harm to our cause than help by doing this.

But continue however you want. Alienate those that we need by continuing in ignorant, incorrect posts. You?re a big boy, you'll choose for yourself. But you're wrong on this one. You?re completely missing the mark.

You like to pretend, so let's pretend this law gets 100% of what it is asking. What will you object to if that happens?
 
Texas has "really awesome schools" OK, they are ranked 43rd in quality of education, that sounds awesome:)

Utah wants Federal Land transferred to the State for 1 reason:
They want revenue from it.

You can figure out for yourself how they will get it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-18 AT 01:51PM (MST)[p]>Hoss, you're wrong. I have a
>duty to call it out
>when I see it. It's
>not my opinion you are
>wrong, it is an objective,
>verifiable fact.
>
>You either don't understand this, or
>you are willfully misleading people.
>Either way, you should stop.
>You won't listen, but you
>should. You?ll do much more
>harm to our cause than
>help by doing this.
>
>But continue however you want. Alienate
>those that we need by
>continuing in ignorant, incorrect posts.
>You?re a big boy, you'll
>choose for yourself. But you're
>wrong on this one. You?re
>completely missing the mark.
>
>You like to pretend, so let's
>pretend this law gets 100%
>of what it is asking.
>What will you object to
>if that happens?

There is a law firm in Lousianna on retainer with the state. A $3 million warchest.

So, we do an appraisal. We then tell the feds the result. Nothing happens. Now we have "grounds" for a lawsuit. Which is what Ivory has been pushing in the west for years.

Why didn't Lee or Hatch simply introduce a bill to increase funding to land states? Easy fix, dems support education, Rep land states get funding.


Funny how Wyoming is able to have public land and fund schools. Maybe they care more about their schools than gambling or taxing extractive?

"Our side" does not, nor ever has included Ivory.

Stop mudding the water. Stop spinning.

I KNOW you know the goal. The ALC, Ivory, Berman, Petri, etc have been beat down EVERY time they try a frontal assault. This new approach is simply chipping at the edges.









From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Vanilla, please explain what it really is about then. I was going to read HB0357 before I asked but when I got to the "Commission on Federalism" part I realized I don't have time right now and decided to ask first.
 
Texas does have really awesome schools. Come on down and see. Texas however doesn't have a whole lot of really awesome students.

"You can figure out for yourself how they will get it."


What is that supposed to mean? Why are you scared of the state getting revenue? Are they spending it to fund a massive military campaign to invade Columbia?

Money isn't evil. The state having Money or assets isn't evil. START USING LOGIC.

DO you understand if you would just come out and say you want cheap hunting access more than you want your kids to have an education THAT WOULD BE A MORE LOGICAL STATEMENT THAN ANYTHING YOU HAVE WRITTEN SO FAR?
 
From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.

Utah lets tens of millions flow to idaho, Wyoming, Nevada yearly.

It doesn't tax oil and gas like Texas or Wyoming.

I have no argument with you. Guess we don't "care about the children" enough.
 
NVBighorn,

This comes from a bill that was co-sponsored by every single member of the Utah House of Representatives, including the democrats (not just Ivory like some would have you believe). It was also unanimously voted for by both the House and Senate, including democrats. (not just those evil extraction loving and land grabbing republicans, like some would have you believe)

The claim is that the current PILT payments by the feds are not sufficient. The idea behind PILT is that for federally held lands, these payments reimburse states for the property taxes that the state would collect if they were not held by the federal government. The state is claiming our counties are being shorted by the feds and the PILT payments should be increased. This study is a land valuation to take to the feds to show them the value of the land as evidence they are shorting the state (counties) in the PILT payments.

If the state prevails, every single acre of federal public lands stay federal public lands and the state will receive more money for public education from the federal goveenment in the form of PILT payments.

That is the long and the short of this.

So, I guess we have to ask Hoss- which of those outcomes does he object to?
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-18 AT 04:13PM (MST)[p]The state of Utah cries foul play saying that they are being short handed by feds. Saying they need more money for education and such.
Meanwhile you have houses for 800k being purchased by the school district in PC for superintendents to live in rent free with an included 173k year salary. Oh and a car!

My point......
I don't trust the spending done by the state or the feds!
Education expense shortfalls aren't happening because the feds are shorting the state. Not because the feds control a swath of public land. It's because the state picks people to handle the finances who aren't any better at managing money than Floyd Mayweather!

The state is looking for any crack to slither into to gain support at selling OUR public lands so they can get more money to spend horribly.
The result will lead to much like Texas. 0% public land, and a state that ranks near last in education.
No better than where we are at now.

The real problem lies with the word ?spending?
Honestly, both state and federally, they both suck at spending and love blowing money.
Fix that problem first! Then we can talk about any foul play


This situation reminds me of my teenage kids. Who rarely lift a finger around my house and cry because they don't have money after blowing it all and wanting more money for allowance.









"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
When is it ever truly about what it's about?
Chew on that for a while.
Norkal

"One can take my life but not my faith or my
confidence"
"I fear none and respect all"
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-18 AT 05:12PM (MST)[p]>NVBighorn,
>
>This comes from a bill that
>was co-sponsored by every single
>member of the Utah House
>of Representatives, including the democrats
>(not just Ivory like some
>would have you believe). It
>was also unanimously voted for
>by both the House and
>Senate, including democrats. (not just
>those evil extraction loving and
>land grabbing republicans, like some
>would have you believe)
>
>The claim is that the current
>PILT payments by the feds
>are not sufficient. The idea
>behind PILT is that for
>federally held lands, these payments
>reimburse states for the property
>taxes that the state would
>collect if they were not
>held by the federal government.
>The state is claiming our
>counties are being shorted by
>the feds and the PILT
>payments should be increased. This
>study is a land valuation
>to take to the feds
>to show them the value
>of the land as evidence
>they are shorting the state
>(counties) in the PILT payments.
>
>
>If the state prevails, every single
>acre of federal public lands
>stay federal public lands and
>the state will receive more
>money for public education from
>the federal goveenment in the
>form of PILT payments.
>
>That is the long and the
>short of this.
>
>So, I guess we have to
>ask Hoss- which of those
>outcomes does he object to?
>

The bill WRITTEN by Ivory also says NO MONEY ALLOCATED.

However, if you read the story $20k FOR THE FIRST PHASE. Keyword FIRST.

So ya a bill that says "hey lets get money from the feds" sounds great, no cost, worth a shot.

The cute little fact is what comes AFTER.

The AG is charged by the gov to sue. However EVERY poll in the state says NO to transfer so a straight up lawsuit isn't supported. The goal of Ivory isn't school dollars. Its a lawsuit to transfer, this is simply the hoop ALC, Ivory, Berman need jump.

They could sue today. If the feds are violating the law. The appraisal is for a different reason.

That reason Ivory lets slip when he says the feds are "withholding our lands". Why does that matter if this is a simple tax issue.


Ill also point out that Ivory bill does not stipulate the percentage the schools get. This is NOT SITLA land. Its FS/Blm.


Then there is that commision on federalism part. Been a while since I read that, but didn't Ivory sponsor that as well?


In short Ivory knows they will lose, in fact he's praying for it. Land transfer IS NOT OR NEVER HAS BEEN about funding schools. Ken Ivory has never been an advocate of school funding.


Last. The feds don't have some pile of money sitting around. Ivory, who runs on "no tax increase" wants the feds, YOU, to pay more in taxes to support Utah schools. Interesting that a supposed "federalist" isn't calling for the separation of the feds from Utah education. Pretty sure federalists believe in state run education. Guess he missed that concept?

The dude is a fraud. He is the lobbyist for the ALC. He takes money from petroleum companies to try to facilitate transfer. That's his JOB.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Hoss, you can keep on ranting. You?ve jumped he shark, but keep on ranting. Good luck with the endeavor.

Do is all a favor, however. Just keep these rants here on an Internet forum where only about 30 people read them. We don't need to lose credibility on the public lands issue in places it really matters.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-13-18 AT 06:45PM (MST)[p]>Hoss, you can keep on ranting.
>You?ve jumped he shark, but
>keep on ranting. Good luck
>with the endeavor.
>
>Do is all a favor, however.
>Just keep these rants here
>on an Internet forum where
>only about 30 people read
>them. We don't need to
>lose credibility on the public
>lands issue in places it
>really matters.

Yup. You keep cuddlingvip to Ken Ivory. That will turn out GREAT for public land. He's spectacular on public land.

Also. Keep reinforcing with the legislature that public land is there to be a revenue generator. I'm sure that too will be sucessful.




From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Vanilla,

Thanks for the explanation. I am very much aware of the issues with PILT. I have done a good deal of research on the very subject of property tax vs PILT. The data I have might surprise you. That said,I don't believe that congress will pony up more money just because an appraisal might show they should. They have trouble agreeing to even fund it every year and often try to cut it back from the full calculated amount. Of course every member of your legislature signed on to the bill! Obviously they can't oppose education of the children if they want to be re-elected. It's as near and dear as motherhood and apple pie. I don't blame them for supporting the bill. How could they not?

But I wouldn't be too quick to run toward that siren call of better education. It's one of the transfer proponents go-to arguments. Usually they compare Utah (or Nevada) to North or South Dakota to show the difference between public land states and others. Of course they never mention that those states only have something like 5% public land.

In my book Ivory and his ilk are snake oil salesmen. Their end game, regardless of the feel-good aspect of this idea or the fact they got support from both Ds and Rs, is the complete transfer of federal public land to the states. Period. I've been in this game far too long to believe anything else. I know one of the American Lands Council founding charter members. His vision is clear and every single thing he does is with that end game in mind.
 
I also agree the feds aren't going to increase PILT payments and this will ultimately be a waste of time. Welcome to government, right?

I share your opinion of Ken Ivory. I know what his goals are. But his goals are not everyone?s goals. And it is possible for even those one completely disagrees with to do things that are not totally offensive.

It bothers me when people draw lines in the sand and then just fight against anyone they believe is on the other side of the line, regardless of what the current issue being discussed happens to be. Its childish, and too many in our society are doing it. It gets us nowhere.
 
Wisconsin.... 94% private land. $22 Billion in debt.
Utah 70% Public lands, always in the black.

Carry on




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-18 AT 08:55AM (MST)[p]NV thanks for expressing my thoughts more eloquently than me.

Vanilla.

Had a nearly any of the other co sponsors written this bill I would have been interested, but most likely quiet.

I actually spend the entire session nearly daily on the phone for hours talking to Utah legislators. I do it as "doing my part" for the orgs I support(BHA, RMEF).

I ACTUALLY talked to Ivory about this one. As well as others. The difference in what he said, or more correct tried to spin, and what others said was exactly what you would expect if you knew anything of Ivory. Most of the other s thought it was either worth a shot, or wouldn't cost the state much to try.

As NV said, this education ploy is just the latest attempt by the grabbers. The states rights attempt failed. Using education as the wedge to get the camels nose in the tent was used in red states by the dems (Arizona, Texas to name a few), and it has been incorporated by the grabbers on this issue.

I didn't draw some line. Ivory drew it. He has made this his business, and life goal. He doesn't ever get the benefit of the doubt on land issues. He will not extend any benefit of the doubt, wiggle room, or pass to our side, he deserves zero from us. Giving him a talking point such as "everyone is on board, or everyone agrees", is a win on the grabbers side.

Don't confuse my mindless poking of the Texas troll with the seriousness with which I take this. I extended a PM to you to explain where I was wrong, apparently you just didn't like my tone?

Losing nicely is still losing.

Ivory, Berman and his ilk don't worry about niceties, its a waste of time for us to do the same.

Last. Before you take shots at "talking to 30 people", my "call to action" came while I was watching some accountant that was dumb enough to film himself not killing elk on TV. Not everyone will be exposed via the same method you were. If I get 1 of the 30 to wake up, ill take that. All hands on deck.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>Last. Before you take shots
>at "talking to 30 people",
>my "call to action" came
>while I was watching some
>accountant that was dumb enough
>to film himself not killing
>elk on TV. Not
>everyone will be exposed via
>the same method you were.
>
>
>
>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>PUBLIC LAND.

What was I exposed on and how was I exposed? I'm confused?
 
>>Last. Before you take shots
>>at "talking to 30 people",
>>my "call to action" came
>>while I was watching some
>>accountant that was dumb enough
>>to film himself not killing
>>elk on TV. Not
>>everyone will be exposed via
>>the same method you were.
>>
>>
>>
>>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>>PUBLIC LAND.
>
>What was I exposed on and
>how was I exposed? I'm
>confused?

I didn't grow up around guys that discussed public land, or any of the issues surrounding it. Like most I just took it for granted. Then I stumbled on Randy Newbergs show and was amazed that while every show had multiple kill shots, he showed himself eating tags. I looked into who he was, an accountant, but also what he preached, public land.

So "some accountant on TV" introduced me to the public land battles.

That was my point. Because you may bristle at or dislike my drumbeat isn't the point. Its the guys who were like me, not really thinking about it that I try to reach. If its because they agree, great. If its because I bug the crap out of them so they look into stuff to prove me wrong, great. Either way they are exposed to what's going on ACTUALLY, and hopefully added to guys who stand up.

Like I said. I have little patience for niceities, or the fakeness of politicians in public. I'm not a lawyer like Grizz. I was raised to "spit the shizz out of your mouth, and get on with it", so that's how I approach issues. Wasting time being nice to guys like Ivory is just that. He uses a smile, and flowery language to disguise his intentions. I'm less then impressed, nor do I buy into it. He will "cut your throat" in a second on land and not think twice, no sense pretending otherwise.



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
I'm not asking you to be nice, just accurate. I don't think that's too extreme of a request.

But to each his own.
 
This "artificial intelligence" he talks about makes me nervous. It will give artificial results. The value and taxes MUST be compared on today's conditions, landuse, and production. Not some futuristic what if scenario.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/11/14/utah-wants-put-price-tag/

Utah wants to put a price tag on its public lands, but is the effort worth it?

www.sltrib.com

What would Utah?s 35 million acres of federally managed public lands be worth if they were privately owned?

Figuring that out would be a daunting task, but state leaders believe it a worthwhile exercise because it could show how much tax revenue Utah is deprived of because of the prevalence of public lands in the Beehive State.

?We had a promise made in 1976 when the federal government said they were going to withhold our lands: We [Utah] would be paid in lieu of taxes,? Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, told a legislative management committee Tuesday seeking authorization to hire consultants to help develop a method for valuing vast reaches of federal land.

?We would be compensated equitably with the taxes that could be collected on [land that] was withheld,? he said. ?If the federal government withholds the land, it should not be our children who bear the expense of that. They should be held harmless.?

Under a complicated formula, the Interior Department provides counties annual sums, known as PILT, or?payment in lieu of taxes, to compensate them for the untaxable public lands within their jurisdictions. But rural counties, which rely heavily on property taxes to cover education and basic services, complain these payments don't make up for the loss in potential revenue.

PILT works in concert, however, with other federal programs that steer revenue to counties saddled with public land.

?They also get payments from the Forest Service. There is mineral-revenue sharing, they get Fish and Wildlife Service payments,? said Mark Haggerty of Headwaters Economics, a Montana-based think tank. ?If you're only looking at PILT, you are not comparing apples to apples. You?re comparing one apple to three apples.?

Payments do vary from year to year, depending on federal revenue generated off public lands and other factors. Last year, Utah was awarded $41 million under PILT.

HB357, which lawmakers passed last session, charges the Utah Commission on Federalism, which Ivory helps lead, to press Congress to ?secure payments in lieu of tax that are equivalent to the property tax the state would generate but for federally controlled land in the state.?

To that end, the commission will try to calculate Utah public lands? market values.

?Without that amount, we would have no basis for a discussion. It's a really big undertaking,? said Ivory, a leading voice in the movement to transfer federally managed public lands to state ownership.

On Tuesday, the Legislative Management Committee authorized Ivory?s request to seek proposals from outside consultants to develop a method to accomplish this in Washington County as a pilot. The contract would pay the consultant $25,000 to produce a demonstration program by Dec. 14

Ivory believes technology has already been developed that can complete statewide valuations for $20,000 to $25,000 per county, or about $750,000 for the the whole state.

Ivory has pointed to an ?artificial intelligence? data-analytics program developed by Domo, the American Fork-based business support firm, to help The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints valuate its extensive land holdings.

?They can put a unique identifier on every acre of federal land, looking at any variety of layers of data input they can analyze for compaction, hydrology, utilities, roads and calculate value,? he told the Commission of Federalism last month. ?It would allow us to adjust [to determine] if we could do roads and power lines, things we have been thwarted in doing, what would that do for value??

If the Washington County test proves successful, it could be applied to the state?s other 28 counties.

Some observers regard this effort as a fool?s errand because determining ?fair market value? of 35 million acres would ignore the nonmonetary benefits the land provides these counties and how access to nearby public lands increases land values.

?What values are you comparing? Highest and best use for a mall, or forest land managed for agriculture and timber?? Haggerty asked. ?Usually what states would say is, ?We could develop it if was private and we would be raking in gobs of money.? The fair comparison would be to value it on its current use.?

And that current use does not bode well for taxing entities in Utah, where private land associated with agriculture production is taxed at a steep discount.

Nearly all of Utah?s public lands ? outside of the 838,000 acres in national parks ? are open to livestock grazing, so local governments would not generate much revenue off these lands even if they were privately held.

Selecting a mushrooming southern Utah county for a demonstration is ?disingenuous and ridiculous,? said Steven Davis, a political science professor at Edgewood College in Wisconsin.

?St. George is growing precisely because it is surrounded by public land,? said Davis, author of a recently released book, ?In Defense of Public Lands: The Case Against Privatization and Transfer.?

?It's an amenity. People want to live near public land,? Davis said. ?Governments out East go through all sorts of trouble, floating bonds and creating funds to buy land. The ends to which they go to provide their citizens access to public land is tremendous, while Utah has an embarrassment of public lands.?

Ivory blames federal land management for obstructing rural communities from developing natural resources and infrastructure that would add value to counties? land bases.

Haggerty agrees the PILT system must be overhauled, but he argues the problem of inadequate payments requires a national solution that accounts for the diverse ways Western public lands states support education and government operations.

?Utah relies on property taxes; other states use income tax and sales tax to fund local government,? he said. ?The last thing Congress is going to do is allow local assessors and states to tell them how much they owe and expect Congress to write a check. It's not going to happen.?
 
How would it be to go through life where the only thing to be worried about is the "loss" of public land?

I've read so many threads about UT's public land dilemma here and UWN than anywhere else...

Whycome?
 
>I'm not asking you to be
>nice, just accurate. I don't
>think that's too extreme of
>a request.
>
>But to each his own.

Keep waiting to see you show me where I'm wrong.


So far all you've pointed out is the list of co sponsors. I never said anything about that.

Show me where I'm incorrect.

Because I said so ain't proof.

Go read NV now. Now we just had the state go from no $ allocated to $25k, Then $750k.


So where am I wrong according to you.

"Withholding our lands"
Straight from Ivory.

Why isn't it "withholding our payments" if its about payments.

So put it out there, you seem to have some insider, super secret info, so what's really going on here?


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-18 AT 12:46PM (MST)[p]>How would it be to go
>through life where the only
>thing to be worried about
>is the "loss" of public
>land?
>
>I've read so many threads about
>UT's public land dilemma here
>and UWN than anywhere else...
>
>
>Whycome?
That's the problem. Utah is just where we house folks dumb enough to keep pushing. But when they say "public land" they mean ALL of it. Including Texas, including every state. The fight is centered in Utah, but it ain't a Utah only fight.

Where are you from?


Hunting
Fishing
Camping
Shooting
Atv
Ski
Climb
Mtn bike
Watershed
Grazing

Truth is on the economic and numbers area, hunting is perhaps the smallest segment. Hunters just bare the burden.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-18 AT 01:54PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-18 AT 01:53?PM (MST)

That's all you gotta say Tripster?
From the guy who's hunting plans depends on invitations and trade work?

If the state is concerned about getting paid, maybe they should look at how they spend first!

You shouldn't be concerned about increasing your line of credit when your credit score is in the chiz hole and you've missed your last 8 months payments right?

If Utah is REALLY concerned about being short changed by the feds, maybe Utah should quit trying to put the carriage in front of the horses.
First fix the horrendous and retarded spending
Then look at the shortfalls by the feds.
But somehow, I feel like they already know this and the short falls have absolutely nothing to do with their intentions.




"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
>If Utah is REALLY concerned about
>being short changed by the
>feds, maybe Utah should quit
>trying to put the carriage
>in front of the horses.
>
>First fix the horrendous and retarded
>spending
>Then look at the shortfalls by
>the feds.
>But somehow, I feel like they
>already know this and the
>short falls have absolutely nothing
>to do with their intentions.

This is funny to me, and completely unrelated to the story, but Utah is one of the best fiscally managed states in the country. They don't have all the resources and revenue generators that other states have, and still balance a budget every single year. (required by the state constitution) And not only balance the budget, but often have wide surplus. But, carry on.

Hoss, I've pointed out where you are wrong more than one time. You can go back and read again if you want, or not. But I'm done with you. No reason to try and reason with the unreasonable. No different than a poaching discussion with tristate. He'll argue in circles and off topic until everyone else gives up and moves on, just like you're doing here.
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-18 AT 03:01PM (MST)[p]Remind me again where Utah ranks in education?
Remind me again if Utah public school teachers pay is comparable with neighboring states?
I have a few family members that have left Utah to teach elsewhere due to teachers pay. One in Washington and another just moved to Nevada. Nevada doubled her pay.

Do you believe a school district should be buying homes in in Park city for 870k to allow a super intendant to live in rent free without a mortgage and pay them a 170k/year salary and give them a car to drive? That's wise spending to you?
This is one situation of many!

Funny how every year the State brags about how well they manage our tax money. There's always a surplus. Out of the other side of their mouths, they're always wanting to raise taxes to fund education.

How did that proposition vote go for an increase in gas prices to fund education? :)

More money DOES NOT equal better education.

Administration salaries are excessive! A simple google search can show you district salaries. But to them, it's wise spending. I completely disagree.

Still no lottery in Utah.....there's other avenues to look down if they are concerned about education funding. So Ivory isn't fooling anyone. But go ahead a focus on how the feds are short changing Utah on tax money.

Just another attempt to squirm their way into selling public lands.

NV said it best in post #26









?Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
Nobody has pointed out that PILT funds are only part of the equation. The state and county governments also receive money from USFS, BLM, resource royalties, and other funds that would go away with a land grab.

To pretend that PILT funds are the only source of compensation is inaccurate and misleading.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-18 AT 03:12PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-18 AT 03:06?PM (MST)

>>If Utah is REALLY concerned about
>>being short changed by the
>>feds, maybe Utah should quit
>>trying to put the carriage
>>in front of the horses.
>>
>>First fix the horrendous and retarded
>>spending
>>Then look at the shortfalls by
>>the feds.
>>But somehow, I feel like they
>>already know this and the
>>short falls have absolutely nothing
>>to do with their intentions.
>
>This is funny to me, and
>completely unrelated to the story,
>but Utah is one of
>the best fiscally managed states
>in the country. They don't
>have all the resources and
>revenue generators that other states
>have, and still balance a
>budget every single year. (required
>by the state constitution) And
>not only balance the budget,
>but often have wide surplus.
>But, carry on.
>
>Hoss, I've pointed out where you
>are wrong more than one
>time. You can go back
>and read again if you
>want, or not. But I'm
>done with you. No reason
>to try and reason with
>the unreasonable. No different than
>a poaching discussion with tristate.
>He'll argue in circles and
>off topic until everyone else
>gives up and moves on,
>just like you're doing here.
>

And again, "you're wrong" isn't explaining why. The only thing you continue to repeat is "how is getting payments bad", over and over. I challenged you on that, NV did, much nicer than I, and you just keep repeating that same line.

I wrote a book basically on why I believe your wrong, yet you have yet to explain yourself.
You said it was "your duty to correct me", when are you going to start?

Or you can stick to "you are wrong cuz I said so"

Yoh repeated I was wrong at least 5 times. I was inaccurate, I jumped the shark, then you pasted the article.

I'm more blind than I thought because I saw not one REASON you shared as to HOW I was wrong.

I PM you respectfully to have you explain what I missed, you didn't answer. You don't answer here.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Vanilla,
Does it sound right to you for a teacher to make 47k a year to deal with 35+ students while a super intendant makes 180k a year, not have a house payment nor a car payment? Asking for a friend.

Does it sound like a state needs more money when they are buying houses for nearly a million dollars for their super intendants?

Does it sound more financially sound to give teachers an increase in pay by (and actually pay them what the median income per house hold) by taking from the overpaid top administration? Or did you vote yes on Proposition 4 to increase gas prices for everyone so the school districts can buy more homes for their top administrators?

















"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
I'll do my best to answer your questions, even if they've completely strayed from the purpose of this thread and the topic of what this study is doing. Talking in circles and red herrings is pretty common for people in discussions these days, and especially on this forum.

"Does it sound right to you for a teacher to make 47k a year to deal with 35+ students while a super intendant makes 180k a year, not have a house payment nor a car payment? Asking for a friend."

There are superintendents that make less, and teachers that make more. Using one situation to illustrate for the entire state is unconvincing at best. That said, I'm all for teachers making more money. Where is that going to come from? Cut that one superintendent's salary in half, and you get to give each of the teachers in the school district what, a $750 per year raise? Maybe even less. Does that give you your desired result? Something tells it won't. So, where is it going to come from?

"Does it sound like a state needs more money when they are buying houses for nearly a million dollars for their super intendants?"

The state didn't buy any house for nearly a million dollars as you describe above. That simply did not happen.

"Does it sound more financially sound to give teachers an increase in pay by (and actually pay them what the median income per house hold) by taking from the overpaid top administration? Or did you vote yes on Proposition 4 to increase gas prices for everyone so the school districts can buy more homes for their top administrators?"

Again, I'd support raising teacher salaries, but as I stated above, even getting rid of those administrators entirely is not going to fund teacher raises across the board in any meaningful way. So, where is the money going to come from? And no, I did not vote in favor of the gas tax increase. (Which was actually Question 1, not Proposition 4. But why on earth would we start worrying about factually accurate comments in this thread at this point???)
 
>How would it be to go
>through life where the only
>thing to be worried about
>is the "loss" of public
>land?
>
>I've read so many threads about
>UT's public land dilemma here
>and UWN than anywhere else...
>
>
>Whycome?

I wasn't attacking you by the way, I thought you asked a legit question.

I got this today via BHA

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees across 11 Western states and Alaska attract millions of visitors annually. In 2016, visits to these states resulted in 3.1 million hunting trips, 2.8 million fishing trips, and 2.2 million trips to view wildlife, generating more than $1 billion in salaries and wages, supporting 26,500 jobs, and producing over $421 million in federal, state, and local tax revenue. The total economic output, or value of all sales associated with these three types of recreational activities on BLM lands, was more than $3 billion.


keep in mind that is just BLM. So its not just a Utah thing. Its not just about cheap access like someone will tell you.

The other side will try and tell you that ground will produce way more in private hands, perhaps, in the areas with oil that is true. There isn't oil everywhere so there is no way to know. But pretending there isn't a benefit now is also not correct.

Hopefully I answered some of you question
From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
And we wonder why they keep saying the schools are underfunded. Looks like a great deal of the money goes to salaries.

The point here is salaries. Administrators make a lot Is that the way we want tax dollars spent?
We?ve already got property tax increases, a vote to increase gas prices.

Sorry, but these administration salaries are ridiculously high. That they may be higher in other states is irrelevant. Bringing home $10k or $20k per month in UT plus another $30k in benefits is way more than the market requires.










Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
And you failed to address the 500 pound gorilla in the room about how reducing administrator's salaries will help teachers at all. I'll be waiting on that one.

Park City School District is not the state. Just as an FYI...
 
Strange, aren't most people responsible for their own housing? Pay for her U- haul and call it good with a salary like that! 19k per month salary, you can easily afford your own home. Looks like a misuse in funds to me.
For 1 million They could have given every teacher in that school district a 5k bonus and not even have touched this ladies salary.
That's first!
And yet they keep coming at us for more and more and more money while they keep paying these "administrators" who have nothing to do with teaching the children exhorbitant salaries, bonuses and benefits. Buying her a house? Really? Let her buy her own home out of that big salary. No more taxes. Start cutting administration salaries and benefits to pay teachers more.
It's a start!


Nearly 6% of the revenue coming into the PCSD, per their budget, comes from the State. Yes, a portion of the budget comes from taxes that are paid from outside the school district.
So just because I'm not a resident of PC doesn't mean that I don't have right to be upset about it.

And when she starts pulling a state pension, will it just be Park City footing the bill?












"Wildlife and its habitat cannot speak. So
we must and we will."
Theadore Roosevelt
 
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........

Look at yall.

DO you know why you are bickering and scared?

Everything I told you is true. I'm sitting here watching yall cannibalize each other in fear of loosing your hunting. Yall can't decide which alphabet agency to hate or blame. You can't agree on what is too much pay for other people. You can't agree on what's important. Yall are finally in a panic because you are realizing the lie you have been told your whole life is falling to pieces. YOU DON'T OWN SPIT. This is exactly how welfare recipients act when you tell them the gubmint cheese is going to run out.


I'm going hunting this weekend. I suggest yall try and do the same. Be thankful of the blessings you have. Pray for blessings for your children. Work hard and be productive. Quit waiting for other people to bless you. Don't be bitter and spiteful when they don't.
 
>Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........
>
>Look at yall.
>
>DO you know why you are
>bickering and scared?
>
>Everything I told you is true.
> I'm sitting here watching
>yall cannibalize each other in
>fear of loosing your hunting.
> Yall can't decide which
>alphabet agency to hate or
>blame. You can't agree
>on what is too much
>pay for other people.
>You can't agree on what's
>important. Yall are finally
>in a panic because you
>are realizing the lie you
>have been told your whole
>life is falling to pieces.
> YOU DON'T OWN SPIT.
> This is exactly how
>welfare recipients act when you
>tell them the gubmint cheese
>is going to run out.
>
>
>
>I'm going hunting this weekend.
>I suggest yall try and
>do the same. Be
>thankful of the blessings you
>have. Pray for blessings
>for your children. Work
>hard and be productive.
>Quit waiting for other people
>to bless you. Don't
>be bitter and spiteful when
>they don't.


Says the guy reliant on others to "bless" him hunting spots

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Vanilla,
(I'm not arguing with you here. I only want to discuss this)

I wonder why they have chosen Washington County as their pilot model. They are unlikely to get the answer they want there. Average PILT payment for federal land in Washington County is approximately $2.71 per acre. I am having trouble navigating the Washington County assessors data but one fairly good sized parcel of private land with the ag exemptions was averaging about $0.057 per acre in property tax. Yes five point seven cents per acre! Mind you that's bare land, no improvements which is exactly what the BLM land is. That is almost exactly what I found after extensive research in Nevada. The $2.71 an acre is quite high for PILT. I know its a complicated formula used to calculate PILT but it is most often referred to in simple terms of $/Ac.

https://www.nbc.gov/pilt/counties.c...code=UT&fiscal_yr=2018&Search.x=50&Search.y=8

Again they should be careful what they wish for. What if that relationship holds true and they find their bare public land they want so bad isn't worth as much as private as it is in federal ownership?
 
LAST EDITED ON Nov-14-18 AT 07:36PM (MST)[p]NV.

Like I told Vanilla. I don't think the result is what is desired. I believe its the bill, signed on by the legislature giving a blessing for the appraisal.

An appraisal dine by ALC wouldn't stand up to the public or in court. One done by the state is a different story.

I don't think the results matter, its the bill granting it that does


I talked to Ivory last year when we were fighting the state giving away sovereign land on Utah Lake to a developer. Thought I'd kill 2 birds and ask him about this. Despite his words, he didn't seem too excited about the action, spent more time on "federalism" and states rights. Everything I've read since pretty much confirms that.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
?Again they should be careful what they wish for. What if that relationship holds true and they find their bare public land they want so bad isn't worth as much as private as it is in federal ownership??

Then they are out 20 grand and have no reason to continue wondering if they are getting fair value in their PILT payments.

It should be as simple as that, right?
 
Yup.

Its just that simple.

Ivory will disband the ALC

Berman will go back to liquor companies

Petri companies will just deal with the feds.

Yup, its just that simple


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

Hoss, the adults in the room are trying to discuss something here.
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

LAST EDITED ON Nov-15-18 AT 07:24AM (MST)[p]>Hoss, the adults in the room
>are trying to discuss something
>here.




From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

LAST EDITED ON Nov-15-18 AT 07:27AM (MST)[p]>Hoss, the adults in the room
>are trying to discuss something
>here.

Waiting for you to discuss anything. Telling folks they are wrong with no discussion is what my 7 yr old does. WHY AM I WRONG?
Not my tone

Why am I wrong on my assertion that Ken Ivory writing a bill that puts Ken Ivory(via the federalist commision that Ken Ivory also created)in charge of assessing federally held land is about setting conditions for the lawsuit the State has threatened over transfer?

Is there something I'm missing from Ivory s political career where he is a leading advocate for education funding?

I've talked to the guy. Read all the ALC crap I can find, watched videos of his county commision sells speeches, read articles he's written. I am seeing nothing. If I'm wrong I'm open to being corrected.


If you read NV article it quotes Ivory, he says $750k statewide. That doesn't sound he's stopping.



NV

You are well versed. What do you believe is going on with this?

Am I wrong asserting that while most of the legislature thinks its worth a shot, that Ivory is using it for his goal?


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

LAST EDITED ON Nov-15-18 AT 08:55AM (MST)[p]Tri-

There?s nothing wrong with Texas students.

There?s a lot wrong with Texas school funding.

Two big things:

1)The state share of funding keeps going down and down and down thanks to the idiot Dan Patrick and his cronies who want private education at the behest of their big donor buddies. Basically they want their snouts in the taxpayer trough so they can all get rich. So they strangle Texas public education for funds so they it will continue to suck and they can make the case for private education through vouchers.

2)Local districts cannot increase property taxes except to the caps placed on them by the State. So the people that matter most to ensure a quality education system-educators-continue to be underpaid and we cannot attract the quality people we need across the board.

So the districts do the only thing they can: pass bond packages that can only be used for physical infrastructure. That's why many school districts have beautiful facilities (especially sports facilities) filled with teachers that have a hard time making ends meet as their salaries remain stagnant and their benefits (retirement and insurance) keep getting slashed every two years when the legislature meets.

And one of the richest states in the union continues to rank right at the bottom with the poorest states like MS as the cycle of disdain for Texas public education continues in Austin.....
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

LAST EDITED ON Nov-15-18 AT 09:09AM (MST)[p]
Not to get off subject here, but the biggest problem with Texas education is the story those kids are taught of the Alamo.

They actually believe their version is TRUE! lol

What is it about the delusional self-aggrandizement of that state?

Grizzly
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

LAST EDITED ON Nov-15-18 AT 10:25AM (MST)[p]"Am I wrong asserting that while most of the legislature thinks its worth a shot, that Ivory is using it for his goal?" -Hoss

I don't know why I'm doing this, but I guess I'll try one more time.

Not "most" of the legislature. All of the legislature. Every. Single. One. The bill is not sponsored by Ivory, it's sponsored by every member of the House. All 75 of them sponsored the legislation. Every. Single. One. Does Ivory have hidden motives why he would support this specific issue? I'm sure he does. Do others as well? Who is to say? It would not be irrational to say that there could be 75 different goals behind this bill, not just Ivory's. Why is he the only one that could have other goals in mind behind any given issue, including this one?

This is why I have told you that you are wrong. I told you why you were wrong earlier, very early in this thread in fact, and you are wrong because THIS issue is not about transferring land. THIS issue is about the state's claim they are not receiving sufficient PILT payments. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ivory wants land transferred. There is no disputing that. He is not a friend to anyone in Utah that enjoys public lands. Period. His goal is clear. But what about the other 74 sponsors of this legislation? Or are you just so much smarter than all of them that even though they have been involved in all the talks and discussions behind THIS issue, they are stupid and being conned into this by Ivory while you have it all figured out? Or what about the 29 senators that unanimously voted to support THIS bill that all 75 House sponsors sent over to them? I guess you are just much more educated on THIS issue than they are too? Or maybe, just maybe, THIS issue is just what all 75+29 say it is...and not about a land transfer. At least not THIS time.

I'm not talking about land transfers, the ALC, Ken Ivory, or anything other than THIS issue. The possible results of this bill, as far as I can tell, include the following:

1- Utah spent $20,000 to figure out that they were wrong in believing PILT payments were too low. Nothing changes, and we move on.
2- Utah spends $20,000 and figures out they were correct and the feds have been shorting the counties on PILT payments. This results in further studies across other counties, and could spend up to $750,000 state wide. They take this information to the feds and they increase their PILT payments and counties receive more money from the federal government.
3- Utah spends $20,000 and figures out they were correct and the feds have been shorting the counties on PILT payments. This results in further studies across other counties, and could spend up to $750,000 state wide. They take this information to the feds and they tell the state to pound sand, and nothing changes and we are out $750,000.

I acknowledge that the specific details of the three options above could be somewhat fluid, but generally speaking, THIS is what we are talking about here. I'm okay with a state spending money to ensure others are meeting their legal obligations to the state (or counties, in this case). But regardless of which of the three above scenarios play out, THIS issue will not result in a single acre of transferred land. THIS issue is not about a land transfer. Do people that support THIS issue want to transfer land? Yes. Do people that vigorously oppose the transfer of federal lands support THIS issue? Yes.

So continue to mix them all you want, and I will continue to tell you that you are wrong in doing so. Then we can go around in circles for another week and 75 more posts about how I haven't told you where you are wrong and how I love Ken Ivory and how you are so smart and you don't care about being nice and you are getting things done and this and that and whatever. I really don't care, and I'm really done with you this time. I just wanted to make sure that the record is clear about what THIS issue is about, regardless of what you try to make it out to be.

PS- Grizz, your post literally made me laugh out loud. Well done.
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

Vanilla

Like I said. Had any other rep WRITTEN this I would have watched but not said much. Ivory wrote it, it gives the task to a commision that Ivory created(along with Niederhauser), and Ivory is the point man it raises the question.


I believe your 3 results might be.

But I would add #4.

The appraisal decides the feds are shorting Utah, the feds tell Utah to pound sand, and this is the springboard for the land transfer lawsuit that Reyes and Herbert have put lawyers on retainer for.


Your right I don't know their thoughts, but you and I know on an election year the commercial would be...

"Insert rep here, had an opportunity to secure millions in school funds by joining with a bill that seeks to do so with little cost to tax payers. Its time for, insert rep here, to stand for Utah kids, Utah education"

I don't KNOW but I suspect the majority signed on for a reason similar to that.

I also believe any finding other than the PITL payments are correct will become ALC new campaign.

But I appreciate you laying out your WHY'S.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

I sure hope they are honest in their dealings and relay all funds provided by the feds to the state and not just use PILT funds as the basis for their argument. As I stated in #41...

PILT funds are only part of the equation. The state and county governments also receive money from USFS, BLM, natural resource royalties, and other funding that would go away with a land grab.

To pretend that PILT funds are the only source of compensation is inaccurate and misleading.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

-Grizzly
>To pretend that PILT funds are
>the only source of compensation
>is inaccurate and misleading.

Grizz, this is the second time I've seen you say this. Except you're the only person I see saying anything about it being the only source of compensation. I didn't read that in the article and I haven't seen anyone say it in this thread. Unless I missed it? What are you referring to? Who is being inaccurate and misleading?
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

Go read every news article and press release on this bill and you'll see politicians complain repeatedly about PILT being "pennies" in lieu of taxes.

Have you ever seen anybody make that complaint under the context of the additional federal funds they receive because of federal management? Nope.

I've read Hughes quotes on this subject for years and I've never once seen him portray an accurate picture. Instead they sell it with what they perceive as a low PILT payment and ignore the rest. To do so is inaccurate and misleading.

You're correct, I'm the only one bringing that up. That's my point exactly!

Grizzly
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-18 AT 11:36AM (MST)[p]I guess I need you to educate me on something with this. I know there are other forms of payment coming to counties from other agencies, but how do they relate to PILT? (If at all?)

Are these agencies providing these payments under the other umbrella of PILT? Or are those under different and separate programs?

*edit- And I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought your point was someone was being misleading by making the claim, since you said it twice.
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-18 AT 12:14PM (MST)[p]If I walk up to you and hand you five $100 bills and you stick four of them in your pocket and complain about only receiving $100, that statement would be inaccurate and misleading. That is basically what happens every time somebody complains about PILT without mentioning all the other funds they're receiving.

I'm happy to educate you on the relationship between those other federal funds and how they are calculated under the PILT umbrella. From an article on PILT...

"Under a complicated formula, the Interior Department provides counties annual sums, known as PILT, or?payment in lieu of taxes, to compensate them for the untaxable public lands within their jurisdictions.

PILT works in concert, however, with other federal programs that steer revenue to counties saddled with public land."

PILT allocations are calculated after subtracting for other federal funds received due to federal land ownership, they're not in-addition-to those other funds. To pick that one PILT apple out of the basket and ignore the other figures at the top of the equation is misleading.

An accurate analysis by Hughes would compare his appraised value with the totality of federal funds, not just PILT.

But nobody mentions the other funds used in the calculation, they point to the bottom line figure and hope nobody is smart enough to dig deeper.

Grizzly
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

"The authorized level of PILT payments is calculated under a complex formula. No precise dollar
figure can be given in advance for each year?s PILT authorized level. Five factors affect the
calculation of a payment to a given county: the number of acres eligible for PILT payments, the
county?s population, payments in prior years from other specified federal land payment programs,
state laws directing payments to a particular government purpose, and the Consumer Price Index
as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics."

The "state laws" it refers to involves "pass-through" payments affected by things such as The Taylor Grazing Act and how counties fund education. Fyi, Utah qualifies for the higher "pass through" payments by deducting the "payments in prior years from other specified federal land payment programs."

Grizzly
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

I guess we'll have to see when the study is done if those other payments are factored in or not. Tough to know just based upon article online what the full extent will be.

The good thing about all this is not one acre of land is being irrationally demanded or even proposed for transfer or sale in this. So I'll be patient with the details as they roll out.

As I've said above, the downside to this is basically nothing, and if results in higher payments to the state (counties) for education, that's wonderful. Who is going to complain about that?

If the state is wrong and they're getting their fair share, that ends the discussion.
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

Vanilla,

I have great respect for the viewpoints you have shared here on MM over the years and this thread is no different. I really hope you're correct in what you say. Maybe this bill is truly an honest attempt to evaluate PILT as it compares to property taxes and that there are no ulterior motives. But I cannot just ignore Ken Ivory's past history and put my faith in the rest of the Utah legislators. As I said in my first response, the way the bill is promoted no legislator could be against it without committing political suicide. You say "Every. Single. One." of those legislators are cosponsors. That is true. But they may have become cosponsors after the fact.
29271ivory.jpg

All the other cosponsors are listed below the photos. This looks to me like it is Ivory's bill and everyone else tagged on. Again, they have no real choice.

I don't believe that PILT will be less than property taxes on similar, adjacent private property if looked at correctly. I also have no faith that this artificial intelligence will make an accurate, present day, apples-to-apples comparison. I believe other agendas will surface at some point and when they do there will be attempts to use this by transfer proponents. I don't trust Ivory as far as I can throw him.

I could be wrong. And if I am I will own it. But no-harm-no-foul right?
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

Grizz; PILT is mandated other funding the Forest or BLM gives to states,county's or communities are not tied to the value of the land it is budgeted into there funding and it can go up or down it can even go away it is not mandated to be paid out.
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-18 AT 06:29PM (MST)[p]I'm not asking anyone to trust Ken Ivory. I don't trust him myself. I am not even asking people to support this legislation or action by the legislature. I am not opposed to it myself, but I don't believe it's going to result in increased PILT payments.

But what I have little patience for these days in my old age is misrepresenting something to drive an agenda. That's how this post started. Just look at the title. It's simply false. So when I see that things are being manipulated for an agenda, I'll point it out. Even if I ultimately agree with the side that's manipulating. Which is the case here.

There is a possibility for things to happen regarding public lands and natural resources that have nothing to do with the great land grab. When those things happen, I will view them in the frame that they are in, not in a frame that is something completely separate.
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

>Grizz; PILT is mandated other funding
>the Forest or BLM gives
>to states,county's or communities are
>not tied to the value
>of the land it is
>budgeted into there funding and
>it can go up or
>down it can even go
>away it is not mandated
>to be paid out.

Which is why the amount paid from those avenues is used to calculate annual PILT payments, so that those discretionary funds are appropriately applied. That potential problem has already been solved.

Grizzly

-----------------------------------------
"This is a classic case of a handful of greedy fly fishermen getting too greedy." -Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as told to KUTV

"It's time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource."
-Don Peay, Founder of SFW, as quoted in Anchorage Daily News
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

So?

It takes a Political Thread to Pull NVB out of the Wood Work?









I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!:D:D:D
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

While this bill appears to some of you to be separated from the land transfer issue, it reminds me of the term "grooming" which is the step by step process used by child abuse predators to gain access to children for illegal sex acts. Sometimes it take years, sometimes they even groom the parents with "favors", but they never stop until they get what they want. Ivory knows what he wants and how to get it!
 
I see they are using AI (artificial intelligence) to make these calculations.

Isn?t AI the reason for Utahns, not so nice nick name to to start with?
 
RE: Its a constant %attempt to steal

LAST EDITED ON Nov-18-18 AT 03:17PM (MST)[p]>LAST EDITED ON Nov-16-18
>AT 06:29?PM (MST)

>
>I'm not asking anyone to trust
>Ken Ivory. I don't trust
>him myself. I am not
>even asking people to support
>this legislation or action by
>the legislature. I am not
>opposed to it myself, but
>I don't believe it's going
>to result in increased PILT
>payments.
>
>But what I have little patience
>for these days in my
>old age is misrepresenting something
>to drive an agenda. That's
>how this post started. Just
>look at the title. It's
>simply false. So when I
>see that things are being
>manipulated for an agenda, I'll
>point it out. Even if
>I ultimately agree with the
>side that's manipulating. Which is
>the case here.
>
>There is a possibility for things
>to happen regarding public lands
>and natural resources that have
>nothing to do with the
>great land grab. When those
>things happen, I will view
>them in the frame that
>they are in, not in
>a frame that is something
>completely separate.

Ivory is the ALC lobbyist. He has sold his "vision" literally for years.

Ivory as part of his "vision" loves to expose the federalist believes.

Ivory sets up, and heads the federalist commision in Utah.

Ivory writes a bill giving the federalist commision the task of this appraisal.


Now Vanilla I realize my tone has offended you, but if you look at Ivory s career you see the step by step long view approach he is taking.

Sure each step by itself might not be alarming, but its his continued long view, chipping at the edges, looking for a weak spot that is at play here.

I talk to legislators about land issues all the time. Unless they are tied into a cause, many sign on to bills, and support them in exchange for support on their bills. Many simply don't care, or don't have the time to look.

"Millions for education" without a tax increase, is can easy sell.

Death by a thousand cuts. Not really an new strategy here.



Btw. I got $50 says Lee, Bishop, Ivory use the Cali fires as "further proof" of the feds not able to manage land like the states could.

Takers?


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Well, we paid $700,000 to the company Ken Ivory works for to appraise Utah's federal land. It came back with additional PILT funds owed of $500 Million.

Then somebody figured out that much of the land was in Greenbelt (such as BLM land) and the actual amount would be much less; some counties would even get less money than they're getting now...so they want to strip the $500M number from their Resolution.

They also realized if they raise the value of federal lands, they must also raise the taxable value of nearby private lands, which would harm farmers and ranchers that can't pay the increased taxes (basically what's happening on "Yellowstone", the TV show).

So... that was $700k wasted.

 
Its almost as if Ken Ivory is a snake oil salesman?

But hey. Ken Ivory, Ryan Benson, Don Peay. Look at all the value brought to Utah with these wonderful actors.

Can't wait for Vanilla to jump in here and tell me how wrong I was about this.

$700k gone. Seems like $700k would pay for a few teachers?


But the best line, "it could help Utah recover from Covid-19"- Ken Ivory.


Yup. Driving Utah ag out of business should really help the Wuhan.

You know. Its almost as if someone could see this for what it was. Oh, that's right, EVERYONE could.
 
Last edited:
How he can co-sponsor a bill to pay someone to do something and then have that money paid to his own company is beyond me.

If that is allowed, then heaven help us all.
 
Huh. Yup, im shocked. Its so unlike him. Could have never seen that coming, oh wait, Ray Charles saw that coming
 
Vanilla.

Lets pretend Tommorow Utah had all the public land under its control

How does that generate a single dollar for education?


How does millions of acres of juniper, pine, sagebrush create revenue to fund schools?

When you truthfully answer those 2 questions you get to the REAL reason behind "transfer".


BTW why is public land a R vs D issue? Other than R addeding it just recently to their platform as a fund raising issue.?







From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
The state could make money by leasing the grazing rights in the PJ and implementing sound forestry logging practices instead of turning our spruce stands into beetle fodder and fire. Logging can be profitable, burning is always a sunk cost. The Dixie National Forest looked a lot better before environmentalists groups appealed the loggers out of business.
 
Because your assumption is that there would be no lawsuits vs the state?

The fire that burned from indianola to mapleton last year cost $110 million to fight. That's just 1 fire.

How many beetle killed trees does it take to just cover forest fire fighting?
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom