Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: metalaficionado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,540

    Proposition 119 - more development in disguise?

    This sounds good on the surface but something smells fishy. Watch the video - it basically trades state land around military bases for federal... well that's fine. But then they say something interesting... that feds are better at conservation and Arizona can take over land for making revenue....selling off to the developers? So basically acquire fed conservation areas and sell it or lease it....

    Vote 2012 AZ Horizon - Eight AZ PBS

    State Trust Lands

    A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution of Arizona; amending Article x, constitution of Arizona, by adding Section 12; relating to state trust lands.

    A "yes" vote shall have the effect of authorizing the exchange of state trust lands if the exchange is related to either protecting military facilities or improving the management of state trust lands and prescribes the process for such exchanges. This process includes two independent appraisals and analyses, public hearings, and approval by public vote.

    A "no" vote shall have the effect of keeping current constitutional law related to state trust lands.

  2. #2
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    4,400
    I think they were referring to the feds in the context of the buffer zones around facilities and installations.
    The real scary one out there is Prop 120...that's the real land grab.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    51
    Can you give me your take on this one. They make these props so confusing by how they word them that sometimes a yes vote can mean no and vice versa.

    What I get out of prop 120 is that a YES vote gives AZ control over it's public lands and natural resources within AZ excluding indian reservations and lands which have already been ceded by the state of AZ.
    If this is the case, I am all for AZ taking control of the public lands rather than the federal government.
    Maybe I am reading it wrong, if so please post up your interpertation of this prop.

    A lot of these props are tricky & I think they do it on purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maadjurguer View Post
    I think they were referring to the feds in the context of the buffer zones around facilities and installations.
    The real scary one out there is Prop 120...that's the real land grab.

  4. #4
    My other ride is your mom
    Reputation: Maadjurguer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    4,400
    Here is a nice point-counter point on the issue.

    Vote 2012 AZ Horizon - Eight AZ PBS

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Eazy_E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,433
    Prop 120 is a tricky issue. Article 1 Section 8 describes the powers Congress has. Amendment 10 says that Congress only has the explicit powers it's enumerated with, and everything else is a state or personal right. Therefore, to me, Congress should not be in the land ownership business. States should be mostly sovereign, as originally intended, with a small Federal government. Do people 2500 miles away in DC, people who never left the Beltway, really know how to manage our land better than we do?

    I can see both sides to the issue. If your state is mostly public, the revenue possibilities are limited. But, if the state can't manage what land it does have, how can it increase it's responsibilities and still have adequate management?

    I'd support the state owning the National Forest land, as long as it mostly remains status quo. I don't have a problem with selective timber harvesting, cattle grazing, mineral exploration, etc as technology has gotten to the point where the long term environmental impact is negated. I'd also be in favor of use fees for individual recreation. Like the Tonto Pass. Use fees are the fairest way to raise money. Use it, pay, if not, you don't.

    I dunno. I'm not going to say the Feds are managing the land optimally, but I'm not sure the state is presently equipped to handle it either. Tricky, tricky.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: stevland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    504
    Why not just claim Squatter's Rights?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    425

    Initiative 120 = Public Lands Fire Sale

    Having seen how the Arizona Legislature gutted Arizona State Parks, I know their land management priorities are not towards supporting recreational usage. Where Federal lands are concerned, their intent is even more obvious.

    Conservatives do no believe in the public ownership of land. See below a quote from the Payson Roundup newspaper regarding statements made by two Republican legislative candidates.

    "Crandell and Barton have said in appearances in Payson that if the state seized control of federal lands the Legislature would do a better job of managing the forest and would move to sell off vast tracts of federal land, which would then stimulate economic growth."

    In my opinion, one of the greatest things about the state of Arizona, especially from a mountain biking standpoint, is just how much of the land is in Federal hands. Think of the number of your favorite trails that are on Forest Service or BLM land.

    VOTE AGAINST 120

Posting Permissions

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