Utah uses eminent domain on Fed land

[Bobby]

Wow, talk about an interesting year for states really pushing back against the federal governent. Anything from anti-Real Id legislation to asserting the Tenth Amendment to the Freedom Firearms Act in many states. Now attorney generals are initiating lawsuits over the healthcare debacle.


I check my favorite news sites tonight and see the following story: The Associated Press: Utah gov. OKs eminent domain use on federal land

I don't know what is going to happen with it but I like the trend of the individual states taking back more of their rightful authority under the US Constitution. Why does the most interesting stuff seem to happen out West? Anyway, what are your thoughts?

 

[hornadylnl]

I'd like to see the people use eminent domain and take back land from all levels of government. The government has no business owning land other than the absolute minimum needed to conduct their business. IE courthouses, jails, etc. The government shouldn't be owning thousands upon thousands of acres for parks, etc.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I'd like to see the people use eminent domain and take back land from all levels of government. The government has no business owning land other than the absolute minimum needed to conduct their business. IE courthouses, jails, etc. The government shouldn't be owning thousands upon thousands of acres for parks, etc.

WELL SAID!

thanks to the OP for the post!!

 

[irishfan]

I realize that this will probably get over turned by the supreme court but I do love that Utah is taking a stand.

 

[Tryin']

You don't like parks? Hoosier National, Yellowstone? I'm pretty sure private industry would not put land to such use. . .It's the only way a LOT of us get to experience the "great outdoors".

 

[UncleMike]

You don't like parks? Hoosier National, Yellowstone? I'm pretty sure private industry would not put land to such use. . .It's the only way a LOT of us get to experience the "great outdoors".

Parks are great.
BUT
The Feds own millions of acres that are setting fallow and benefiting no one.
Mike

 

[bman]

the federal gov. make law, pass the implementation onto the states. the states budgets are already in the red. the states are getting "fed" up, and start pushing back.

 

[SavageEagle]

I don't mind the states owning park land. After how the railroads of the late 1800's took over land I don't want to see private business develop the last remaining parts of our great outdoors.

Can you imagine if oil companies had started drilling Yellowstone with the technology they had 20-30-40 years ago? There would be no park.

However, I'm with hornaday on this. I'd rather see the PEOPLE take back their lands from government. But only if there was a way to keep the parks safe.

 

[E5RANGER375]

if all states stood up to the feds and did this the feds would be overwhealmed and crippled to fight against all of them. also this will lower high overvalued and inflated property values because it will increase the supply. there are plenty of parks, so the parks arent gonna lose here. look at how much land clinton unneccisarily make protected just to BUY votes! time to take it back and undo the wrongs of the feds in the past. STATES RIGHTS FIRST!

 

[BloodEclipse]

This is indeed interesting. I wonder how much weight will be brought to bear against the State of Utah by this administration?

 

[jeremy]

Go Utah!!!

They keep rolling along this path I may move!

 

[smokingman]

They are ahead of the curve for sure.
Be Ready Utah
There news lol
Obama's $900B health plan could trigger financial meltdown | Deseret News

 

[StarKing]

I am concerned about the possibility of large scale destruction of National Parks, however I am more concerned about the possibility of large scale destruction of our Freedom. The latter is a far bigger issue to me at this point.
I'm in favor of anything to help put the brakes on our runaway federal government until they finally get the picture about who are the legitimate rulers of this nation.

 

[hornadylnl]

You don't like parks? Hoosier National, Yellowstone? I'm pretty sure private industry would not put land to such use. . .It's the only way a LOT of us get to experience the "great outdoors".

Show me the constitutional authority of the federal government to run parks. Why can't a private entity run these parks? Where does the constitution say that I or any other American owe you the experience of the "great outdoors?

Like Ranger said, land values are artificially inflated due to the government limiting the supply of it.

 

[irishfan]

This is indeed interesting. I wonder how much weight will be brought to bear against the State of Utah by this administration?

Rahm and crew already struck the first smart shot when they made the Governor of Utah the new ambassador to China. Huntsman was a major player in the Republican party and possible presidential nominee so they made him an offer he could not refuse

 

[rambone]

At very least, I'd like to see the states control the parks, and not the almighty Federal Government.

 

[MikeBear]

There is no reason for the federal government to control any parks. The states are very capable to manage their own land. It should be up to the people of the state to say what land needs to be protected and what can be private.

 

[dross]

The part that disturbs me about federal land is that it seems that the movement is for more and more limits on public use. They've squeezed grazing and mineral use, and limited more for hunting. More of the example of the federal government in Washington being separate and apart from the rest of us. Why can't individual states make those decisions answerable to the people who actually live in those states?

 

[T-rav]

Utah and Texas are leading the fight to take back America.

Show me the constitutional authority of the federal government to run parks. Why can't a private entity run these parks? Where does the constitution say that I or any other American owe you the experience of the "great outdoors?

Like Ranger said, land values are artificially inflated due to the government limiting the supply of it.

You beat me to it. This is how capitalism works if there is a market for it someone will provide the service for it! Uncle Ted owns alot of land that hasn't been destroyed, he is a nature lover and Im sure someone like him would love to be a investor of something as great as Yellowstone. Plus I trust him to protect it better anyways. Just my pennies on it though.

 

[rhart]

I'd like to see the people use eminent domain and take back land from all levels of government. The government has no business owning land other than the absolute minimum needed to conduct their business. IE courthouses, jails, etc. The government shouldn't be owning thousands upon thousands of acres for parks, etc.

I have mixed feelings on this. I love our national parks and Federal land for hunting, fishing, shooting,and general recreation. Hunting is quickly becoming a rich man sport. Try booking a Elk hunt out west on private land. It will cost you 10-15 Grand. The government land is to be used by all of us when we want. At first when I saw the post I thought, hell yes, we'll give the ole govt a little taste. After thinking about it though, once you open the flood gates, the big ranchers with big bucks and good lawyers will start taking the land back for private ownership for "better use for the people"
The average person cant actually afford to buy enough land to really enjoy backpacking, hunting, shooting and ATV'ing