On December 15th the Pima County Board of Supervisors demonstrated again it is long on emotional appeal and uninformed hyperbole, but short on rational thought and solutions to the challenges facing their constituents and taxpayers they are elected to represent. Based upon well established past issues, we should not be surprised that some members of the Board would act prematurely, on conjecture instead of upon fact.
It has been my experience to observe that the Board consistently and too quickly offers a singular solution, always taking the form of tax increases, to every prob-lem, and in this case working diligently to separate property from the people. They do not hesitate to dishonor their oath of office to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America”, overtly working to deny voters of Pima County their civil rights as they subvert the republican (small “r”) form of government that has been granted to all of us.
Equal footing and the fairness of being a State in the union
The Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, religion, freedom from self-incrimination, security in our persons, homes and affects. We also have the right to self-determination and local governance stated clearly in the Article IV, which was purposefully designed, ensure local decision making and to prevent the en-forcement of the federal government’s will over the people.
Socialism by definition is a violation of our civil rights extracting massive amounts of federal taxpayer funds and borrowed funds that are “granted” to States, and always with strings attached. Those strings are the control that we are supposed to be free of as a sovereign state, like all of our sister states east of the Mississippi.
By contrast, on December 9th, the State of Utah commissioned a project de-signed to explain the legal case for class action, civil rights litigation and is now available to anyone who wishes to file a suit to redress the grievance. The solu-tion is federal land transfers to various State Land Trusts in western states, such as in Arizona.
Developing a fair and sound foundation for education funding is the goal. Use fees and taxes from BLM managed land for example, are sent to Washington, DC instead of providing benefits to the Arizona State Land Trust where they were originally intended.
Consider who is willing to accept the challenge: The Arizona Legislature recog-nizes that those funds intended for education, are being robbed from our school children; and refuses to dismiss our responsibility to protect civil rights and pro-tect our environment all at the same time.
To get the facts, read the legal brief at http://www.veritasresearchconsulting.com/Statehood/Legal_Analysis_for_the Stuardship_of_Public_Lands.pdf
PERC Divided Lands Study
The Property and Environment Research Center is a nonprofit institute that has published a peer-reviewed study of Divided Lands, State –v- Federal in the Western States, the facts in this study report tell a very different story than that the Pima County Board of Supervisors would have you believe. http://www.perc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/150303 PERC DividedLands.pdf.
For those who criticize the affordability for states to manage federally controlled lands, here is the proof we are rightfully addressing this important issue. For every $1.00 that the state of Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho and Montana spend to manage public lands, $14.51 is returned to the states. By contrast, for every $1.00 spent by the federal government only 73 cents is returned to the federal bureaucracy.
Conservatively stated, by moving only BLM controlled lands to the states (listed above), land that is already in production and generating income, would provide the necessary foundation to solve the education funding challenge.
Never allow the facts to get in the way of a cause.
Weather disingenuous statements or outright lies, there are dishonest statements promoted by the Board in its resolution that cannot be ignored. While public lands employ hundreds of county residents. The lands are not “locally” managed due to the fact that “local management” is State Management, not federal agency management. The work would not disappear with a transfer.
It must be clarified that nobody in State Government has proposed the sale of lands that are currently in production for what the Board describes as “grazing, mineral and fuels extraction”.
The truth is, The Arizona Legislature has empaneled a Federal Lands Transfer Study Committee to examine more than the process of transferring, managing and disposal of land, from the temporary control of various federal agencies to the State of Arizona. This FLTSC is examining factual evidence, economic im-pact studies, environmental impact studies and statutory provisions for appropri-ate land management – a most significant truth left out of the Board’s position on this specific issue.
In conclusion
As at least one member of the Board might conclude, using a broad brush to paint a narrow line doesn’t work. We care deeply about the future of Arizona and we are hopeful others on the Board might reconsider their positions on topics so critical to the future of Arizona – protecting our promised heritage, our civil rights and educating the children of our Great State.