02-21-2009, 01:53 AM
Just wanted to give an update and share some very long winded thoughts. After sitting through that committee hearing I feel like running my head through a freaking brick wall, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over......again!
I must say, I am very disappointed. From the start of the meeting I was disappointed. First thing that disappointed me was that I still don't believe that Ben Ferry is accurately portraying his bill for what it really is. Second, that crafty S.O.B. was smart enough to get two people in the "explanation" portion of the hearing that both should have been in the public comment portion, essentially giving one side about 40+ minutes of time and the other barely over 20.
Here are some really bothersome points for me to focus on. Hopefully they make sense:
1-Ferry claims that he has tried to reach across the line here for a workable situation and compromise. But the two people he brought with him to "explain" the bill were (1) Randy Sessions...the same Randy Sessions that was a collective landowner party in Conatser v. Johnson and (2) some shmuck from the Farm Bureau that all he did was pimp private property rights. So if you are so concerned with both sides....where is the representation from the other side supporting you?
2-The debate turned from a property interest debate to a privacy interest debate. HB 187 has nothing to do with privacy, and property rights don't have to do with privacy. The logic behind Mel Brown's "privacy" gripe is so flawed I'm not sure it is even worth addressing. But it passed the committee, so I guess it is worth it after all. Since when has private property ensured you a right from someone looking at your house? And especially someone coming within 500, no...300....no wait, 150 feet of your house to look at it? So, the "privacy interest buffer" that is recognized now by our state legislature is 50 yards? So if some kids are playing hop-scotch on the sidewalk in front of my house....MY PROPERTY DAMMIT....I can call the cops to remove them because recreating within 50 yards of my house, even where the law recognizes an easement, causes privacy issues? We don't want one of those kids looking in my window, now do we?
3-I loved listening to the landowner who used the sensational story of the snowmobiler who he had to confront on his property that used Conatser stating that snow is waters of the State and he had the right to be upon the waters of the State. BS buddy, BS. It's too bad that some of the sorry saps sitting on the stand bought it. Even if this did happen, everyone knows that Conatser does not apply to that. And that should have been pointed out by someone.
4-I was bothered by the presence of Representative McIff. I don't know what the protocol for other reps coming in are, but I really felt that it was a tactical decision made by not only Ferry, but by Chair Barrus (who supports this bill) to sway the votes of the committee. But what do I know?
4-The most troubling thing that I had with this was EVERY SINGLE PERSON who spoke today, on both sides....even Ferry himself for hell's sake, said the bill was not perfect and had some rough edges to work out. Did anyone else notice this? I was so bothered by the fact that even Mr Sloan from the Utah Realtor's Association talked about how he thought groups should come together and make this happen.....but then backed the bill. If that is the case....why are we not doing that? I think this is a point that all representatives need to know. Nobody in that room, including Ferry himself, was comfortable saying this was the ultimate solution to the problem at hand.
5-McIff's closing remarks about how people were murdered all the time in Utah's past over unclear water rights, and if the legislature didn't step in and pass this bill, we would go back to that? WTF? Huh? Then Ferry's, "Whiskey's for drinking and we're going to have a war if we don't fix the poor decision of Conatser." Really? Where are all these conflicts? Where are all these heated confrontations that are taking place? Where are all these eyes getting gouged out like McIff was rambling about? Conatser was decided over 7 months ago. Has anyone heard a thing about it on the news since it happened, up until HB 187 came into fruition? What a joke!
Well, those are some of my preliminary thoughts. I was really frustrated listening to some of the crap that was spewed. I felt Rob Hughes was spot on with his analysis, and thanks to the others as well. If this passes, it will see the floor before the Supreme Court again. Today really confirmed that for me. And the Court can rule in our favor once again.
[signature]
I must say, I am very disappointed. From the start of the meeting I was disappointed. First thing that disappointed me was that I still don't believe that Ben Ferry is accurately portraying his bill for what it really is. Second, that crafty S.O.B. was smart enough to get two people in the "explanation" portion of the hearing that both should have been in the public comment portion, essentially giving one side about 40+ minutes of time and the other barely over 20.
Here are some really bothersome points for me to focus on. Hopefully they make sense:
1-Ferry claims that he has tried to reach across the line here for a workable situation and compromise. But the two people he brought with him to "explain" the bill were (1) Randy Sessions...the same Randy Sessions that was a collective landowner party in Conatser v. Johnson and (2) some shmuck from the Farm Bureau that all he did was pimp private property rights. So if you are so concerned with both sides....where is the representation from the other side supporting you?
2-The debate turned from a property interest debate to a privacy interest debate. HB 187 has nothing to do with privacy, and property rights don't have to do with privacy. The logic behind Mel Brown's "privacy" gripe is so flawed I'm not sure it is even worth addressing. But it passed the committee, so I guess it is worth it after all. Since when has private property ensured you a right from someone looking at your house? And especially someone coming within 500, no...300....no wait, 150 feet of your house to look at it? So, the "privacy interest buffer" that is recognized now by our state legislature is 50 yards? So if some kids are playing hop-scotch on the sidewalk in front of my house....MY PROPERTY DAMMIT....I can call the cops to remove them because recreating within 50 yards of my house, even where the law recognizes an easement, causes privacy issues? We don't want one of those kids looking in my window, now do we?
3-I loved listening to the landowner who used the sensational story of the snowmobiler who he had to confront on his property that used Conatser stating that snow is waters of the State and he had the right to be upon the waters of the State. BS buddy, BS. It's too bad that some of the sorry saps sitting on the stand bought it. Even if this did happen, everyone knows that Conatser does not apply to that. And that should have been pointed out by someone.
4-I was bothered by the presence of Representative McIff. I don't know what the protocol for other reps coming in are, but I really felt that it was a tactical decision made by not only Ferry, but by Chair Barrus (who supports this bill) to sway the votes of the committee. But what do I know?
4-The most troubling thing that I had with this was EVERY SINGLE PERSON who spoke today, on both sides....even Ferry himself for hell's sake, said the bill was not perfect and had some rough edges to work out. Did anyone else notice this? I was so bothered by the fact that even Mr Sloan from the Utah Realtor's Association talked about how he thought groups should come together and make this happen.....but then backed the bill. If that is the case....why are we not doing that? I think this is a point that all representatives need to know. Nobody in that room, including Ferry himself, was comfortable saying this was the ultimate solution to the problem at hand.
5-McIff's closing remarks about how people were murdered all the time in Utah's past over unclear water rights, and if the legislature didn't step in and pass this bill, we would go back to that? WTF? Huh? Then Ferry's, "Whiskey's for drinking and we're going to have a war if we don't fix the poor decision of Conatser." Really? Where are all these conflicts? Where are all these heated confrontations that are taking place? Where are all these eyes getting gouged out like McIff was rambling about? Conatser was decided over 7 months ago. Has anyone heard a thing about it on the news since it happened, up until HB 187 came into fruition? What a joke!
Well, those are some of my preliminary thoughts. I was really frustrated listening to some of the crap that was spewed. I felt Rob Hughes was spot on with his analysis, and thanks to the others as well. If this passes, it will see the floor before the Supreme Court again. Today really confirmed that for me. And the Court can rule in our favor once again.
[signature]
as to why the legislature thinks they can over -rule the Utah Supreme Court's decision like this. Not every law a legislature passes is constitutional. If this passes, it will be over-ruled again by the court. Its really quite a simple analysis. Ben Ferry is an idiot.