Sunday, September 18, 2005

Utahns Must Defend Freedoms

By Steve Huntsman
Weber Sentinel News
September 2, 2005

As Americans we still live in the greatest country. We have wonderful rights and privileges, and most agree our Founding Fathers were inspired as they wrote for us our great “national treasure,” the U.S. Constitution.

In this document, our founders made it possible for Utah to become a separate and very powerful state of a union. We have the right to elect both local officials as well as national representatives. As a distinct state, we have the right to form legislative bodies and pass laws, as well as the right to say “no” to intrusion on a national or world level upon our God-given rights. What a blessing this is. We can boldly say, because of Article IV we Utahns are part of a strong union, have a republican form of Government, and as such, are still the freest people on this earth. However, our Constitution is now under attack.

In a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Kelo vs. New London case (in a narrow 5-4 vote), freedom-loving Utahns were disappointed when the court chose to allow government bodies the use of eminent domain to acquire property in redevelopment of non-blighted areas in cities. In fact, most wise and freedom cherishing Utahns now feel trampled upon and at risk ¾ that our Constitution is under attack. We have an obligation as Thomas Jefferson said to rally the people back to this written document. We also have the obligation to pass our own legislation and keep Utah on a solid footing. In truth, our elected legislators are bound by oath to support and defend, regardless of religion or decision by the Supreme Court, our Constitution.

Today the Utah Municipal Land Use Development Act (U.C.A. 10-9-102) gives municipalities the right to control city growth and aesthetics, preserve property values and make the rules necessary for the development of our land. This law is a major intrusion upon the constitutional common law rights to own and control property.

Now the Supreme Court has opened the flood gates for cities and towns to go one step further. They can now use force, if necessary, to take ownership of that same property. We as Utahns must stand on higher ground. The West can and must say “no” to this type of intrusion as our wise leaders did this last legislative session when they reigned in local RDAs who were baiting retail developers. I add my voice to the many other warnings that say, “All is not well for your rights” and that there is a global attempt by the United Nations to amputate them.

In June, the United Nations held an international conference in San Francisco. The United Nation’s goal was to think globally but to act locally to promote something called “sustainable development” and a “world environment.” Their target was our local mayors. The mayors attending were wooed by the U.N. elite from Kofi Annan to Hollywood activists.

The United Nations knows that if it promotes local action by the mayors, it can subvert the checks and balances which our Constitution now provides at a state level. The United Nation’s goal is not to promote protecting us from government harm (the proper role of government envisioned by our nation’s Founding Fathers), but rather to seek to plan and control our growth, to remove God from government and to make nature the central principle.

As most of you know, the American Civil Liberties Union has already been a willing accomplice to this end. And if you do not think local mayors have much influence, think about the negative affect Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson has had on our state with the help of the Sierra Club.

Simply put, the United Nation’s goal of sustainable development including its “think globally — act locally” initiative is all an effort to subvert the constitutional form of government. Its goal is to promote local law to take away your property and civil rights. Laws already on the books in Utah (like U.C.A. 10-9-102) already allow municipalities to act as they want to remove your freedoms. Because of the state mandate, which mirrors many parts of the U.N. agenda, our local cities in Utah can now pass laws using the guise of “protecting property values” to control your home and business.

Has government now become the harm? When our local city leaders act to force their ideas of environmental beauty and aesthetics upon our shoulders, it is not praiseworthy. The elevated mandates force expenses and cast out the poor from our cities in favor of a utopian society. They could go so far as to pass an ordinance that would require all mailboxes to be built of silver in an effort to promote aesthetics and preserve property values.

This legislative session, let us support those individuals and create legislation in Utah that defends our common law rights to own and control private property. Our legislators are derelict in their responsibility to the oath of office which they took to defend our Constitution if they do not pass laws which prevent local officials from going beyond the mark. The best is yet to come for America, and we must head in the right direction to preserve our children’s rights to the same freedoms we now enjoy.

Link to original article

6 comments:

Former Centerville Citizen said...

So I'm just curious Rudi - how do you feel about the whole Sandy Wal-Mart referendum situation? Do you believe that the Boyer Company's private property rights are being trampled upon?

RudiZink said...

I don't know, Centerville, Citizen. I don't think I'm familiar enough with the issues and competing interests to offer any intelligent analysis on the topic.

While I'm a strong advocate of private property rights, I do believe that citizens deserve some "say" in the manner in which their communities are developed. And one thing that troubles me in this situation is the vast disparity in economic and political power between Walmart, Boyer, and Sandy City vis-a-vis the small handful of citizens who seem to be financing this grass-roots fight.

I read this Deseret News article
a few days back. What do you think? Does the article properly frame the issues? Did the article leave anything out?

Maybe you could bring us up to speed on the subject. I would be interested in hearing more about it. Perhaps you can help out with that.

By the way, I'll add my usual disclaimer -- the fact that I've posted Steve Huntsman's provocative article doesn't necessarily imply that I endorse everything contained therein.

I'd be glad to expand the scope of this thread to discuss the situation in Sandy. How 'bout you start out the discussion by telling us what you think?

Anonymous said...

Listen and learn. More people should do that; most people don't. I like your position here, Rudi; as a journalist (and I believe that blogs are a part of the journalistic medium) you have simply posted Huntsman's well crafted article while not endorsing same and not offering analysis of its premise. That's good reporting. CC would be, it seems, the right person to offer insight, as he's the guy right there on the scene and in the trenches. His presence puts value in his words, unlike the words of someone who'se miles away and hasn't experienced the situation first hand. Sort of like "hearsay," I'm thinking, tossed out of the courtroom of public opinion by a well versed and thoughtful judge.

Too often there are those of us who casually offer up thoughts and ideas on issues, that have been carved out of our own desires, with basically no supportive facts through direct contact with that specific situation. There's a positive here in that this can lead to good argument and provocative discussion, maybe, but once the dust has settled there's a downside with the results basically remaining unsupported. This then leaves us right where we were at the beginning, no gain, no alternative, no substantive growth.

Sort of like what's happening in Ogden, isn't it?

Former Centerville Citizen said...

I really don't understand the Sandy situation that well, to be honest with you. I just think that in a perfect world, everybody would be up to date with all of the issues in the city they live in, and would really work hard to ensure that land is zoned in such a way that is best for the community. Also in this perfect world, city officials would actually represent the citizens, and would make decisions in the best interest of their constituents. Any time you have a city government that is very set on having something a certain way that is against the will of the majority, you have to take a closer look. This seems to be the case in Sandy. Yes, the majority can be wrong. But if there is valid reason behind the majority's objection (and I think this is arguably the case in Sandy and here in Centerville), then city governments should side with the citizens, not the multi-billion dollar companies whose developments are going to have serious impacts on the cities they're trying to come to. Look, I have nothing against Wal-Mart. I would be just as upset if Sears or Cabela's or some other company wanted to build some huge 22.54 acre store right where Wal-Mart is coming in Centerville. I just think that the zoning on the land isn't right at all, and that certain aspects of the proposed store fly right in the face of the city's general plan. I also believe that certain city officials here have suspiciously tried to distance themselves from the issue at hand, and that bugs me. And then when they are asked about it, they give some simplistic answer like "Well, it's their land." Maybe I should buy a house nextdoor to one of our city leaders, and pile garbage in the backyard. After all, it's my land...

Ken said...

Isn’t it nice to be Mayor of Salt Lake City? Not only do you get to use your official email for political purposes but you get to pawn your bar tab off on the tax payer also.
It seems that Rocky Hck'P Anderson has been boozing it up and passing the bill onto the city.

The Mayor says it is necessary for him to wine and dine his buddies that roll into town to dispel the myth that Salt Lake is a squeaky clean city where you can't get a drink. Well Mayor using that logic why don’t we tax payers pick up the tab for lap dances and prostitutes too? That would surely do the trick don’t you think?

Again Mayor Rocky Anderson is flouting the law. Salt Lake City forbids tax payer dollars being used to buy alcohol. The Mayor said the policy is “ludicrous” and should be changed. True or not it is still the policy Mr. Anderson. You should be following the law until it is changed. I guess Rocky believes he can break any rule that he does not agree with. There are many laws I don’t agree with. I think the tax laws are ludicrous, but I doubt the IRS would accept that as an excuse for not paying taxes.

If in fact Rocky Anderson has broken the law he must be held accountable. As long as he is given a free pass to flout the law he will continue to do so.

Anonymous said...

Yes Ideed! Mayors who wilfully violate the Law should be promptly frog-marched and immediately and irrevocably incarcerated.

Violators of the Word of Wisdom should also be permanently stoned!

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved