GUEST POST by Jim Chmelik (Idaho County Commissioner) —
NOTE: Rebuttal written in response to this editorial opinion.
I agree with Governor Otter and his proposal to manage a swath of federal lands within the state of Idaho, however, this is where the agreement ends. The Governor has missed an historic opportunity to integrate a strategy of supporting state management of public lands and also the constitutional duty of the federal government to dispose of public lands within in each state; to join Utah in its struggle to lead this charge and bring us to an equal footing with the rest of our 39 sister states; and the opportunity to provide adequate funding for our children's education and leave a legacy for future generations.
A recent article in Forbes Magazine clearly points out how a state like North Dakota stands in stark contrast to Utah and our other 10 western states.
"In North Dakota, the federal government gave up almost all of its land holdings. North Dakota can innovate and utilize the state's natural resources while Utah is prevented from doing so."
"Freeing once-federal land sparked North Dakota's economic growth. North Dakota was the fastest-growing state in 2012 with a GDP growth rate of 13.4 percent. No other state in 2012 saw double-digit GDP growth. North Dakota enjoyed an oil and energy boom from the lands given back to the state. During a time where jobs are a key issue in any political debate, access to the land previously owned by the feds provided the state with 18,000 new jobs."
"Economic growth allowed North Dakota to collect more revenue from its oil and energy industry and use it for the betterment of its residents and communities. North Dakota saw an improvement of $1.4 billion to its infrastructure and school buildings and spending on education in the classroom exceeds the national average by $3,700 per pupil."
Those who would argue we couldn't manage these lands are foregoing the opportunity cost as realized by North Dakota. Rather than having a meaningful discussion they use language like "meaningless showboating" and say "Millions of acres of now freely accessible public hunting, fishing and hiking grounds would be sold off or lent to the highest bidder."
We all understand the need to preserve nature and the recreation that goes with it, and also our need to balance this with our need to have places to work and live. No one involved with the discussion concerning the Transfer of Public Lands has said they wish to stop the access we have come to enjoy concerning the opportunities our public lands provide.
Under federal ownership we will always be subject to the fancies of Washington D.C., and the whims of the other 39 states. Under state management we might run the program however the feds will call the shots, (i.e. Idaho DEQ Vs. EPA). We in Idaho cannot intervene into Maryland's affairs, why are they allowed to interfere in Idaho's?
Governor this is a question of Federalism Vs. Socialism, the idea of returning the government to a more local and accountable representation not a central bureaucracy 2700 mile away. Have you lost the passion for the fight; you caved into Obama Care and we are seeing the results. Governor your new campaign is to thin the threat I agree thin the threat of the federal government from the state of Idaho
We get the government we tolerate.
NOTE: Rebuttal written in response to this editorial opinion.
I agree with Governor Otter and his proposal to manage a swath of federal lands within the state of Idaho, however, this is where the agreement ends. The Governor has missed an historic opportunity to integrate a strategy of supporting state management of public lands and also the constitutional duty of the federal government to dispose of public lands within in each state; to join Utah in its struggle to lead this charge and bring us to an equal footing with the rest of our 39 sister states; and the opportunity to provide adequate funding for our children's education and leave a legacy for future generations.
A recent article in Forbes Magazine clearly points out how a state like North Dakota stands in stark contrast to Utah and our other 10 western states.
"In North Dakota, the federal government gave up almost all of its land holdings. North Dakota can innovate and utilize the state's natural resources while Utah is prevented from doing so."
"Freeing once-federal land sparked North Dakota's economic growth. North Dakota was the fastest-growing state in 2012 with a GDP growth rate of 13.4 percent. No other state in 2012 saw double-digit GDP growth. North Dakota enjoyed an oil and energy boom from the lands given back to the state. During a time where jobs are a key issue in any political debate, access to the land previously owned by the feds provided the state with 18,000 new jobs."
"Economic growth allowed North Dakota to collect more revenue from its oil and energy industry and use it for the betterment of its residents and communities. North Dakota saw an improvement of $1.4 billion to its infrastructure and school buildings and spending on education in the classroom exceeds the national average by $3,700 per pupil."
Those who would argue we couldn't manage these lands are foregoing the opportunity cost as realized by North Dakota. Rather than having a meaningful discussion they use language like "meaningless showboating" and say "Millions of acres of now freely accessible public hunting, fishing and hiking grounds would be sold off or lent to the highest bidder."
We all understand the need to preserve nature and the recreation that goes with it, and also our need to balance this with our need to have places to work and live. No one involved with the discussion concerning the Transfer of Public Lands has said they wish to stop the access we have come to enjoy concerning the opportunities our public lands provide.
Under federal ownership we will always be subject to the fancies of Washington D.C., and the whims of the other 39 states. Under state management we might run the program however the feds will call the shots, (i.e. Idaho DEQ Vs. EPA). We in Idaho cannot intervene into Maryland's affairs, why are they allowed to interfere in Idaho's?
Governor this is a question of Federalism Vs. Socialism, the idea of returning the government to a more local and accountable representation not a central bureaucracy 2700 mile away. Have you lost the passion for the fight; you caved into Obama Care and we are seeing the results. Governor your new campaign is to thin the threat I agree thin the threat of the federal government from the state of Idaho
We get the government we tolerate.
No comments:
Post a Comment