Prop 106.....Good for OHV or Not?

[Sean K.]

Anyone know? I know in the past, OHV usually sided with the land developers b/c that was the only way to keep an area open to OHV use......

I'm all for protecting land for future generations' use.....to an extent. But if it means locking up land from motorized or mechanized use, I'm against it.

Thanks for any help.

Sean

 

[sjpitts]

Land developers let OHVers use their land? I would say that is doubtfull.

I don't know what the access status of "preserved land" under 106 will be, but I will have to say that it is better then having red tile roofs across the land.

Jared

 

[Sean K.]

Perhaps you misunderstood. Land developers most definitely did not allow OHVers to use their land. However, if land was slated for possible future development while it was still state or federal land, it was not "protected" in the same manner as say "wilderness" areas.

What I'm trying to determine is if 106 is of the same ilk.

Sean

 

[inkpot]

Perhaps you misunderstood. Land developers most definitely did not allow OHVers to use their land. However, if land was slated for possible future development while it was still state or federal land, it was not "protected" in the same manner as say "wilderness" areas.

What I'm trying to determine is if 106 is of the same ilk.

Sean

Howdy! My very limited understanding of the situation is that the land in question is already State Trust Land, which is originally intended to be sold off a little at a time to fund public schools and "education". As such, it cannot be developed or mined, but, with a very few special exceptions, it is open for recreation purposes such as hunting, fishing, camping, and travel on existing roads and trails. Annual permits are available thru the state, and they cost about $25 per family. Many outdoorsmen are uneducated about STL and the required permit. Our club permit is limited to "club activities", so I also have my own permit. John

 

[Sean K.]

Right....that's helpful. I thought 106 was about STL but wasn't sure. The thing we need to find out is how exactly it's worded and my post was trying to draw attention to the issue before election time. I'm just hoping we can do what is beneficial for our sport.

Sean

 

[msahr]

Good luck. I have read the SEVERAL pages in the book the state sent me (all registered voters get one... you're registered and will vote, right?) and it's very confusing. Need to read again until I get it. Even the executive summary is tough to get.

 

[goodtimes]

Prop 106 scares me. I still have some research to do on it before I am 100% convinced I don't like it, but my initial impression is this.

It calls for the [democratic] governor of our state to appoint 7 people (subject to the consent of the state Senate) to develope and execute a plan to sell off all State Trust land. Once it is sold, it is no longer public land (unless it is purchased by a public orginization). This means the public likely won't have access to it. It shuts down our roads and trails.

It creates a "conservation reserve" of ~ 694,000 acres, which is managed by this board of trustees, with no oversite. The board has the authority to lock out the public, lease the land, and keep the revenue.

The board can give away state trust land (not sell...give it away) in exchange for for a portion of the profits when it is sold (as opposed to selling it themselves and keeping 100% of the profit).

Further, these 7 people have the authority to decide who gets to buy the land, regardless of who gives the highest bid. While this may prevent certain developers from outbidding public entities such as the universities, it also means that they can literally sell the land to...say, conservation groups, for a single dollar. In turn, these groups can do whatever they please, including locking out the public.

In short, prop 106 gives 7 people the power to do pretty much whatever they want with our State Trust Land. They can keep a portion of the proceeds from the sale of said land for "administration, management, planning and disposition" of the land...which means they sell the land and keep a portion of the proceeds as their salary. How big of a portion? Wouldn't we all like to know.....

 

[Sean K.]

And THAT ladies and gentlemen is exactly why OHV usually sides with developers.

I'm going to have to look at the booklet they sent/send (I'm not sure we've gotten it, but perhaps my misses has it), but it sounds like goodtimes is right on the money.

Sean

 

[BMAN]

I like this guys take on it...

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/opinion/27801.php



Being that I put food on my table through developement I also tend to vote in the way of developement. That said, having the hobby that I do it is sometimes hard to stomach the very developement that feeds my family, and I'm often torn. Both, props 105 and 106 will be getting a "NO" vote from me.

If the plan is "reform", we need a better plan. One that puts "rea" money into our state education program, yet leaves the most land open and available for our hobby, for the longest period of time.

 

[sjpitts]

I checked the 106yes.com website (an admittedly biased source) and the only thing I could find about access was this:

What does “reasonable access” to state trust lands mean?
Land set aside for permanent conservation or conservation use may not be
developed and public access shall be maintained consistent with uses of the land
prior to the designation. This includes hunting and fishing, vehicular access on
existing roads, hiking, etc.

That sounds OK, but the devil lives in the details, namely what qualfies as an an existing road?

See

http://www.106yes.com/files/FAQ8.20.06PK.pdf

Personally, I see very little reason to sell trust land at all. The state government pays millons of dollars every year from general funds to pay for education. That money should be considered "rent" paid by taxpayers to secure the public use of those lands.

At a minimum, trust land should not be sold until all the other usable land in the area has been developed. If nothing else, that would delay the development of the land and maximize the selling price of the land they finally do sell.

Jared

 

[fj40frk]

Goodtimes is right to be scared. Not only do they set aside almost 700,000 acres of state trust land aside for conservation, they add that Conservation must also be a criteria for selling this land (on top of the highest and best use criteria), but conservation is not defined. They also do not have to compensate the main beneficiaries (k-12 education) for the loss of this trust land. Conservation of the remaining 9 million acres of trust land will be left up to the gang of 7.

This gang of 7 should also worry you. 5 of these individuals shall be made up of people with a vested interest in education. This is a fundamental violation of trust responsibilities. By putting trust beneficiary represntatives on the board you leave the henhouse in the guard of the fox!!!

One last thing in my ramblings that should worry anyone who believes in the protection of private property is this....In our research at the Farm Bureau we have found that 6 sections of the land they wish to set aside for conservation are currently privately held land......DEEDED PROPERTY!!! And we haven't been through all the legal descriptions yet...we expect to find more.

Welcome to Arizona, where it is cheaper to get an intitiative on the ballot than it is to buy a house!!!!

 

[Sean K.]

Scary stuff.....I hope everyone that loves 4wheeling is reading and most importantly, VOTING.

I'll be voting against Prop 106.

Sean

 

[sjpitts]

Ok, let me try and make this clear. The state land department currently is selling state trust land as fast as it reasonably can. So if we don't do something to preserve it, it will eventually be sold. It may take a while, but it will be sold. Simple as that.

So I ask again, is it really better for OHV'ers to have the land sold to developers, or conserved in some way where hunting and access is preserved?

That is the choice

If you don't believe, look at those who are opposing 106-- homebuilders. Since when have homebuilders been on our side?

Jared

 

[sjpitts]

double post

 

[Sean K.]

Sorry....still not convinced. I'm voting against 106.

Sean

 

[Blues Dawg]

If both measures are defeated, what happens? Status quo till next round?

 

[Sean K.]

Both measures??? What's the other prop # dealing with this issue?

Thanks,
Sean

 

[sjpitts]

105 is the other issue. After the conservation groups got 106 on the ballot the state legislators put 105 up. Many people believe the only reason they put 105 on the ballot was to confuse the issue -- it does not seem like they are even trying to pass 105.

105's website

http://www.saveourtrust.org/

Jared

 

[Rocky_LC]

I plan to vote no on both of them, (105 and 106) and see what they offer in the next election cycle.

When something is as complicated as Prop 106 - it just seems like it can't be a good thing...

Thanks for the link, BMAN

Rocky

 

[Blues Dawg]

Well, both 105 and 106 were defeated! That's a good thing from what I read and can tell. There's now 2 years to think about legislation to protect OHV access, and I think if it can be tied to education, and other public welfare, it can be successful.