Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Rep. Chaffetz to step down in 2018
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 7:45 am 
The conflict between those who live immediately adjacent to public lands and how they want it managed, or disposed of, vs the interests of those who live far away, is pretty obvious, and certainly not unique to Utah. I don't resent it when representatives represent the interests of their own constituents more than those in other districts, that's their job. That's why we have our own representatives, and for any particular issue, the latter will greatly outweigh the former. I do believe that in many cases these representatives actually represent the interest of extractive industries, which usually are based a long ways away, rather than local people. Those industries, which sometimes provide local jobs, can play very powerfully on cultural issues. Distant environmentalists are legendary for being tone deaf to local culture and are easy prey for such industries and end up being scapegoats for things these industries do, like blaming environmental rules for job losses that may be more due to automation. So will Chaffetz get a job with one of these industries as a lobbyist in DC? If so, he won't be spending so many days in Utah like he says he wants to.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
KekistaniProphet
LOL I WIN



Joined: 25 Sep 2016
Posts: 221 | TRs | Pics
KekistaniProphet
LOL I WIN
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 8:47 am 
My guess is this guy got caught up in the fallout from Pizzagate or is worried he will be linked to it..... Have you guys seen all the pedophilia ring raids they have been doing since Trump came into office? High profile people getting caught up in them......"drain the swamp" http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-sets-5-year-lifetime-lobbying-ban-officials-n713631 Should have extended that order to all government officials. It would take the monetary incentive away from politicians.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
fairweather friend
Member
Member


Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 322 | TRs | Pics
Location: Not so dispersed
fairweather friend
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 9:27 am 
Chaffetz is the representative for UT-03, a district that does, in fact, include a large swath of rural land including the Canyonlands area and Bears Ears National Monument. But the majority of his constituents are not "rural folk" battling evil environmentalists from coastal metropolitan areas, they are city folk from Provo and suburbanites living in the bedroom communities sprawling southward from SLC. So in terms of square miles, UT-03 is a rural district. In terms of constituents, however, it is an urban/suburban district. Very, very few of these urban/suburban folks work in resource extraction and, like urbanites everywhere in the world, they want to preserve outdoor recreation areas close to home. I do not believe Chaffetz is representing the majority of his constituents by opening up public lands for resource extraction. And while this district is likely to replace Chaffetz with another Republican, there is a very good chance that person will not be in such a hurry to throw away thousands of jobs in the outdoor recreation industry for a handful of jobs in the resource extraction industry. The former spreads wealth throughout the entire area, the latter generates wealth primarily for out of state bankers, lawyers, brokers, corporate executives, and stock owners. For a state representative who truly wishes to be "representative," it's a no brainer... unless you plan to make big bucks on the deal.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 9:41 am 
Or actually value the many, many benefits the resources bring after being extracted. Benefits to producers *and* their customers as proven by sales. The things we use don't spring from the forehead of Zeus.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
fairweather friend
Member
Member


Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 322 | TRs | Pics
Location: Not so dispersed
fairweather friend
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 9:52 am 
One of the primary goals of opening up these public lands for resource extraction is the mining of uranium ore. We already have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth many times over and solar energy has proven to be more cost-effective, at a fraction of the risk, than nuclear energy. Moreover, energy derived from a nuclear reactor comes from one centralized source and thus requires a whole distribution system of power lines and substations. Solar energy, by contrast, is widely dispersed and is generated by the very company or household that uses it. I have always found it strange that the same people who glorify "living off the grid" are so often fooled into electing representatives who are trying their damnedest to prevent the spread of solar power.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 10:01 am 
Regardless of the prognostications or who or why or their motives, public resources should be available to public parties and groups for use in industry just as they should be available for other uses such as recreation. I'm not sure how grid living, on or off became part of the discussion. Uranium extraction is either commercially viable for whatever reason or it is not, grid living status is beside the point. I don't care about solar one way or the other, other than opposing subsidizing it.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
fairweather friend
Member
Member


Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 322 | TRs | Pics
Location: Not so dispersed
fairweather friend
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 10:34 am 
MtnGoat wrote:
I'm not sure how grid living, on or off became part of the discussion.
Because you sought to turn the discussion away from whether it is in the public's best interest to "auction off" public lands by extolling the virtues of all the neat products everyone can enjoy thanks to resource extraction. Uranium mining is absolutely one of the goals of making Utah's lands private, so fine, let's talk about how great that's going to be for everyone.
MtnGoat wrote:
I don't care about solar one way or the other, other than opposing subsidizing it.
I sure hope you were out protesting when the nuclear energy industry received billions of dollars in government subsidies, because otherwise some might think you're being a tad bit hypocritical.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 am 
Doppelganger wrote:
Consider who the participants would have been. Consider, of these participants, who would have had any real chance of winning these "auctions", it's laughable to consider them as auctions of any kind. It was a giveaway.
Auctions are defined by the existence of the auction, not who or who does not win a bid. Nor is payment at the decided market rate a 'giveaway'. You're misusing words in order to leverage an emotional angle implied by the word giveaway which does not actually apply.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 11:00 am 
fairweather friend wrote:
MtnGoat wrote:
I'm not sure how grid living, on or off became part of the discussion.
Because you sought to turn the discussion away from whether it is in the public's best interest to "auction off" public lands by extolling the virtues of all the neat products everyone can enjoy thanks to resource extraction. Uranium mining is absolutely one of the goals of making Utah's lands private, so fine, let's talk about how great that's going to be for everyone.
MtnGoat wrote:
I don't care about solar one way or the other, other than opposing subsidizing it.
I sure hope you were out protesting when the nuclear energy industry received billions of dollars in government subsidies, because otherwise some might think you're being a tad bit hypocritical.
I didn't seek to turn the discussion away from public benefit in any way. I merely noted that there is more than one kind of public benefit, and this provably includes the public benefits of extraction and production... the public chooses to prove they value the goods produced, by purchasing them. That is public benefit too. I don't recall *ever* extolling off the grid living, and I think you dragged that out of nowhere. I oppose subsidy in *all* forms, from nuclear energy to oil to steel to milk to corn. Always have. You can search well over a decade of posts here and you'll not find anything contradicting this. Implying 'some' might find me a hypocrite is merely an attempt at delegitimizing my argument while lacking any actual evidence in support of the claim. I suggest it's more honest to come right out and at least call me a hypocrite directly, rather than sly sideways claims 'some' might find me so.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
fairweather friend
Member
Member


Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 322 | TRs | Pics
Location: Not so dispersed
fairweather friend
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 11:28 am 
"Some might say..." was one of George W. Bush's favorite lines. I happen to agree with you, it is deplorable for it's slanderous implications while offering no supporting information. My apologies. I'm sure you found it highly disturbing when W said this line over and over again during his two terms. I also applaud your consistency is opposing government subsidies of all kinds. That is a very rare stance to take these days. Personally, I think that subsidies can do a lot of good to both support industries that we can't afford to lose (farming, for example) and fostering industries that benefit our economic strength (solar power, for example.) The problem is that subsidies never seem to go away once they are no longer needed to achieve those objectives. Back on topic: Chaffetz now says he might retire early. I think this is really good news for the people in his district, but it makes you wonder why he is in such a hurry to get out of Congress. I don't quite buy the "I'm 50 years old and I'm tired of sleeping on a cot," line. He fought for a two year extension and six months later, he can't wait to quit. Breaking story from the AP

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 11:45 am 
I'd never question your right to use words as you see fit. Or the criteria you apply. It doesn't mean I can't toss in my take on identifying the tactics and implications taking place when you do so, right? Yes, I have a higher opinion of the bill than most here. IMO it's unconscionable that such a vast amount of the American west has it's title held by the govt rather than it's private citizens. Alaska well, that's even worse.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12830 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 12:49 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
They're the American public too, and they *live* there. This disdain from a distance is exactly why people support him.
They're the "American public too" because they made some concessions in order to be admitted into the Union, and in doing so agreed to play by the same rules as the rest of the states. What that means is that 121 years later, they don't get to decide at this point that they should be entitled to act autonomously and just "do their own thing", whether that means spinning off federally-held real estate or going back to polygamous marriages. If they wanted autonomy, they should have made that determination a long time ago. The bottom line being that I don't really give a rip about what the "locals" want when it comes to spinning off federally-owned real estate; it doesn't belong to them exclusively. Get over it already. Not sure where you're getting "disdain" from - no clue how you conjured that up out of anything I posted here in this thread. (* edited for clarity 12:58 PDT)

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 1:37 pm 
Doppelganger wrote:
I wasn't referring to my use of words. The attempt to present HR621 as some kind of idyllic repatriation of land to the people is exactly what I was referring to. HR621 was motivated by nothing less than greed.
I don't recall making an attempt to present HR261 as any such thing, if you're referencing my arguments. I'd argue greed is a human constant, displayed by every human in pursuit of values which they value for purely personal reasons. A personal valuation of some good... for other people, or for yourself, or for whomever, is still personal. So from my perspective, you're merely saying HR261 was motivated by nothing less than normal human motivations shared by all.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 1:41 pm 
Ski wrote:
MtnGoat wrote:
They're the American public too, and they *live* there. This disdain from a distance is exactly why people support him.
They're the "American public too" because they made some concessions in order to be admitted into the Union, and in doing so agreed to play by the same rules as the rest of the states. What that means is that 121 years later, they don't get to decide at this point that they should be entitled to act autonomously and just "do their own thing", whether that means spinning off federally-held real estate or going back to polygamous marriages. If they wanted autonomy, they should have made that determination a long time ago. The bottom line being that I don't really give a rip about what the "locals" want when it comes to spinning off federally-owned real estate; it doesn't belong to them exclusively. Get over it already. Not sure where you're getting "disdain" from - no clue how you conjured that up out of anything I posted here in this thread. (* edited for clarity 12:58 PDT)
No one has argued for not playing by the same rules. After all....the HR process is, in fact, playing by the very rules you seemed to think needed re-elaboration for some reason. See the bolded portion for another example of the "disdain from a distance" I alluded to in the first place. You simply don't give a rip what people who actually live near what you want controlled, want. If this isn't disdain, I don't know what is. You don't care what they want, you explicitly and specifically state that... and that's disdain if nothing else.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
fairweather friend
Member
Member


Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 322 | TRs | Pics
Location: Not so dispersed
fairweather friend
Member
PostThu Apr 20, 2017 3:35 pm 
Now the rumor is that Chaffetz will resign by Friday.
Quote:
Republican officials in Utah expect Rep. Jason Chaffetz to step down from Congress, possibly as early as Friday, and were in the early stages of preparing for a special election to fill his 3rd district seat.
Washington Examiner Link Sure doesn't seem like "business as usual," does it? I can't wait to find out what's behind this. One thing to remember in this discussion about Chaffetz's bill to dispose of public lands: it's just one part of a concerted effort to weaken the public's hold on their land. There was also the bill to prevent Forest Service employees from enforcing the law on public lands and another bill (that I think actually passed) that prevents the public from giving input on rule-making changes to public lands. It's all part of a coordinated attack by ALEC, an organization funded by the Koch brothers in Oklahoma, not the residents in UT-03.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Rep. Chaffetz to step down in 2018
  Happy Birthday Crazyforthetrail, Exposed!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum