| OCR Text |
Show The with Another interesting issue revolves around reports that SITLA is aggressively pursuing trust land sales, even to the point of offering bonuses or commissions to its “agents.” Such a policy, if true, may be antithetical to SITLA's mandate not to sacrifice long-term benefit for short-term gain, and certainly it could be argued that offering bonuses for completing Nutshell Steve Russell & Jim Jand deals provides an incentive to do exactly that. There has been little or no judicial interpretation of the School and Institutional Trust Lands Management Act. Like most laws, this one leaves a huge amount of room for Stiles interpretation and discretion. What seems clear is that SITLA can pretty much do what it wants absent a demonstrable challenge that its activities are antithetical to its sole goal of From Steve providing income to the Utah public school system. However, “an aggrieved party to an final action by SITLA may obtain judicial review of that action pursuant to §63-46b-16.” Again, the interesting question is whether local governmental entities or members of the general public could be considered “aggrieved parties” to a final SITLA decision. Let us then have faith and trust in the wisdom and benevolence of that independent Russell... SITLA 101: Since the State and Institutional Trust Land Management is and will continue to be a hot-button issue in Grand County for the foreseeable future, a the Zephyr thought it might be beneficial to its readers to provide a bit of a primer on “SITLA.” The statutory provisions governing SITLA are found in Title 53C of the Utah Code. There one learns that the trust lands were actually conferred by the U.S. Congress when Utah became a State. Title to the trust lands is vested in the State merely as trustee of a perpetual trust obligation for the support of “public schools and other beneficiary institutions.” The state agency known as SITLA. Either that, or lobby for a lottery. Another interesting issue revolves around reports that SITLA is aggressively pursuing trust land sales, even to the point of State's obligations were further solemnized as part of the Utah Constitution. “As Trustee, the state must manage the lands and revenues generated from the lands in the most prudent and profitable manner possible, and not for any purposes inconsistent offering bonuses or commissions to its "agents." Such a policy, if truesmay be antithetical to SITLA’s mandate... with the best interests of the trust beneficiaries. The State must be concerned with both income for the current beneficiaries and the preservation of trust assets for future beneficiaries, which requires a balancing of short and long-term interests so that long-term benefits are not lost in an effort to maximize short-term gains.” Significantly, in terms of local participation in trust lands decision making, “The beneficiaries (of SITLA) do not include other governmental institutions, the public at large or the general welfare of the state.” One Possible SITLA Win-Win-Win Scenario: Polls throughout the State have consistently shown that Utah citizens, across the board, favor the preservation of open space and natural resources. By law, SITLA management polices shall, “have regard for and seek General Fund appropriation compensation for the general public's use of natural and cultural resources consistent with the duties of the administration as trustee for the beneficiaries.” As has been repeatedly demonstrated in the booming western market, the only sure way to protect open lands is to buy them. This U.C.A. §53C-1-102(2)(b)-(d). = 2 It may be argued that secret deals are, or should be prohibited since the director of SITLA “shall adopt policies for notifying and consulting with interested parties” (53C-2201(3)). However, that provision would only apply if locally impacted communities and residents are considered interested parties. ‘Not surprisingly, SITLA is set up to favor mineral leases. See, §53C-2-401, et seq. Remember, a lessee was actually granted a SITLA lease to mine Round Mountain in Castle Valley for cap rock for the Atlas tailings pile before spirited opposition to that idiotic plan provision appears to give preservation advocates a means to convince the State that it should buy and preserve uniquely valuable or sensitive open space for its own good. The most effective means to do so requires access to and support of our politicians. In short, prevailed. (Lesson learned?) : Chapter 4 of Title 53C deals with sales, exchanges and leases of trust lands. The only broad based support and the willingness to have tax dollars spent to preserve open lands requirement for a sale is that SITLA obtain fair market value. Nothing in the law requires compliance with local planning and zoning rules or ordinances. In fact, it appears that if local . regulation got in the way of a lucrative development, SITLA might be constitutionally required to circumvent or ignore it. will be absolutely necessary. Consequently, in the wake of Grand Staircase and the perpetual State-Fed feud Utah is fond of waging, the point that might really win the day is that SITLA lands purchased by the State could be turned over to local control with any proceeds or income from the use of the lands going back to SITLA. I see it, Sandy, but I Excitement fills © [A Es EST JNOB don't believe it. the streets of Mobville as word Good grief, Jake... spreads that Percy Hiss, the Fearless Developer of the ultra-elitist, Do you see what I see? high-end, luxury project is coming to our town... He wants to share the "good news." What is it Sandy? Rose petals? Hard candy? Silver dimes??? The man travels in style. But what's that he’s throwing to the crowds? * - 2< Crumbs, Jake... Nothing 6ut crumbs. Sh les ©) 2000 |
