| OCR Text |
Show Cyan Magenta Yellow Black A4 Sanpete Messenger - Sanpete Messenger/Gunnison Valley Edition IN OUR OPINION ... TO THE EDITOR... Art Center making Sanpete proud In a land of turkeys, sheep and rugged pioneer heritage, art— especially contemporary art—does not immediately spring to mind in describing Sanpete. But since taking over last fall as director of the Central Utah Art Center, Adam Bateman has tried to give art a more significant place in Sanpete culture. We appreciate his efforts, congratulate his success, and encourage citizens and public officials to support the Art Center as a valuable cultural and economic resource. The Art Center has seen a tremendous increase in patronage. Before Bateman, the Art Center averaged 30 guests per month. That figure is now nearly 600, and continues to grow each month. Before Bateman arrived, funding difficulties threatened to close the Art Center. Bateman secured grants to keep the facility going and actually increased the facility’s budget from $35,000 to $50,000. The success of the Center this year has given Bateman the confidence to propose a $120,000 budget next year. Bateman daringly expands our concept of what art is. The art he displays is modern but Wednesday, March 23, 2005 LOST will give UN control of ocean resources understandable; pretty to look at, but interesting to think about; surprisingly non-traditional without offending the traditional values of the area. Bateman has started to offer something for everyone, artistically. In addition to painting and sculpture, there are independent and foreignfilm screenings, monthly poetry readings and regular musical events. Bateman will soon begin art classes for children and adults, and will coordinate an intern program with Snow College students teaching art in elementary schools. Bateman has achieved a degree of notoriety for the Art Center. With that comes interest from more prestigious artists, as well as more visits from more people outside the county—that means tourism, which should perk up the ears of economic development folks. Renowned twentieth century dancer and choreographer Martha Graham once said, “No artist is ahead of his time. He is his time. It is just that the others are behind the time.” We support Bateman in his belief that the Central Utah Art Center’s time has come, and in his efforts to helping us catch up. — PETRO-HUNT — GROUP 69 S. Main, Manti, Utah 84642 835-8945 OR TOLL-FREE 1-866-345-0027 _____________________________ One of America’s oldest privately-owned and most successful oil and gas exploration companies is currently buying oil and gas leases in Sanpete and Sevier counties and would like to add yours to their growing list. If you are a mineral owner in this area and would like to discuss leasing your mineral rights to an experienced, tried and true operator, call us for a fair and consistent offer at 435-835-8945 or toll-free 866-345-0027, or come by our local office at 69 S. Main Street, Manti 3/2,9,16,23GMS With the backing of Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), senators will soon be asked to ratify the sovereignty-compromising Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). This decades-old proposal would create the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a United Nations body that would control any benefits derived from mineral wealth and other resources found in the ocean seabeds. The ISA would also be given power to dictate usage of the world’s waterways for international business. Further, LOST amounts to a sneaky way for the UN to gain the taxing power it has always sought through profits acquired via seabed mining. President Reagan refused to sign the LOST in 1982. But President Clinton reversed that wise decision and signed the treaty. Senate foreign relations chairman, Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), used his powerful position to block ratification during the 1990s. But internationalist leaning Senator Lugar, who favors ratification of LOST, now chairs this important committee and wants the full Senate to ratify it. All senators should be urged to vote against ratification of the LOST. Kenneth Davies Spring City Thank you to an honest man About four months ago my grandson Christopher Blake lost his wallet while in the mountains. It was eventually concluded that his wallet was lost for good. Then today, on March 10, a man came to Chris’ family home and asked for Chris or his parents, Doug and Linda Blake. As they were not home he gave the wallet he had found to me, with all of the money, about 200 dollars, still in it. His name is Brian Taylor. Brian is a very honest man. His example is uplifting and inspiring, especially in this day and age when the love of material possessions is so evident in our society. Thank you Brian for your honesty and fine example. Please contact Chris or Doug and Linda Blake 855-9439. Louise Eddy Manti Property rights are never ‘hackneyed’ Once again our constitutionally protected rights are being discussed on the opinion page. This time it is the “hackneyed property rights arguments”. Since when did the right of ownership and control of property become “hackneyed”? Maybe we should just eliminate life and liberty, too. I don’t doubt that all of us want to live in an attractive, clean environment. I think the vast majority of us keep our properties at an acceptable level. There will always be those that we wish would do more. But it is not within our right to demand that they do this. We may encourage, as Heber J. Grant did in your quote. We may offer to help. But legislation is to be reserved for the true “health, safety and general welfare” issues, not aesthetics issues. The U.S. Supreme Court did indeed make a decision in Berman v. Parker, but it had nothing to do with the subject at hand. This case dealt with eminent domain and the government’s rights to take someone’s property in a blighted area for redevelopment (Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 1954). There is now another threat to property by eminent domain the case of Kelo v. City of New London in Connecticut. Here the government entity wants to take homes and businesses that are not in a blighted area for economic development purposes to increase tax revenue and improve the local economy. The “public use” idea of the 5th Amendment is being changed to and idea of “public benefit”. If the Supreme Court decides in favor of New London, no property will be safe from eminent domain if its taking is deemed necessary for economic development or other purposes not associated with blighted areas. This is just one more example of local government taking away the rights that are protected by the Constitution. There is a simple test that former Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson used to decide if an activity was within the proper sphere of government. “Do I as a individual have a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.” (The Proper Role of Government, 1995, Hans v. Andersen, Jr., p. 9-10) Therefore, if I can’t force my neighbor to clean up his yard, neither can I delegate this responsibility to my government. I believe that a spirit of cooperation would go a long way with this issue. Let us encourage each other as much as possible to work so that our properties are attractive. There are people who are more than willing to come and haul off junked cars, washing machines, furniture, etc. Could we not make it well known that these services are available through our city offices? Might there be youth groups, church groups, etc. who would be willing to donate time to clean up for those who physically can’t? Our rights are God given, inalienable rights. They will never be “hackneyed”. Mary Pipes Manti Berman v. Parker is not about beautification Last week as I was readying the weekly Sanpete Messenger, I came across an article titled “In our opinion... Cleaning up is not a violation of property rights.” The article used a U.S. Supreme Court case, Berman v. Parker, to explain their point of view. It stated that Berman v. Parker was used to enforce ordinances for beautification and the health and welfare of the people. I would like to make a correction. The 1954 Decision of Berman v. Parker had more to do with private property rights than it had to do with ordinances or beautification. The Supreme Court case gave governments eminent domain in the taking of private property that was considered a blighted area and converted it over to private business or other private parties whom the local governments believed would produce more tax revenue. Before Berman, with some exceptions, private property could only be taken through eminent domain for public use, not for purely private, profit-driven companies. In Berman, however, the court transformed the words”public use” to mean “public purpose,” as defined by the legislature. Randy Bailey of Mesa, Ariz. had a family-owned business, Bailey’s Brake Service for 31 years. The City of Mesa announced plans in Nov. 2001 to condemn their land through eminent domain and transfer it to a hardware store. He first lost in court but appealed to a higher court. The Arizona Court of Appeals interpreted Berman v. Parker in favor of Bailey and he won. He was not a blighted area nor was it for public use. Bailey’s property is not the only private property that the government agencies have tried to take. They have taken family farms for golf courses and it goes on and on. In my opinion I feel that Berman v. Parker is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Glen Morris Wales Rebuttal to article on Hideway Valley homes In reading the article you published “Fire Fighters helpless as homes burn” in your March 2, 2005 edition, I would sincerely hope that it was from ignorance, not prejudice that this article made it to print. I would like to give you the benefit of doubt. Your article contained so many “so called” facts that were false that I couldn’t believe someone would publish it. It is true that our subdivisions are “too” far away from the fire stations and have a problem with water availability, however I believe that is a county issue that our county commissioners really need to address “soon”. In Hideaway Valley alone there are 487 properties that pay county taxes and receive virtually “no services” for their tax money, residents that love their homes as much as those who live in the cities but are pretty much on their own as far as protect- ing their lives, homes and investments. First of all: The home in Hideaway Valley that was pictured in your article was NOT on a dirt road. Any access to that house in both directions is on a paved road, paved by the Hideaway Valley Property Owners Association with association money and no help from the county. Second of all: I find it hard to believe that the firefighters sent someone to get donuts and Mountain Dew and enjoyed standing around watching a house burn to the ground. That was a direct insult to our Fire Department and firefighters. My husband was there personally and has a different story to tell. Also the Fire Marshall, Fred Johnson was NOT present at this fire and I find it hard to believe that Fred would have said some of the things you “quoted” him as saying. I sincerely hope this rebut- tal will make it to print in your newspaper but highly doubt it. The entire article has represented Hideaway Valley and the surrounding subdivisions as places where stupid people live who are ignorant drivers on dirt roads. I, for one do not appreciate this type of garbage in our local newspapers. We have really good people in Hideaway Valley and the surrounding communities, neighbors that would go the distance for each other and that’s hard to find these days. Donna M. Pendrey Hideaway Valley Property Owners Association, President Editor’s Note: The article described the road into Hideaway Valley as “unpaved.” In fact, the road is asphalted. However, the Messenger stands by other facts and quotes in the 800-word story. |
