| OCR Text |
Show Del mar Reay Speaks Out Against Land Use Act by Delmar Reay In response to an article released re-leased to the newspapers of Utah by the "Protect Land in Utah Sensibly" (PLUS) Committee, Com-mittee, I am taking this opportunity op-portunity to speak out against the Land Use Act (S.B. No. 23) The 1974 Budget Session of the Utah Legislature passed this act, not as represenatives of the people, who did not want it, but to satisfy the request re-quest of Governor Rampton. There were many people in the Gallery of the State Legislature, Legisla-ture, opposing the bill, as it was passed with minimum debate de-bate in the House of Representatives. Represen-tatives. Many pages of petitions peti-tions against the act were presented pre-sented and totally ignored. The act was passed 55 to 19 in the House and 18 to 10 in the Senate. The action requesting that this act be placed on the ballot was voted down by both houses hous-es of the legislature. An act of this nature and magnitude should have been submitted to the people of the State of Utah Ut-ah for approval. The very fact that a matter of such vital importance im-portance was not put on the ballot is proof enough for this writer that the legislature was not representing the people, but acting on their own at the request of the Governor. The very fact that it violated viola-ted the Utah State Constitution Constitu-tion was of no conquence. In fact, this writer does not believe be-lieve that the members of either eith-er House investigated enough to find out whether or not it was consitutional. If I am right in this assumption then every member of both Houses who voted for the act violated his sacred oath of office to protect pro-tect and defend the constitution constitu-tion of the United States and the State of Utah. The major violation of the Utah State Constitution is in Article V, Section 28, whcih states: "Special Privileges Forbidden: The legislature shall not delegate dele-gate to any special commission private corporation or association, associa-tion, any power to make, supervise, sup-ervise, or interfere with any municipal improvement, money, mon-ey, property or effects, whether wheth-er held in trust or otherwise, to levy taxes, to select a cap-itol cap-itol site or to perform any municipal functions." If this act had been written in the State of Utah, by Utah legislators, checked and approved ap-proved by Utah attorneys, I feel sure it would have been worded differently. It was written writ-ten by a group of lawyers, who call themselves the American Law Institute. This group writes writ-es most of land use planning bills (both federal and state)." (Utah Independent, Feb. 21, 1974.) As soon as S.B. 23, the Utah Land Use Act was passed, a group of concerned citizens made application for appointment appoint-ment as notary publics. They secured sufficient signatures to plan the Land Use Act on the ballot by referendum. There is enough controversy about this act that it should cause some doubt in the minds of every property owner. He or she 9hould obtain a copy of the Act and study it out for their own information. They can then vote intelligently on the ballot on Nov. 5. For instance, "Land" as defined de-fined in the act "means the earth, water and air, above, below be-low or on the surface and includes in-cludes any improvements or structures customarily regarded regard-ed as such. "Land" in Websters Dictionary Diction-ary is defined as "a solid part of the surface of the earth. Any part of the surface of the earth. As a country or estate, etc." This alone should cause us some concern. As it is defined de-fined in the act, ''Land" includes includ-es all water, mineral, oil or improvements such as homes, schools, churches, parks, etc. How could any right thinking person accept such an all-encompassing definition of Land as it is used in the act without with-out being aware that it can be used to control much more than land. Another point to consider is Section 2, paragraph 2, "The legislature also finds that private pri-vate property rights are of fundamental fun-damental interest to the people of this state and that such land use policy must be structured with the protection accorded those property rights under the constitution of the State of Utah and the United States. It is also recognized that inherent inher-ent in the enjoyment of private property rights is the responsibility respon-sibility of the property owner to acknowledge the good of the State of which is property is a part." I have deliberately put in State" instead of ''Community" ''Commun-ity" as it appears in the act. The reason for this is that the act is a state law, not a community com-munity ordinance. There are many statements in the act that defy finite interpretation. They imply many things and could be interpreted several ways. The possibilities are so numerous that they cannot be detailed in a discussion such as this. I plead with each citizen of the State of Utah to obtain a copy of the Act and study it very carefully. A copy of the Utah Land Use Act can be obtained by contacting con-tacting me, Delmar H. Reay, 459 East 200 Norh, Pleasant Grove. Telephone 785-3369. |
