Payette Henry - An individual or group could apply for a permit and formally take on the maintenance and liability. Would have to move quickly though, decision is final in 3 weeks.
Now this place is closed, the people who abuse public lands will move on to the next pristine place and screw that up too.
The logical solution would instead be for the BLM to improve the site, offering outhouses and trails for day use and a fence to prevent nighttime use. Perhaps a reasonable use fee to offset costs could be implemented.
But no, the iron fist of bureaucracy considers public access to publicly owned lands trespassing, and the next hotspring to be discovered will pay the consequences.
"Fischer said the legal reason for closing the springs is because it's unauthorized use of public lands—using them is considered trespass."
Is it really trespass to do something 'unauthorized' on our public lands? This suggests that only activities listed as 'authorized' are allowed. For instance, is it trespass on our BLM land for me to spin on my head while chanting 'One Fish, Two Fish', backwards?
It makes sense but sad to see it go.
Just saw some guy spit onto the pavement while making his way out of a FedEx vehicle. If it is a territorial thing, it's not working because I'm a guy and my reaction was nothing more than a shake of my head and the following thought: "What a moron..."
I noticed some guy spit while walking up to a hotel yesterday as well, after which he proceeded to ask for directions. If he had asked me I probably would have walked off, to be honest.
I don't get it, but I think it's pretty stupid.
Five years ago then Rep. Guthrie and I started work on this bill in response to the Portneouf Greenway wanting to take land away from people along the river in Pocatello when there was and still is a perfectly good alternate route which utilizes land already owned by the city and county. The argument against the bill was that "we need this tool to effectively negotiate." It was a lie then and is now. We purposely restricted the bill to not impact the enumerated uses of eminent domain in the Idaho Constitution.
good points all. It seems to me eminent domain is a socialist program. And for another viewpoint ask the American Indians what they think of "eminent domain"...
I can see both sides here. One person's social benefit is another person's imposed implement. This is the classic dialectic of old that pits social goods vs private freedoms. Try this on....ask Wayne Hoffman if he supports the use of eminent domain to build the Keystone Pipeline. You might get a different answer. You can't call yourself a libertarian unless you keep corporations from using government for it's wants, too.
These are the three fundamental principles of modern society,
established one after another:
1. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE HUMAN WILL; in short, DESPOTISM.
2. INEQUALITY OF WEALTH AND RANK.
3. PROPERTY--which is above JUSTICE and always invoked as the
guardian angel of sovereigns, nobles, and proprietors; JUSTICE, the
general, primitive, categorical law of all society.
If you wish to enjoy political equality, abolish property.
Every argument which has been invented in behalf of property, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, always and of necessity leads to equality; that is, to the negation of property.
The causes of social inequality are three in number:
1. GRATUITOUS APPROPRIATION OF COLLECTIVE WEALTH;
2. INEQUALITY IN EXCHANGE;
3. THE RIGHT OF PROFIT OR INCREASE.
Since this threefold method of extortion is the very essence of the
domain of property, property is robbery.
Communism is inequality, but not as property is. Property is the exploitation of the weak by the strong.
In property, inequality of conditions is the result of force, under whatever name it be disguised: physical and mental force; force of events, chance, FORTUNE; force of accumulated property.
Property is born of selfishness which results from the universal obsession with ‘Me, My, Mine’.
I work with the eminent domain law every day with utility companies, mostly pipelines and power lines. Without eminent domain, America would be a 3rd world country. I do think that some cities go too far with making a determination on whether a structure is or isn't in the "best interest" of the community, but on the other hand there are police laws on the books for rathole/dangerous/health buildings and their removal. It's like anything else, one can go too far with a rule or regulation and ruin the intent and spirit of the law. It's a mixed bag, but without eminent domain, nothing that is determined to be "for the public good" would ever get accomplished.
"These powers have been working effectively in the state for decades." Hmmm.. For who? I am the most liberal, socialist leaning and community mined person one might find. But when it comes to eminent domain I am almost a Montana Freeman.. I don't like this power of the state. I have some personal experience of the negative side of this power. It reminds me of the issue of the "value" of Wilderness. The true value of many things cannot be rendered to a dollar amount.. Yes Boise Cascade can tell you the value of a 300 year old ponderosa pine, but who can say what the intrinsic value is? Or the value of a part of land where a persons grand parents and great grand parents have grown grapes on for 100 years? Can "market value" cover the true value? No..
Sheesh. The concept of eminent domain is in the US Constitution. Admittedly the power can sometimes be abused; however, I think there are effective ways to guard against the abuse without stripping the power completely from cities.
While I promote more freedom this bill is quite limiting and certainly a costly way to provide more greenbelts. One land owner can torpedo the whole plan. But a person has a right to their property and what is on it. Jerks are just that.
"[SB] 1044 is not about limiting eminent domain," Reuter said. "It's about trying to stop the expansion of walking and biking throughout our state. It still lets you use eminent domain to plow a road through something."
Reuter is wrong. It is NO about walking and biking. The legislature has concluded that private property rights are more important than the public's right to override those rights on behalf of a new bike/ped path.
(As a dedicated transportation cyclist, I'm disappointed that it passed, and was signed into law. But I refuse to see it as a vote against walking and biking - that's silly. The fact that Boise hasn't used it since '67 leads me to hope it won't be a big deal, one way or t'other.)
The Eagle Greenbelt fiasco was more about uppity McMansion dwellers who wanted to ignore the covenants that they signed when they purchased their properties, than about eminent domain.
Tami, after seeing your comments and photos I realized who you were. Weirdo? What are you addressing? The comments are about Rhoads skatepark right? It's not about you.
sorry about the misspelling I'm having trouble with my android keyboard and my voice text secretary really is horrible...lol..and I saved a lot of trouble trying to proofread it because the screen wont allow me to actually see what im typing..grrr
Re BOI22TOY...your RESPONSE, your SOLUTION, and the insult,is rather disturbing...for one day offered no real viable solution and two dresses not what the article was written about. This is a place where we freely express our concerns ...not solutions to harm or kill things...WEIRDO
Our country's cities have a vexing problem with the 'homeless issue.' Somehow, our government(s), both federal and local need to come up with solutions that do not 'criminalize' being homeless, but give them the assistance leading to skills that will bring them out of their particular situations. Sadly, so many of the homeless are there due to mental illness (another poorly addressed issue in our society).
Tami, why don't you carry a concealed handgun to shoot the rats with? No rats ran across your feet, and you know it.
Jessica, This article goes a long way toward offering the kind of journalism that is sorely needed during the increasing shift to feudalism in this country. Even though the comments from Greg Morris of the ACLU were added at the end, it’s important to have his viewpoint presented, since he clearly outlines the underlying motivations driving this project.
Nationwide there is a concerted movement by cities and the business class that controls them to come up with ways to displace their increasing number of homeless, with the ultimate goal being driven by the ‘Out of Sight Out of Mind’ mentality. Wherever and whenever possible, the public relations marketing jive for displacing the homeless is gift wrapped to appear as a benefit to the community, when as outlined by Greg Morris, the real goal is to create a situation that makes it easier to criminalize and kick the homeless out of town.
This sort of gift wrapped obfuscation usually works, since the typical citizen would prefer that the homeless are ‘Out of Sight and Out of Mind’ and this gives them something to ease their conscience, and avoid taking a hard look at why homelessness has grown so much.
© 2017 Boise Weekly
Website powered by Foundation