By David James

On Election Day, we have the opportunity to say NO to higher taxes and the desire of a few to indenture the people of Cache County. Here are the key points about the proposed $10 million bond and its tax burden that voters need to know.

An additional $10 million burden, but no additional open space. The proponents of this bond are asking the citizens to bear a burden that carries no real benefit to the public. For every acre “preserved” development shifts to another acre. In the end, the same amount of land is developed; the same amount of land is “open.” We can spend $10 million, $20 million, even $100 million and we will have the same amount of houses, the same number of businesses and no more “open space.” Vote NO to wasteful spending.

It will never be enough. The proponents claim the bond and tax will “preserve Cache County” as we know it. Simple facts prove that claim to be nonsense. Cache County has almost 335,000 acres of private farmland. And $10 million covers only $30 per acre — a fraction of the amount needed for land that can cost up to $250,000 per acre. Vote NO to a bond that cannot deliver what it promises.

Show us the open space. The tax proponents will not tell us where these millions will be spent. Farmers might think that cropland will be preserved. But city and county planners think it will be urban corridors, while wildlife advocates think that land near streams and rivers will be set aside. But we can’t all be right. The taxpayer is left with no guarantee where our money will be spent. Vote NO to a plan without details that will inevitably become political.

Power corrupts — and this bond puts power in the hands of a small group. Government owns almost 50 percent of the land in Cache County. This proposal gives government power to determine that one acre gets special treatment, another does not. What you and I may consider critical acres may never be offered for preservation. We as taxpayers do not specify what is preserved, what is not. Many of the proponents for this tax have conflicts of interest including wanting this money for themselves. Developers can apply to have taxpayers pay for land they would be required to leave as open space or use the money for development of nearby tracts of land. Ultimately, people with millions of dollars of assets get the money. Vote NO to more government control and self serving interests.

We may have no access to the “open space.” We can pay millions of dollars to lock up land but this does not mean the public will have access to it. “No Trespassing” signs stay up; no trails, no recreation on this property. This is not parkland. Vote NO to “open space” that will not be open to you.

Dirty air, more traffic and greater sprawl. Locking up acreage can sprawl development, cause longer commutes and increase air pollution. The same number of houses and business will be built, only further away. Vote NO to poor planning and more sprawl.

The new taxes just keep adding up. “It is only $18 dollars.” It’s the cry of every tax raiser and infomercial pitchman. This tax is one of just many and they continue to come at an ever increasing rate. This new tax on your home and your employer may be several times higher than the minimum. And it is due every year. The total will not be $10 million but $16 million when the interest is paid. And the tax proponents have already asked for twice this amount.

This bond is not just a personal commitment but a requirement that is imposed on everyone. Many businesses and individuals are stretched to the breaking point. Apartment owners pass taxes on to renters and they will pay disproportional load. The ballot language is carefully worded so that there is no limit on the amount than can be charged the taxpayer. Vote NO to an ever increasing tax burden.

This limits legitimate county programs. There are political and financial limits to the amount of taxes. Earmarking a new $10 million tax for “open space” will tie our county’s hands in raising revenues for public safety, schools, and roads. We have to ask ourselves: “What else could this $10 million dollars do?” Vote NO to wasteful earmarking.

The majority of land in CacheCounty is undeveloped. After 150 years of building, growing and developing, the amount of developed land in Cache County is less than 12 percent. If you adjust for things like barns and homes on large acreages there is about 6.5 percent of land developed in Cache County. Vote NO to the myth that we are losing our land.

Our Heritage. Our state has a unique pioneer heritage. Our heritage is not just in the farms that our forefathers established. Many of them walked away from homes and farms in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois and Iowa. What they came here for was freedom. Vote NO to tax bondage. Vote NO to unfair, unneeded government policy. Vote to preserve our true heritage.

David James grew up in CacheValley and lives in Hyde Park. He is a computer consultant, holds a real estate license and works on his family’s farm. He is also chairman of the Cache County Republican Party and a member of the Hyde Park Planning and Zoning Commission.

"I have been in Cache Valley since 1956 and I live in the same house that I grew up in. My wife and I bought my family dairy farm in 1986. Our whole life is in the farm.

We love Cache Valley and are strong advocates of local businesses. We sell our milk to Gossner Foods and buy all our fertilizer and feed from local cooperatives. We also do all we can on our farm to keep our part of Cache Valley beautiful. We are very conscious of clean water and air. We have spent thousands of our own dollars to insure clean water on our property and we keep all our equipment in top running condition to promote clean air.

Proposition 1 — Open Space is very upsetting to us because we would be compelled to pay some of our hard-earned money to someone else to do what we have done our whole lives. The money we would pay on taxes for Proposition 1 would take away equity on our own farm to do the things we need to do to stay viable in agriculture.

For the above-mentioned reasons and others not listed, we strongly oppose Proposition 1 — Open Space. It will not work for Cache Valley. We strongly urge you to vote NO to Proposition 1."

Lee and Valeen Nelson

Paradise
 

"Cache Valley is a beautiful place to live and work. I grew up on a dairy farm and love open space. But going into debt for 20 years and forcing people and businesses who cannot afford to pay is not the way to keep our valley beautiful.

The $10 million bond will put taxpayers in debt for the next 20 years. With interest, it will actually cost taxpayers somewhere between $16 million and $18 million. The estimated tax on the ballot was calculated in August with an interest rate of 4.71 percent. Today that interest rate would be between 5.8 percent and 6.2 percent depending on the day you look at the market. Read carefully the last line on the ballot language. The county will collect whatever it takes to repay the bonds. This is not an essential government service and we should not be going into debt for this, which financially benefits only a few at the expense of everyone for the next 20 years and limits the county’s ability to provide’ essential government services when needed.

So what is the right way to do this? The Critical Lands Committee should set up a 501 (c) 3 Private Non-Profit Corporation and allow those who want to donate and have the means to donate to do just that. (Perhaps those who have already received money for conservation easements could be the first to contribute.) But do not force those who cannot afford it or who do not want to pay with higher taxes for the next 20 years. In a meeting with the County Council, Sean Damitz took $18.00 out of his wallet and offered it for Open Space. That is the way it should be done. By raising the money rather than borrowing the money the county will not be part of a process that pits those who receive funding against those who do not.

What about conflict of interest? The Trust for Public Lands charges 10 percent of the proceeds as a fee. If they help a farmer put together an application and obtain funding with federal, state, private and (possible county bond funds) they charge 10 percent of the entire funding amount. That means they could benefit $4 to $5 million in fees. So here we have a private nonprofit that does not pay any of the taxes in the county trying to influence the election because they have so much to gain. That is not right!

Vote against a tax increase! Vote against debt! Vote against taking agency away and forcing those who cannot afford to pay it for the next 20 years. Vote against conflict of interest! Vote against Proposition 1. Vote against the issuance of bonds!"

M. Lynn Lemon

Providence
 

"Here are five reasons this small agricultural producer is voting against Proposition 1 .

1.The only way to keep Cache County the way it is now, would be to buy all of the development rights in the county. There are 385,247 acres of privately owned taxed property in Cache County. Currently there are 366,702 acres of private land without manmade structures. It would cost billions of dollars to buy all development rights. Proposition 1 will not stop development. 2. Selling developments rights in a piece meal fashion only moves development pressures to other agriculture land. Proposition 1 will not slow development. 3. Elected county officials will not have exclusive control over how the funds will be allocated. Private individuals will control how this money is spent and cannot be directly removed by the voters. 4. A neighboring agricultural producer has sold development rights to property that is unsuitable for building and is selling building lots on adjacent property. This program has not stopped development, only relocated development within the county. 5. The majority of individuals behind this proposal have either received, or are receiving, or will receive personal financial gain from this taxpayer paid endeavor. Taxpayers should not be compelled to pay for this individual gain. Private entities buying development rights should keep their hands in their own pockets!"

Joseph S. Nielsen

Logan
 

"Cache Valley is a great place to live. We love the character, quality of life, and scenic vistas available to us here. Many families have been raised and will continue to be raised here and enjoy some of these same qualities of life. We are in favor of open space to help preserve this lifestyle. Proposition 1 is the wrong approach and has too many unanswered questions.

Using public funds to subsidize private property interests to the exclusion of public access is an outcry.

Should government be in the business of subsidizing our free enterprise system? No.

How are cities and the county going to effectively plan for the future if our valley is cut up into unplanned parcels in the wrong location?

The State of Utah and Cache Valley are already about 80 percent owned by our government. Do we want more intrusion and control?

This could cause major transportation problems in the future if the wrong pieces of property are tied up indefinitely. Some could impact major thoroughfares in the future.

This is not a one-time investment. This will create another layer of beauracracy that will have to be funded to maintain lands purchased and to enforce contracts with individuals who accessed these funds for their properties.

A member of the committee reported to our association that if this bond is successful they will come back to the voters for more funds.

The proposition reads “for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the costs of acquisition of land or interests in land”, if the government purchased all of the interests who are responsible to maintain these properties? This will mean larger government and control. Is that what we want now and in the future for our children?

If we want to save a particular corridor or vista then this bond should specifically identity the costs, maintenance and future land use. Now it is left up to a committee to make that decision for you.

There are to many unanswered questions about this proposition

Now is not the time to be putting ourselves in bondage to another loan when budgets are already stretched to the limit.

We all want a well planned, organized, managed valley where all can continue to enjoy our quality of life, and provide for our children the same, but this is just the wrong approach. Vote “NO” for Proposition 1."

Robert Johnson

Cache Valley Home Builders Association
 

"In my view Proposition 1, is an additional tax, levied on renters as well as property owners. I am aware that many may not care about my opinion but for any who may, I believe the primary benefactors are those few property owners whose development rights are purchased. Many business people who are struggling would love to sell their businesses to the taxpayer and still enjoy the benefits of a debt free business. Conversely, this is not the way the free enterprise system should function. As one flies over the valley and surrounding mountains, it is evident that the preponderance of land (about 82 percent) which is owned by municipal and governmental agencies will remain open for the enjoyment of WE the people, in perpetuity. Yes, there will be growth as we accommodate the enlarging of our families and the industries and businesses that support us.

From a practical point of view, I believe that we cannot afford, nor should we tax ourselves to purchase things we already have and will have in abundance. We have no shortage of open space nor will we have. At this time, we have many other personal as well as public needs. If we are anxious to tax ourselves more, maybe education would be a better use or other justifiably important needs. Before indenturing ourselves for another 20-year bond, let’s place our priorities in order.

It seems if we think this through, most of us will vote “NO” on Proposition 1. Thank you for your time."

Jack Nixon

Logan
 

To the editor:

"Voters may not remember, but in 2004, Cache County voted against a Citizen’s State Initiative to accomplish basically the same services as the “Critical Lands” bond we now have before us want to address again. (Actual vote 58 percent to 42 percent.) Perhaps some of the reasons it was defeated are as follows: A large portion of Cache County’s land area is already being protected and preserved. Approximately 65 percent of land in our county is either federally owned, state owned — including the Division of Wildlife Resources land — or already in the Forest Recreation Zone. Currently over 89 percent of land in Cache County does not have any type of structure on it. (Look at the picture the proponents put on their recent brochure.) At present, those who desire to put farmland in protected land have the ability to do so through Conservation Easements. (As evidenced by several who spoke on KVNU who have taken the opportunity to do so.) This can currently happen without adding an additional tax burden on the citizens. Funding is already in place through the RAPZ tax which a large portion can be used for trails and outdoor recreation. We now pay $2 per vehicle and an additional 4 percent increase in sales tax to deal with air quality issues. An additional dedicated tax was imposed to deal with water and water quality issues. We enjoy a wonderful way of life in Cache County, that’s why our government leaders have already taken measures to insure that it continue that way. We need to realize that more taxes aren’t the answer. Tough economic times require careful look at what’s in place and not duplicate current programs with more government imposed tax burdens on each of us. Vote against Proposition 1!"

Darrel Gibbons

Lewiston
 

"I am in favor of keeping Cache Valley a beautiful place with open space, clean water and pure air. And because of this, I urge Cache Valley citizens to vote against the open space bond.

The bond will do absolutely nothing to improve airshed or watershed. “Open space” will only be achieved on the tracts purchased. Overall open space will remain the same; shifting development from one tract to another accomplishes nothing. No credible explanation has ever been given as to how overall open space will be increased by this bond. These schemes targeting sales tax have twice been voted down by large majorities in this county. Now the debt is to be paid from property taxes burdening the most vulnerable with a highly regressive tax.

The fundamental problem with the bond is that it won’t work. Do the math. At $30,000 an acre, $10 million dollars buys 333 acres. The proponents claim that they can get double and triple matching funds or better. Even so, there is barely enough money to protect even one or two square miles. That is a very, very small portion of our valley, not enough to make any significant difference. Twenty years of debt payments will protect the grand length of a mile of highway corridor (a half mile wide on either side). The public claims for this proposal should get a “triple hot,” “pants on fire” rating; Pinocchio’s nose grows into an elephant’s trunk.

Criteria for selection are to be anything “we want them to be.” This is full of mischief. Systems for awarding public money to private citizens must be crystal clear, publicly decided and dirt simple. Meaning no discourtesy to those six lucky citizens who have already participated, your selection had less to do with merit than your political ties, inside connections, self interest and advance knowledge. Take a look at where the money to date has gone, who got it and what was actually protected.

Lastly, I oppose this bond because it diverts us from taking the reasonable steps we must take to preserve open spaces. We incentivize residential development as it costs less to build homes in the county. With simple, straightforward, evenly applied zoning ordinances we can do much, much more to keep open spaces and improve air and water quality. With careful planning, the beauty of this valley can be preserved at very little public cost.

The citizens of this valley won’t voluntarily donate their money for this program, hence the demand for taxes and debt. This bond proposal is bad government, bad policy, bad planning and bad economics. Public debt should be reserved for the necessities.

Help our valley stay beautiful; support wise planning. Vote No!"

George Daines

Providence
 

"Here is why I’m voting against Proposition 1, the “critical lands” tax and debt.

1. The Oct. 29 headline reads “County budget looks rather lean.” The story says, “...the county may have to lay off some employees and will make budget cuts in some departments next year.” The county executive sees revenue shortfalls because “They’re having a harder time paying their property tax.” Times are likely to get worse for a while. I won’t support a new tax and spend proposition while the county lays off department employees and cuts essential services.

2. Proposition 1 will give us a new tax, but Proposition 1 pushers cannot identify even the first acre that will be preserved. Proposition 1 leaves that to a committee yet to be formed. If they want my vote for a new tax, they have to show me the critical lands — in advance.

3. The groups funding all those Proposition 1 mailers and signs stand to gain personally from the sacrifices of taxpayers. The private Trust for Public Land keeps 10 percent of every dollar going from taxpayers to landowners. Those Proposition 1 ads are just a good business investment for them. Members of the Cache Ag Advisory Board have already pocketed more than $500,000 from state and federal “critical lands” funds and want more.

4. The Proposition 1 political process does not preserve what most people consider critical lands. Well-connected landowners have had their applications approved for remote hillside lands and pastures near the airport that have no development pressure, are not on highway corridors, allow no public access and are marginal for farming. Our experience does not match the grand promises of the Proposition 1 pushers.

I was born and raised here. I love the elbow room we enjoy. I’ve been involved in Cache Valley agriculture, politics and planning for years, including a term on the Ag Advisory Board. If I thought this new tax would produce any of the grand promises, I might support it. But I have learned enough of real-life politics to know that it won’t. The County Council can already identify truly critical lands and budget existing taxes for them without Prop 1.

The only Proposition 1 open space might be in our wallets."

Clair Ellis

Providence
 

"It is clearly wrong to think we would tax our citizens of Cache Valley for the purpose of collecting money to buy development rights from other Cache Valley citizens. We, who own property in Cache Valley and are passionate about keeping land undeveloped, can clearly make that decision without our neighbor’s tax dollars. Clearly right!

I have always enjoyed the view when I leave Wellsville Canyon and start dropping down into our valley and see the awesome architecture of the steeples on our religious edifices that rise above our blanket of trees, which cascade over the homes that house our families, friends and neighbors. Our valley/city fathers have worked well with its residents to create zoning laws that plan for open spaces in our neighborhoods and cities. You only need to put your thumb under your chin and raise your head an inch to see all the open space (mountains that surround our valley), complete with the trails for hiking, biking, walking and all the meditating you could ever dream of.

Let’s put development in perspective. If you were to take a 1/3 acre of land (14,520 sq. ft.) average common in Cache Valley and put a 1,500 sq. ft. home on it … you would be using close to 10 percent of your land for your home. That leaves 90 percent of your land open for space!

I have often thought that most of us have enough land surrounding our homes to have a large family garden complete with an orchard which to me is the most beautiful open space.

I will vote “NO” for Proposition 1, (taking money from citizens for the purpose of buying development rights and giving to a few, clearly wrong,) and instead look at all the property I already own, all the property my county already owns and all the property my state and national government already own and try to keep it clean, beautiful and pleasant to look at. Clearly right!"

DeAnna Hulme

Avon

"Whether against or for, it seems no one has considered “the economic turmoil battering the nation” mentioned in Update Economy, Oct. 30, Herald Journal. I feel that in this economic crisis it is no time to be saddling our ranchers, farmers and any other taxpayers with this committed years of paying government for the claimed but questionable attainable benefits. Lets be wise enough to avoid this unnecessary debt. Vote No on Prop. 1"

Cleon M Kotter

Logan