Time For Utah To Declare Entitlement Addiction A Public Health Crisis?

I recently stumbled across this article by Dennis Prager:

Entitlements: The Most Dangerous Addiction

There is one addiction, however, that might be more difficult than any other to escape – in part because it is not even regarded as an addiction. It is Entitlements Addiction, an addiction to getting something for nothing.

One indication as to the power of Entitlements Addiction is that, while great numbers of people have voluntarily given up – almost always at great pain – drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc., few give up an addiction to entitlements. For the majority of able-bodied people who get cash payments, food stamps, subsidized housing, free or subsidized health insurance, and other welfare benefits, the thought of giving up any one of those and beginning to pay for them with their own earned money is as hard as giving up alcohol is to an alcoholic.

Politicians know this, which is why it is close to impossible to ever reduce entitlements. And, of course, the Left knows this, which is why the Left almost always wins any debate over entitlements. Every American who is the beneficiary of an entitlement backs entitlements, and many who are not beneficiaries of entitlements would like to be.

Read the whole thing.

Anyway, the article got me thinking: Last year, Utah State Senator Todd Weiler passed a bill declaring pornography a public health crisis which was subsequently signed by Governor Herbert. This year, Herbert signed Weiler’s bill passed by the legislature allowing you to sue porn makers if a minor has been injured.

Any chance a Utah Legislature and the Governor would support a bill identifying entitlement addiction as a public health crisis or is that an approved addiction so long as the GOP/Democrats are acting as a dealer?…

Utah’s Sanctuary Link To An Illegal Immigrant Cop Killer

During President Trump’s address to Congress, he had the widows of Officers Michael Davis and Danny Oliver in attendance. An illegal immigrant, Luis Enrique Monroy-Bracamonte (aka Marcelo Marquez), had murdered them.

Looking up the case, one finds a Utah link of neglected opportunities in CBS Sacremento’s article “How Did Luis Enrique Monroy-Bracamonte Hide In United States Illegally Until Deputy Killings?” Apparently, Mr. Bracamonte was a return client to law enforcement and the revolving border door:

Luis Enrique Monroy-Bracamonte had a lot to hide. He was living in the United States illegally, had been convicted in Arizona for selling drugs and twice deported to Mexico.

Eventually, he and his wife moved from Arizona and settled in West Valley City. However, he still had brushes with the law:

A search of Utah court records for Marcelo Marquez shows a history of about 10 tickets and misdemeanor traffic offenses between 2003 and 2009, which typically don’t trigger a fingerprint check against immigration records. The records list one speeding ticket in 2009 and three small claims filings attempting to collect outstanding debts.

One of the traffic offenses was more than a minor parking ticket, it was a hit-and-run:

Police in West Valley City, Utah, said they took a fingerprint from a man using the name Marcelo Marquez during a misdemeanor hit-and-run arrest in 2003.

However, Utah authorities say fingerprints from such suspects are not regularly entered into a database that would flag other arrests in the US or deportations.

Fortunately, Utah is an accommodating State for illegal immigrants. Salt Lake City Police Chiefs consistently and explicitly state that they refuse to enforce immigration law. Meanwhile, the LDS Church monetarily assists illegal immigrants (via fast offerings), pushes “compacts” intended to lead to amnesty, and lobbies the state legislature to pass clearly unconstitutional legislation (among it’s myriad of flaws).

The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce (via Senator Curt Bramble “Bramnesty”), in an apparent lust for cheap labor, heads up efforts at the Utah legislature as well for the aforementioned legislation and fights tooth-and-nail to block legislation that would address enforcement or even identity theft prevention measures like E-Verify (illegal immigrants frequently engage in employment-related ID theft, leaving victims in their wake).

This welcoming sanctuary coupled with flouting established law has consequences. In this case, enforcement officers bore those consequences:

Two deputies who approached the pickup while it was parked alongside a road were shot with an AR-15-type assault weapon, police said. Homicide Detective Michael David Davis Jr., 42, died at a hospital.

Despite being illegally in the United States and a convicted felon, Bracomonte, aka Marquez, had illegally obtained a firearm  and, despite multiple police stops while he was using his Driving Privilege Card which clearly identified him as someone who could not provide proof of legal presence in the United States,  no law enforcement officer saw fit to check with or hold him for immigration authorities nor even run his fingerprints. After all, they were just following the policy established by their police chiefs and elected officials. However, had just one officer checked his immigration status or entered his fingerprints in the above database, he could have been incarcerated for illegal re-entry and two lives would have been saved.

It’s no wonder the Mexican Consulate plans on aiding illegal immigrants in Utah with legal assistance to fight deportation. If you were Mexico, would you want someone like Mr. Bracamonte/Marquez to ‘come home’? No, especially when you have a state and with leaders so willing to enable his presence and turn a politically-correct blind eye to his crimes and the victims left behind.

Bountiful Halts City Hall Project For Now, Looks To Keep Plaza Boondoggle

Some good news. The Bountiful City Council has pulled back and stopped the new city hall project and will shortly cancel the contracts for it. From the Better Bountiful group that opposed the project:

The Better Bountiful Committee and its many supporters welcome the Bountiful City Council’s decision to cancel their plans to build a new city hall.  The City Council and Mayor have heard the voices of the people and will now invest funds to properly maintain our current City Hall rather than abandon it.  That is a decision we welcome.   We particularly appreciate those City leaders who took the time to listen and discuss the matter with us.

All major plans involving taxpayers’ money are always best accomplished when citizens are allowed a voice at the ballot box. We assume the City Council will apply that principle to the proposed Downtown City Plaza, major infrastructure improvements, and all other similar plans going forward.

The city council also sent out a release citing the reason for the cancellation was to “promote community harmony over the new building.” Hopefully that’s the case but I doubt the motives are so pure. As Fox 13 notes: “The lawsuit was the tipping point for the city.” The city council also held a special (previously unscheduled) closed session meeting to discus “pending litigation” on February 21 (6 days before the release).

The city council plans on continuing with the next pet project (the plaza) and certainly doesn’t appear to embrace Better Bountiful’s request that residents be able to vote on it: “The Downtown Plaza will also remain a priority, and will require a new contract to complete.” They continue to justify this by saying it’ll ‘revitalize Main Street’. People aren’t going to go shop there because of a cute plaza or gleaming city hall and Main St. isn’t in disrepair (it’s a pretty, quaint area). Besides locals, Main St. is a hassle to get to and doesn’t have any store(s) to draw significant traffic to the area. It will remain a local shopping area unless something drastic happens (think huge project redeveloping a massive area and road infrastructure). The constant pet projects gambits justified by saying “revitalize Main St.” are tiring.

I’ve said it many times. Politicians don’t give up on pet project easily. They won’t hear either. I’m glad the new city hall was stopped but one to point one last thing out: Milton Friedman continues to be proven right, these unnecessary pet projects rarely fail despite opposition. As Better Bountiful notes:

This outcome is a reflection of many hundreds of hours of hard work, many thousands of dollars, and some of the best community teamwork…

Read the above linked post and you’ll understand why that quote proves Friedman right despite this being one of the rare successes by “diffused interests”. If you don’t see the connection, drop a comment or use the contact page.

In the meantime, enjoy the success. Ultimately, the only way to have a lasting success is to elect local/state/national representatives who respect limiting government to core functions.

Food: A New Sin Tax For Utah?

That’s right. I’m going to say it again: Food is perfectly eligible as a sin tax.

…and by sin, I’m referring to the politician’s and crony organizations’ sin.

Utah legislators are contemplating raising taxes on food because they’re worried about a budget shortfall. It’s funny how that may be the case after we’ve spent, bonded and redirected who knows how many millions or billions on crap outside the proper role of government. I guess all those cute ‘it only costs a tenth/half percent of the budget or it’s just a few dollars a day’ projects add up and you start to fall short for important stuff…like more useless projects government shouldn’t be involved with.

Rather than just slapping everyone with another tax hike, maybe they should look at cutting some of the crony capital junk (UTA, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce front group boondoggles come to mind, among others). How about also ditching wasteful incremental budgeting with all it’s skunks, while your at it?

On the local level, we keep hearing that RDAs for a new, unnecessary city hall building won’t raise taxes. As I said in the past, it’s robing Peter to pay Paul and the piper will come calling when taxing entities find they’ve fallen short of money because the RDA etc. ate some of it up. The above is another example of the fallacy of the city council’s argument.

Finally, politicians don’t own all the guilt. The public (you and I) will band together to form groups demanding stuff like recreation centers, theaters, RAP taxes which impose on budgets and, ultimately, on families. Hopefully, we’ll consider the propriety and whether it’s a core governmental function or not next time we want something, else we’re our own worst enemy.

Predictable Goat Rope: Bountiful City Nixes Citizen Vote On New City Hall

A few weeks ago I warned:

Cities and politicians don’t like to lose on these things…politicians will use whatever they can to invalidate a petition or, failing that, pull an end run around a vote outcome…

My post linked to a Clipper article about the city ‘interpreting’ their vote on the city hall. You can guess how they interpreted the vote. Here’s the summary of where things stand from the petition gatherers:

CITY REJECTS CITIZENS’ REFERENDUM
Says New City Hall is Not Up to the Voters

The City of Bountiful on Friday Jan 27th, officially rejected the referendum petition signed by over 4000 Bountiful residents.   “Administrative acts are not referable” to the voters, wrote City Recorder Shawna Andrus about the City’s decision.  In other words, the City claims that the October decision to build a new city hall and plaza—officially the “Bountiful Downtown Plan”—was a mere administrative decision not subject to voter approval.

Council member John Pitt explained his support for rejecting the referendum.  “I see the city hall decision as clearly an administrative decision since it involved no laws, no ordinances, no tax increase, and no zoning changes,” he said.

During December, 4126 citizens signed a petition asking City leaders to put the matter on the ballot next November.  The petition was submitted to the Davis County Recorder who then forwarded it to the City.  Although the City claims the petition was “insufficient,” the message from voters was crystal clear, say the co-sponsors: “Let the taxpayers decide how their money is spent.”

Bryan Anderson, one of the co-sponsors, said that before he started gathering signatures, he did not know how intensely Bountiful residents felt about the City’s plan.  “I now know for sure that the majority of Bountiful residents are against the idea.  Of the hundreds of signatures I gathered, I only met one person who was actually in favor of the idea,” said Anderson. “People didn’t just sign their name in favor of referring the matter to voters, rather, they spoke of their frustration with our city leaders’ decision.”

In October, the City Council voted to demolish the University of Utah Extension building (formerly Stoker School), sell off the current city campus for mixed use development and a bus station, and build a new city hall and plaza on the Stoker site.  Estimates of the cost of the plan vary from $15 million to $22 million dollars.

Council member Richard Higginson admitted at the October City Council meeting that the current city hall “could probably stand for another 60, or 80, or 100 years.”  But, he said, “That’s not the issue.”  “City Hall is just in the way right here for the transit-oriented development” the City Council wants to build on the current city campus.

“What ‘transit-oriented development’?” asks co-sponsor Dean Collinwood.  “Have the citizens ever been given a chance to vote on such a scheme?  Have they ever agreed to have rapid transit busses running in front of the single-family residences near City Hall?   This is a scheme that exists only in the minds of the City Council.  It doesn’t exist in the hearts of the citizens, because they have never been given a chance to vote on it.”

Under Utah law, voters can make some policies directly, without having to go through elected representatives, explained Dean Collinwood. To do so, the issue must involve a “local law,” defined by the Utah Code as any “ordinance,” “resolution,” or “master plan.”

“Clearly, the Bountiful Downtown Plan, a massive project to alter the location of Bountiful’s seat of government, sell off or demolish several pieces of valuable city property, develop Five-Points, and turn the city campus into a rapid transit bus station, fits the legal definition of a master plan perfectly,” he said.

In City documents, the master plan is known as the “Bountiful Downtown Plan.”  City leaders often refer to it as “the plan,” “the project,” or “the comprehensive solution.”  Council member John Pitt calls it “the $22 million redevelopment plan.”  City Manager Gary Hill explained that the idea was to “take advantage of the property around Stoker that the City owns to develop into a plaza, and then to develop…the area around [the current City Hall] as a transit-oriented mixed use development, and then to take advantage of those ideas and reinvest money at the Five-Points area.”

The problem, says Dean Collinwood, is “the people who would pay for it were not asked to approve it.  That’s about as un-American as you can get.”

Half the states in America and all the states in the western half of the country allow popular referendums so that matters can be put forward for direct vote by the people or to recall elected officials. The referendum petition that citizens recently signed was such an effort.

One city-owned property cited for demolition under the Bountiful Downtown Plan is the Stoker School building which is listed on the National Historic Register and which has been used for some thirty years as the University of Utah’s Bountiful Extension.  The Extension caters to some 1200 students a year.  University officials have indicated that if their building is demolished, the University will leave Bountiful and South Davis County permanently.  A group of citizens has already started the process of asking a judge to stop the demolition.

Another part of the masterplan is to sell off the current city campus and turn the space into a bus station surrounded by mixed-use, high density buildings.  Library officials have indicated that the Library is already short on parking space, and that if the city hall campus is filled up with buildings, they will not have space for Library patrons to park…

What I said two weeks ago bears repeating: “Politicians will protect their pet projects tooth-and-nail.”

City politicians have had a field day over the last decade or so heaping new pet projects, taxes, and costs on citizens. It needs to end. The council and mayor should be voted out next election an allow for a fresh start with a focus on core city services/functionality rather than personal legacy building.

Bountiful City May Circumvent Referendum For New City Hall

A month ago, I noted that Bountiful residents had a “Last Chance To Stop Bountiful City From Blowing $21 Mil Of Your Taxes“. Here’s an update.

First, the good news. It appears that the referendum signature gathering was successful: Ballot petition drive exceeds expectations. The story notes 3,900 signatures were collected in a very short time but I understand the total is closer to 4,100. Those totals, however, are before the signatures are vetted/verified. Nevertheless, referendum proponents expect that they will comfortably meet the threshold for a referendum as they collected a good cushion of extra signatures (about 1,400 beyond the required 2,765).

Now my warning. Cities and politicians don’t like to lose on these things. As I talked to people on this, I remember someone asking me if I thought the referendum had a chance. I told them politicians will use whatever they can to invalidate a petition or, failing that, pull an end run around a vote outcome. Low and behold, about a day or two later I read this in the Clipper (Deadline nearing for city hall referendum petitions):

The committee said that once the signatures are gathered and verified, city administrators can either accept the petitions and put the issue on the November ballot, or reject them, citing the vote to approve by the council was an administrative, rather than a legislative, decision. A final decision on acceptance or rejection could come before the end of January, Collinwood said. [Emphasis added]

Therein is your caveat emptor: Politicians will protect their pet projects tooth-and-nail. Don’t get complacent and think this is on the way to being won. It is not.

For ongoing updates on the referendum and the city hall issue see: NoNewCityHall.com and the Better Bountiful group.

 

Last Chance To Stop Bountiful City From Blowing $21 Mil Of Your Taxes

About a month ago, the city council voted unanimously* to ignore citizen pleas and dump $21 million to please yet another round of special interests. They continue to justify it as something that won’t raise taxes, when it reality it will, just not immediately (they’re robbing Peter to pay Paul – see also: Fund Utah schools by ending corporate incentives).

You now have one last chance to stop this money grab and you can do it while Christmas shopping. A citizens referendum is prepared and needs your signature before January 6th (it takes a minute don’t put it off!). Just swing by K & J Auto or contact the Better Bountiful group. Details (edited for brevity):

The long-awaited Referendum is finally, ready to sign!

THANK YOU!  We have come a long way together, and owe it to your great support.  With people focused on the holiday season we need your help now, more than ever!  Please see below for details on how to help and ensure we get the signatures we need!

HOW CAN YOU HELP?

  •  Visit one of the locations at the given times below and sign the referendum.
  • Or, even better, we need volunteers to collect signatures on the approved forms (See where to obtain them below).

WHERE DO I GO TO PARTICIPATE?

  • K & J Auto (10 am – 6 pm Monday – Friday, 10 am – 3 pm Saturday)

o   310 South Main Street

One quick easy trip. That’s it….and since your downtown anyway, why not check out some of the local merchants offerings for Christmas (hint, hint).

For ongoing updates on the referendum and the city hall issue see: NoNewCityHall.com and the Better Bountiful group.

*One member on the council (Harris) was partially fooled into voting for the entire amount when the council presented the spending as an all-or-nothing package (not allow for components to be split up). Just a typical political move from entrenched politicians to get junk funded (wish more people like Ted Cruz would call them out on this type of crap and simply say ‘fine, I’ll vote no to the whole thing then’).