U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-15-2010, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,543 posts, read 12,608,126 times
Reputation: 2954

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
...all those dead trees we can't touch or use.
I was looking at the highway cams the other day and ... WTF? I've never seen so many dead trees along Rogers Pass, but it looks like more than half are dead. There's a disaster waiting for a spark or a lightning storm, for sure...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-15-2010, 09:00 PM
 
152 posts, read 290,585 times
Reputation: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reziac View Post
Exactly!!

Tho it does require discarding the notion that what your neighbour does or doesn't do impacts your property value, where said impact is in fact only aesthetic.



What an excellent notion. And let's apply it even more stringently to appointed and regulatory officials, who don't even answer to the voters. With jail time for repeat offenders. -- There'd be about six CA officials not behind bars, and probably not a durn one still running loose in Washington D.C.
The answer to the property value question is quite simple. Buy them out!

Thanks for your support of my tort idea. I want to leave it as a civil action because it doesn't cost the taxpayers the expense of prosecuting the jerks! It also throws blood in the water for the lawyers to swarm to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2010, 09:02 PM
 
152 posts, read 290,585 times
Reputation: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElkHunter View Post
Unfortunately, those three things could be for any state. Montana doesn't have the corner on that market.
You're correct; Montana doesn't have the market cornered, but Like Wyoming it is the type of state that isn't so screwed up. The people are self respecting and not dependent enough to set it right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2010, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,543 posts, read 12,608,126 times
Reputation: 2954
Quote:
Originally Posted by nature's cathedral View Post
Thanks for your support of my tort idea. I want to leave it as a civil action because it doesn't cost the taxpayers the expense of prosecuting the jerks! It also throws blood in the water for the lawyers to swarm to.
Actually I'd prefer simply nailing them to the nearest tree as a warning to others, but since we'd run out of trees before we ran out of offenders...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2010, 12:31 AM
 
152 posts, read 290,585 times
Reputation: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip View Post
Excellent post nature's cathedral

My three are:

1) Out of staters whining that things aren't exactly like what they left.

2) Out of state intrests shutting down all extractive industries in Montana so no jobs are produced, and then bellyaching when there are no jobs.

3) People not respecting private property and deciding they know what is best for everyone else. People who think Montana is a park and there should be no private property rights so they can trespass anywhere they like or demand you build a certain kind of house or you may only raise certain animals within smelling distance of their apartment or mcmansion.

If a person puts up the money, (however they got it) and buys property, it is theirs. I don't like accesses to forest service or public ground, or even roads to old mining camps shut down, and there should be access to public waters such as the Smith river or many others, but what crops you raise or don't raise, what animals you choose to have on your property and what kind of house you choose to build, those should be your decision, no-one elses. Regulating who can come on your property comes more from the sue happy loonie toons than from most ranchers wanting to just have their own private feudal estate. Mostly these days it is a CYA situation to protect yourself and your assets, not just being a jerk.

Ted Turner and company are an exception to this rule.

I would add to the excellent point about purposeful misconduct of judges legislating from the bench, I would like to see these enviro-wackos actually have to pay to sue everytime a business comes to the state or when the local/state government try to do fire mitigation by logging off dead trees instead of the taxpayers footing the bill. A looser pays option is good, but only if you have even handed judges. That dip in Missoula would never find for the just cause if the eco-terrorists had to pay for their frivilous lawsuits.

I would like to see access to forest service and public land expanded, not shut down in "roadless" areas where we can't get fire equipment in to fight these huge forest fires, and also to allow families with small kids or elderly parents who have mobility problems to access the forest and enjoy it for camping or picnicing or hiking, or fishing or hunting. It used to be that the family could throw some camping stuff in the car on Friday night after work, drive up into the hills and camp for the weekend. Now you are restricted to a few authorized campgrounds that are overcrowded because the area is shut down, so fewer families make the effort these days. It is really sad.

Closing down huge areas for the express enjoyment of an elite few is not utilizing the land to any purpose but shutting it down so the rich and shameless who want to hike in their berkinstocks with a little cheese and wine in a daypack can "get in touch with nature".

Public land should be open to the public, and utilized for the benefit of the public at large.

OK, Rant over...

for now....

Thanks.

I kept it to three, and honestly the land issues are the primary irritation. In 2007, Ravalli County increased the number of Commissioner to 5 from 3 in a special June election. Three of those elected were put up by the control freak class. The are likely going to be sent packing because there zoning ordinance was soundly defeated in 2008. Some of the stuff they have come up with is actually worse proportionally than what I have seen in Oregon.

Two more ideas I have are:

1. The right to a Jury trial in all matters and issues. The major abuses of the law have come from the Supreme Court upholding lower court rulings (no jury) on an abuse of discretion standard. An interesting case was the Kulstad case where the local court in Missoula and the Montana Supreme Court completely bastardized the meaning of a Montana statute to reach a conclusion they wanted to reach. I think juries should be given the ability to determine precedence and the meaning of the law, and if a jury unanimously determines what the law is then the Supreme Court can't touch the decision.

The judicial branch is the most archaic of all the branches of government and needs substantial reform.

2. Any government entity must show by clear and convincing evidence that any restriction on the right of someone to use their land as they see fit is necessary to prevent an actual or highly probable harm from occurring, and that the restriction is the least restrict means available.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2010, 08:15 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,543 posts, read 12,608,126 times
Reputation: 2954
Quote:
Originally Posted by nature's cathedral View Post
The judicial branch is the most archaic of all the branches of government and needs substantial reform.
Actually, "modernization" of the Judicial branch IS the problem. In days gone by, the judge was not beholden to anyone, and no one could influence his decisions one way or the other. The ONLY standard he was beholden to was the Constitution. That was actually the goal of the lifetime appointment -- to raise judges out of and above the muck of the electoral process. Obviously this did not always work as intended, but it was better than the alternative:

Nowadays, it's about pleasing political cronies so you can get that appointment. Or worse, being elected by the howling mob who know little about the candidates and even less about the Constitution.

A jury trial for everything tends to make matters substantially worse -- as the late Tom Sabo once told me, having a jury trial regarding an obscure subject means you have to convince 12 average idiots instead of just one average idiot, NONE of whom know the first thing about the subject at hand, and most of whom will decide emotionally, not logically, and certainly not according to any Constitution. The ridiculous punitive penalties (sometimes millions or even billions of dollars even for self-inflicted harm!) handled down by juries in civil suits should put us on notice that Tom was correct. Putting average people in charge of the law at such levels results in mob rule enforced to violent extremes.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but in a relatively well-educated state like Montana, I'm thinking judges might be randomly picked from the pool of the legally-educated (which normally means lawyers but could include other law scholars), who must then pass a stringent examination on Constitutional Law, and must make a binding vow to uphold the State and Federal Constitutions above all other interests -- with severe penalties if they demonstrably fail their duty (disrobing and disbarment with a hefty fine would probably serve adequately, tho one is tempted to say "loss of the same Constitutional Right that a bad decision deprived someone else of"). Also, they should serve in groups of ... say, 9, same as the Supreme Court. Thus no single man has control over how the law is interpreted.

Once you've got your pool of Constitutional Judges (as I've just named them), they then serve in the Judging Panel according to a random rotation (so no one can pick and choose their judging panel). Now you've got an old-style judicial that is totally independent of the political process and free of mob rule. Which was what the Founders intended when they created the Judicial Branch.

When you think of reforms, never EVER think just in terms of the good it could do. ALWAYS consider what evil it could do if poorly applied... because sooner or later, it WILL be applied poorly, and you may be its victim.

"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will
convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would
do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.


.

Last edited by Reziac; 09-17-2010 at 08:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2010, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,543 posts, read 12,608,126 times
Reputation: 2954
Quote:
Originally Posted by nature's cathedral View Post
2. Any government entity must show by clear and convincing evidence that any restriction on the right of someone to use their land as they see fit is necessary to prevent an actual or highly probable harm from occurring, and that the restriction is the least restrict means available.
Conversely, on that we are in total agreement. And that is how it used to be -- before zoning and zoning commissions, and restrictions on use based on how it might impact the taxable value of adjacent properties, rather than on whether it would actually and directly harm the owner of said properties.

I specify taxable value because I have come to believe THAT is what restrictive decisions are about -- protecting the hypothetical value not so that the owner's investment is protected (why is that govt's job anyway?) but rather so that its value to the taxman is protected and maximized. I reached this conclusion by noting that whichever property has more taxable value almost invariably wins any arguments over which use gets to continue. 200 acres of pasture or feedlot doesn't bring in near the taxes that even a dozen homes do (unless the raw land value is artificially inflated to its max value as residential property, as others have pointed out is happening to ranchland).

So: Land needs to be taxed at most on actual value (with some basis in original value, so tax inflation doesn't steal people's homes and livelihoods -- see CA Prop13), not on hypothetical value based on some adjacent real estate boom. If zoning is applied, it needs to reflect actual use, not some potential future use that might bring in more taxes. Montana needs to fix this before someday we wake up and there are no farms or ranches left, having all been zoned, restricted, and taxed out of existence.

If this causes a loss of tax revenues, well, maybe the gov't should spend less, just like the rest of us. Or better yet, gov't should shrink back to the level that pre-boom tax revenues can support.

Last edited by Reziac; 09-17-2010 at 08:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 01:30 AM
 
Location: Canackistan
746 posts, read 1,490,983 times
Reputation: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtboy View Post
I would beg to differ that too many gravel roads are a bad thing. I wish there were more. Keeps the pace slow and the drive interesting. I am just one that likes the roads less traveled. Gravel roads are where I grew up and learned to drive when I was 10.
Plus they're cheaper to maintain - just jump in the grader and go..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Brendansport, Sagitta IV
7,543 posts, read 12,608,126 times
Reputation: 2954
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_gateway View Post
Plus they're cheaper to maintain - just jump in the grader and go..
That's an excellent if oft-forgotten point. Whose tax dollars are going to maintain that newly-paved road? (Not to mention reconstruct the road base, which usually needs to be done to support pavement.) Don't forget, the cost of paving (and in town also drainage, curbs, sidewalks, and similar "improvements") is usually paid for by increased property taxes. Is it really worth that much to the people who use it? In most cases, the answer is no; the gravel road suffices.

Also, in Montana's climate, with its multiple freeze/thaw cycles every winter, maintaining paved roads is a lot more complex, and therefore more expensive, than in a single-freeze, single-thaw state (like practically anywhere east of the Badlands). Maintaining a paved road in anything like driveable condition can be cost-prohibitive.

So, yep... jump in the grader and go is a good solution for a lot of Montana roads. Not only that, but it helps preserve the character of Montana.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 01:01 PM
 
18 posts, read 26,431 times
Reputation: 24
Nothing better than driving on a gravel road! I just don't understand the desire for paved roads - Reziac, you are correct about the cost of paving and maintenance too. Why spend more money and lose the charm and feel of a gravel road. Each time I visit Montana I'm surprised at the number of developments that have paved over gravel roads because one or two homeowners have complained about dust!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Montana
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top