SedonaEye.com financial columnist J. Rick Normand
Sedona AZ (September 1, 2015) – Keep Sedona Beautiful, the Sierra Club, the Monument Workgroup, Tom O’Halleran, U.S. Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, Sedona’s last Mayor, a former Councilor now running for our School Board, Sedonadotbiz, and the current City Council proponents of the Sedona-Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument (“SVVRRNM”) designation seem to be running an advocacy campaign for the subject National Monument designation with no concern for constitutional law, or any semblance of a fairness doctrine similar to that of the FCC for broadcasters which requires fair and equal presentation of the points of view of two opposing parties. The SVVRRNM proponents, mentioned above, all seem to believe in the engagement of the unconstitutional power of misinterpretation thus leading the public to believe that President Obama alone can decide this issue and that his decision is final.
WRONG, WRONG and INTENTIONALLY WRONG!
Arizona Congressperson Ann Kirkpatrick has apparently been asked by the nefarious Monument Workgroup to petition President Obama to fast-track an execution of an Executive Order to install the SVVRRNM with little or no public input or debate as to whether or not it should be so ordered. Under President Obama, the Executive Branch has swelled into a monolithic web of lawmaking agencies that circumvent the lawmaking power of Congress. Rather than working with Congress, the President has implemented his federalist/anti-state’s rights agenda by repeatedly issuing new regulations through Executive Branch agencies in order to avoid public-issue debate. The legal status of all these Executive Orders has not been court tested to any large degree, but they will be. Notwithstanding, the states of the union are successfully fighting back!
Is there anything the not consulted and discarded public can do to refute the complete disregard for Constitutional Law by the federal Executive Branch, especially as it may relate to the SVVRRNM designation proposal that should be debated under the Antiquities Act of 1906? YES, THERE IS AND IT’S POWERFUL.
U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington DC
It is called the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Nullification Clause. The Tenth Amendment reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Supreme Court has long held that states do NOT have to be active participants in the enforcement or effectuation of federal acts or regulatory programs. I’ll bet most readers have never known that. The basis for what is now known as the legal doctrine of “anti-commandeering” was based upon the advice of James Madison, writing in Federalist #46, and is the foundation cornerstone of nullification.
To imply that the states do NOT have the Constitutional power to resist unconstitutional actions of the Federal government is to ignore the clear language of both the 9th and 10th Amendments. Resisting unconstitutional acts of the Federal government is a reserved power. The Constitution establishes the limits of Federal power, not the limitation of states powers!
These days we’re seeing a lot of newspaper columns condemning the idea of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. A common claim is that nullification is “unconstitutional.” The most common claim is that the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause precludes nullification. “Federal law trumps state law” is the rather inane way we hear the principle expressed these days by ignorant media talking heads.
What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”
Our Founding Fathers were dedicated to the idea that only the Constitution and laws, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, should be the supreme law of the land. Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state, historically, maintains that a given federal law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place. This concept has always been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (see below).
Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
So just what IS nullification and how does it happen?
Nullification is any act or set of acts, which has as its end result, a particular federal law being rendered null and void, or just plain unenforceable in a localized area.
Nullification often begins with members of your state legislature declaring a federal act unconstitutional and then committing to resist its implementation. It usually involves a bill, passed by both houses and signed by your Governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law, or it might even amend your state constitution. In this case, it is quite simply a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce a particular federal law it deems unconstitutional. Arizona has done this several times.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ALWAYS supported the Tenth Amendment and its Nullification Clause.
The three seminal Supreme Court cases and rulings, which have never been overturned, are:
In New York v. United States (1992) the Court held, with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor writing for the majority in the 6-3 decision:
“As an initial matter, Congress may not simply “commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.”
Justice O’Connor later expounded on this point.
“While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.”
Printz v. United States (1997) serves as the lynch pin for our nation’s “anti-commandeering doctrine.” The Supreme Court held that:
“… [in New York v. United States (1992)] Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program…such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
In Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Supreme Court held that:
“…allowing Congress to essentially punish states that refused to go along violates constitutional separation of powers.” Said Justice Roberts for the majority “the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.” New York, supra, at 162. Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.
To prove the point that the Constitutional Tenth Amendment Nullification Clause is the law of the land, voters in Arizona approved a ballot measure that follows James Madison’s advice to stop federal overreach. Approved was Proposition 122, a state constitutional amendment that enshrines the anti-commandeering doctrine, discussed above, in our state’s constitution. The language amends the state constitution to give Arizona the ability to “exercise its sovereign authority to restrict the actions of its [state] personnel and the use of its financial resources to purposes that are consistent with the [U.S.] Constitution” [as interpreted by the state of Arizona through its legislature]. The seminal Supreme Court rulings above support the legal status of Proposition 122 and statutes like it in a majority of states. (See this link http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/)
Sedona Cathedral Rock
Thus, grounds for a Tenth Amendment nullification of the SVVRRNM in the state of Arizona would be the denial to the public of input of information, and resulting Congressional feedback, that would affect their support of an Executive Order (providing they even understand what that is) authorizing the subject National Monument designation! In other words, if the subject National Monument is shoved down the throats of 80,000 residents of the Verde Valley and its cities and townships without their collective voices being heard, then our state legislature can pass a law requiring our state government to refuse to assist the National Monument federal management agency which will make it nearly impossible for the Feds to administer and enforce the designation created by Executive Order.
Therefore, I would suggest, that in the interests of fairness, fair reporting, true environmentalism, truthful advertising and marketing, that KSB publish the following as a fair offset to your current SVVRRNM handouts, with bullet points, entitled “Honoring the Past…Preserving the Future,” as follows or face the prospect of Tenth Amendment nullification:
*Keep Sedona Beautiful (KSB), The Sierra Club, several City of Sedona City Councilors and its Mayor, several former Councilors and Mayor, all endemic to the City of Sedona, are all allies called to action by the CITY of SEDONA MONUMENT WORKGROUP, who have the intent of forcing the SVVRRNM designation upon the entirety of the Verde Valley, its environs which include parts of the Flagstaff area along I-17 and the Village of Oak Creek, as well as the cities of Cottonwood, Camp Verde, Clarkdale and Jerome.
This is a case of a few dozen unidentified people attempting to force their will on better than 80,000 people without input from any of you. The activists of said MONUMENT WORKGROUP are not unidentified nor is their source of funding.
*There is no difference between the federal land and natural resources oversight and management capabilities of one federal agency and another.
*The KSB Handout and RRN full-page ad both state that the USFS will manage the SVVRRNM. They only manage 9 out 117 U.S. National Monuments and they will not provide an absolute GUARANTEE that they will be the Monument’s management agency in perpetuity.
What’s worse, if that statement is true, then what will change with a National Monument designation unless the National Park Service is the manager?
*The track-record of federal land and resources stewardship needs only to be looked at under the microscopic view of the recent ecological disasters of Durango, Colorado, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire in ARIZONA (the most destructive wildfire in American history), and the utter destruction of ARIZONA’s formerly magnificent Organ Pipe National Monument.
*The SVVRRNM designation will create a federal choke hold on the regional economy of the Verde Valley by virtue of publishing onerous access and use rules to be applied, at agency will, to visitors who must buy permits at, as of yet, unknown cost.
Bell Rock and Village of Oak Creek will become part of the Sedona Verde Valley National Monument area
*The SVVRRMM designation, subject to an emergency declaration of the federal government could create a threat to local self-governance by virtue of the imposition in the VERDE VALLEY of the U.S. Constitution’s Property Clause (Supreme Court upheld) “Inholding rule.” See https://sedonaeye.com/damn-all-of-you-who-want-all-the-facts/
*Current usage rights of the proposed area of the SVVRRNM designation by locals will be severely curtailed from what we have now. KSB says, though, that the designation will prevent vandalism to the Monument’s antiquities. Yes, the Feds have certainly demonstrated their competency in that regard relative to prevention of Mexican drug cartel physical invasion and control of ARIZONA’s Organ Pipe National Monument, haven’t they?
*The SVVRRNM designation proposal assures no protections to locals against extreme unaddressed and unchallengeable permit fees.
*The ecology of U.S. National Parks and Monuments bordering Mexico has been literally trampled and is severely at risk from the illegal aliens coming into the U.S. who enter through those parks (such as ARIZONA’s Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument).
The Sierra Club, partner of KSB, responded to this threat, not by supporting the border fence, but by filing lawsuits against the fence claiming it would disrupt animal habitats when, in fact, the flood of illegal aliens has already disrupted those animal habitats. See http://www.desertinvasion.us/
*The Sierra Club’s opposition TO JUST THE FEAR of logging, including any selective logging at all, on public lands has caused an excessive fuel buildup in forests and wild lands. This was the reason for the severity of ARIZONA’s massive Rodeo-Chediski fire in 2002 which became the most destructive, by far, in U.S. history.
While periodic fires are a natural part of the ecology and most forest and grassland types are dependent on fire to one degree or another, the fires resulting from excessive fuel buildup are neither natural nor environmentally benign but are extraordinarily dangerous. This fact is stated in light of the fact that the Sierra Club also prevented for decades the incutting of fire control roads for future fire fighting equipment in the area of the Rodeo-Chediski fire near Cibeque, AZ.
*The National Forest Service, which KSB SVVRRNM promotional literature says will manage our proposed National Monument, is an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Meanwhile, the Africanized Honey Bee, aka “Killer Bee,” has migrated into the U.S. while the USDA was supposed to find ways to prevent that from happening. ARIZONA is the only state in the union that is now 100% infested with the insects who’ve caused this ecological disaster. We have them in the Verde Valley as a result of federal land stewardship. See, at the USDA government website “Honey Bee Research: Africanized Honey Bees.”
*Prove that the SVVRRNM designation will prevent antiquities vandalism and improve the quality of life of Verde Valley residents.
Please readers, demand accountability in the National Monument marketing materials of KSB, the Sierra Club, the City of Sedona spokespersons, the nefarious Monument Workgroup and the political proponents of the SVRRNM.
What can you do?
You can contact your Arizona State Senators and House Representatives and tell them that if President Obama issues and Executive Order establishing the Sedona-Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument, you want a bill introduced in the Arizona Legislature to invoke the Nullification Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment ordering the state government of Arizona not to cooperate with the U.S. SVVRRNM management agency which will parallel Arizona Proposition 122.
Sylvia Allen LD6 (R) sallen@azleg.gov Ph 602-926-5409 Fax 602-417-3105
(President Pro Tempore)
Steve Pierce LD1 (R) spierce@azleg.gov Ph 602-926-5584 Fax 602-417-3101
Brenda Barton LD6 (R) bbarton@azleg.gov Ph 602-926-4129 Fax 602-417-3010
Bob Thorpe LD6 (R) bthorpe@azleg.gov Ph 602-926-5219 Fax 602-417-3118
Noel W. Campbell LD1 (R) ncampbell@azleg.gov Ph 602-926-3124 Fax 602-417-3287
Karen Fann LD1 (R) kfann@azleg.gov Ph 602-926-5874 Fax 602-417-3001
Read www.SedonaEye.com for daily news and interactive views!
Below is a letter from AZ LD6 Representative, Bob Thorpe, which was sent to POTUS on September 1. While the specific subject of the letter is the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, the comprenhension review of the legal and property issues apply to the Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument as well. The fact that 25 members of the United States Congress including AZ CD4 Rep. Paul Gosar, both AZ Senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake,and 39 members of Arizona House and Senate are unequivocally opposed to the National monument seems to have escaped the Monument Workgroup.
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument, Page
1
of
10
September 1, 2015
President
Barack
Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500
cc
:
U.S.
House
Speaker
John
Boehner
,
U.S.
Senate Majority Leader
Mitch
McConnell,
U.S.
Attorney General
Loretta Lynch
Dear
Mr.
President
:
This letter
reiterate
s
the
numerous
official
communications sent to the United States from the
State of
Arizona
in
continued opposition to the
creation of the proposed
1.7 million acre Grand
Canyon Watershed National Monument (GCWNM)
,
and any other new or enlarged
National
Monument
within Arizona
.
The thirty
–
nine
(3
9
) below listed
bipartisan
Arizona St
ate House
and Senate members
are unequivocal
ly opposed
to the
GCWNM
.
Additionally,
the GCWNM
is opposed by: 25 members of the U.S. House of Representatives
including
the majority of
Arizona Congressmen
,
both
U.S. Senators McCain and Flake,
the
Arizona Game and Fish Departmen
t and
its
Commission,
Arizona city and county elected
officials
,
members of
the Arizona Havasupai and Navajo
Tribe
s
, and
over 60
wildlife,
recreational
and agricultural organizations.
11
Nearly
81
percent
(
59.7 million acres) of land within
Arizona is already u
nder
the control of the United
States
(see
the
gray areas in the
BLM ma
p
to the
left)
, including National Monuments,
National
Parks, National Forests
,
B
ureau of Land
Management
, military, tribal, U
.
S
. Fish and
Wildlife,
Wilderness restrictions and special land
use designations.
The
GCWNM
will
withdraw
1.7
million additional
acres
from multip
le
–
uses
,
such as
recreation
(
hiking, camping,
hunting, fishing
)
,
agriculture (
farming, ranching,
grazing
)
,
mining
and development
.
Only about
18
percent of
the 73 million acres of
land within Arizona
is in private ownership
,
and
thus
paying
taxes
for
public education and other needed government services
. This places Arizona and the other
western states
at
huge
fiscal
disadvantage
s
,
in comparison to the eastern
states
that have very
small percentages of their land
un
der the
control
of
the United States
.
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon
Watershed
National Monument, Page
2
of
10
Executive
Summary
of
the
Facts
The
following
includes
many
of the
reasons
why the United States cannot
and should not
create the GCWNM
:
It is
a
contractual breach by the United States of the terms of Arizona’s Enabling Act,
which
stipulates
that a portion of the
revenue
from
the
State Trust land
be used for
public education
(
the
beneficiaries
.
)
The existing and ne
wly proposed National
Monuments encumber almost 162,000 ac
res of Arizona State Trust land,
which
violat
es
the terms of Arizona’s Enabling Act
and
financially
punishes
Arizona
public education
4
None of the Arizona
Legislatures (as required by Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17 of
the U.S. Constitution),
G
overnors,
or any voter referendum has ever approved the
creation of any of the
National Monuments
or
National
Parks
created
within Arizona
2
It will
encumber 1.7 million
more acres
of
land within
Arizona
(
an area
larger than the
States of Delaware and Rhode Island combined),
including
the
unconstitutional
seizing
of
over 62
,000 acres of
additional
State Trust land
,
7,000 acres of private land
, and vast
amounts of
contractually
lease
d
public
land
. The perimeter fence
alone
will be
greater
than the distance between Washington D.C and New York
City
, approximately
206
miles long
It will
lock
–
up vast
natural
lumber and
mineral
resources
, including
gold, silver,
copper
,
and
what is
believed
to be
the largest and richest uranium
deposits
in the
world
, a resource that
ha
s been called “the most significant of strategic minerals
.
”
T
he
National Materials and Minerals Policy Research and Development Act of 1980
, TITLE
30 CHAP
TER 28 § 1601
begins by stating
“
The Congress
finds that
(1) the availability of
materials is essential for national security,
econ
omic well
–
being, and industrial
production
.
”
Encumbering this important resource would be devastating f
or the United
States
, especially i
n light of the recent revelation that
under
S
ecretary
of State Clinton
,
the
Russians
ha
ve
gained
control over
20 percent
of
the
United Stat
e
s
Uranium
10
GCWNM
was not proposed in compliance with FLPMA
(
Federal Land Policy and
Management Act
)
or NEPA
(
National Environmental Policy Act
)
, and
its
creation
lacks
tran
sparency, public involvement and a full accounting of all impacts to multi
–
users
including outdoor recreational enthusiasts. It
specifically
harms
Arizona’s authority to
manage wildlife
(including
threatened and
endangered)
and
their
assoc
iated habitats
1
Use of the Antiquities Act of 1906
3
for the creation of National Monuments
within the
states
is in
vio
lat
ion of
the U.S. Constitution:
1.
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17: use of state land by the United States must be for
enumerated uses and “purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state”
.
Arizona has
never approved or has
been compensated for t
he State Trust land
encumbered within the
National Monuments.
2
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon
Watershed
National Monument, Page
3
of
10
2.
The
Fifth Amendment
:
“No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation,”
wh
ich
has occurred repeatedly to
Arizona State Trust,
private and
contractually
leased
public
land
7
3.
Article 4, Section 4: citizen
s
are
constitutionally guaranteed
a
“Republican Form of
Government”
within the states
, which is
violated
when
ever
an individual
enters
Federally controlled
Arizona lands
8
4.
The Antiquities Act
is unconstitutional because it grants the President with entirely
new powers that are not enumerated and are not in
Pursuance
of the Constitution
(the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2.)
The U.S. Constitution does not grant
Congress
with
the enumerated power or authority to enact these new Executive
powers, which are clearly
not in
p
ursuance
of the Constitution, but are in fact in
direct conflict with it (Articl
e I, Section 8, Paragraph 17
.)
In order for the Act to be
considered
Constitutional
, a new
amendment is required
that would
define
“National Monuments” and “National Parks” as enumerated uses of land within a
sta
te by the United States, and
would
provide the President with these new
powers
claimed within the Act: to s
eize land within a state for
use by the United States
without the consent of the state legislature and without just compensation
.
3
The GCWNM
,
and the current National Monuments
,
violate multiple provisions of the
Antiquities Act of 1906 which is used as the instrument for the
unlawful seizure
of
huge
amounts of St
ate
Trust
,
private
and contractually leased public land
3
It v
iolat
es
the doctrine of the Equality of States:
The United States currently controls
59.7 million acres (81
per
cent)
of land within Arizona
.
This i
nclud
es
3.
7
million acres
within
22
National Monuments
and Parks
,
which have
already encumber
ed
almost
100,000 acres of State Trust land
,
and countless acres of private
land
and
contractually
leased public land.
The Unit
ed States
only
pays PILT
(Payment in Lieu of Taxes)
at
an
annual
average of
about
59
cents
per acre, but
unlike all other
private
landowners,
the
United States
does not pay
assessed
property taxes
on any of the
59.7
million
acres
of
land it holds within Ar
izona
. This
massive
inequity
in
the
Federal control of state land
does not exist
with
in the eastern states, and it dramatically
harms our city, county and
state government’s ability to fund education and basic public services.
9
It
again
violates the doctr
ine
of the Equality of States
:
Arizona
currently
has the largest
number of National Monuments (22)
created with
the second largest number of acres
(
3.
7
million.) T
here
are grave
inequalities
between western and eastern states. T
here are
almost 5 times more
National Monument
s in the western states (W=102, E=23), the
total
number of acres of
National Monuments in the western states
is 879 times
larger
(W=71
,
2
00,000
acres, E=81
,000
acres), and the average number of acres within
each
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon
Watershed
National Monument, Page
4
of
10
National Monument in the we
stern states is 189 times larger (W=698,337 acres, E=3,523
acres).
9
It will end multiple
–
use lands
within the
GCWNM
, including access, conservation
efforts and wildlife
–
related recreatio
n
, wildlife population augmentations, wildlife
habitat manipulations
and enhancements, wildlife water development and
maintenance,
and
hunting and fishing access
1
It ha
s huge
potential
ly
negative economic impact
s:
fishing,
hunting
and
recreation
genera
tes $1.2 billion in spending, creating
an economic impact of $2.1 billion to the
S
tate of Arizona annually,
support
ing
more than 18,000 jobs
,
$699 million in wages
, an
d
generat
ing
more than $132 million in state tax revenue.
Arizona’s
neighbor Utah reports
that with
the
creation of the Escalante
–
Grand Staircase National Monument, local
counties and communities have experienced rural depopulation, a negative impact on
pu
blic schools, and overall economic losses and negative impacts to the cities, counties
and state.
6
In conclusion
, t
he State of Arizona
implores
the United States
to
end its 109
–
year
uncons
titutional practice of creating National Monuments within Arizona and the other states
,
that p
lace
land use restrictions on additional acreage within Arizona
,
and
to
immediately
begin the process of
fully
returning these lands to the control of each state.
Additionally,
the
United States
needs to
immediately begin the process of disposing of its vast land holdings
within Arizona and the other western states, as it has already done in the eastern states.
Most
Respectfully,
Arizona State Representative Bob Thorpe
, Legislative District 6
Co
–
signers of this
Letter I
nclude
House Speaker Gowan
Representative
Barton
Representative Borelli
Representative Boyer
Representative Campbell
Representative Cobb
Representative Coleman
Representative Fann
Representative Finchem
Representative Gray
Rep
resentative Kern
Representative
Lawrence
Representative Leach
Representative Livingston
Representative Mesnard
Representative Mitchell
Representative Norgaard
Representative
Pratt
Representative Robson
Representative Shope
Representative Stevens
Representa
tive Townsend
Representative Ugenti
Representative Weninger
Senator Allen
Senator Barto
Senator Begay
Senator Burges
Senator Dial
Senator Farnsworth
Senator Griffin
Senator Kavanagh
Senator Lesko
Senator Pierce
Senator Shooter
Senator Smith
Senator Ward
Se
nator Worsley
Senator Yarbrough
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon
Watershed
National Monument, Page
5
of
10
The following information is provided in support of the claims made with
in this
letter
,
and are referenced by superscript
numerals
(see
above
)
to the following numbered
items
.
1.
The Findings of
the
Arizona Game and Fis
h
Department
The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) and its Commission are in
opposition to the
GCWNM
, its special land
–
use designation, and the resulting impacts
on multiple
–
use lands, including the impacts on access, conservation efforts and
wildli
fe
–
related recreation. This proposed Presidential Proclamation lacks transparency,
public involvement and a full accounting of all impacts to multi
–
users, specifically the
Department’s authority to manage wildlife, associated habitat and the impacts to
out
door recreational enthusiasts.
The AZGFD Commission’s concerns include:
•
The new National Monument has not been proposed in compliance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act or the National Environmental Policy
Act.
•
It does not take into considera
tion traditional uses of the land, which includes
recreational opportunities.
•
It may further restrict and preclude motorized access for recreational use,
wildlife viewing opportunities, disabled hunters and anglers, and the retrieval of
downed game.
•
It may
cause legal ambiguity concerning the ability to properly manage wildlife
and wildlife habitat.
An analysis by the AZGFD demonstrates that this new national monument designation
can lead to restrictions on proactive wildlife management, including but not l
imited to:
•
Wildlife population augmentations
•
Wildlife habitat manipulations and enhancements
•
Wildlife water development and maintenance
•
Hunting and fishing access
2.
U.S. Constitution
al
ly
:
Enumerated
Use of
State Land
by the United States
A
ccording to the
U.S. Constitution
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17
, the
United States
has specific enumerated
uses for lan
d within a state
that are “
purchased by the consent
of the legislature of the state
.
”
Much of the
59.7 million acres (81
percent)
of
Arizona
land
t
hat is currently under the control of the United States do
es
not
serve a
Constitutionally
approved enumerated purpose,
including
:
National Monuments
National
Parks
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon
Watershed
National Monument, Page
6
of
10
National Forests
U
.
S
.
F
ish & Wildlife
Acreage
Wilderness Areas
Wildlife Refuges
National His
toric Sites
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
holdings
3.
The Antiquities Act of 1906
The
enumerated
powers and restrictions of the United States government are defined
within the Constitution, and
the
Tenth
Amendment states that “The powers not
delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the
people.” T
he Antiquities Act is
unconstitutional because
Congress
does not have the power or authority to
grant the
Executive Bra
nch
of the United States
with
the power
to
seize
land
,
a power
which is
not granted anywhere within the Constitution
.
In fact, Article 4, Section 3 suggests that
C
ongress only has the power to dispose
of land
, not to acquire.
T
he Antiquities Act
is
also
un
constitutional
,
because it allows for the creation of
‘
Nati
onal Monuments
,
’
which are not
defined
as
constitutionally
enumerated use
s
of
state land
b
y
the United States
.
In the past 109
–
years,
Congress
has never bothered to
propose an amendment
to the U.S.
C
onstitution
t
hat would
fix these problems
.
.
Section 2 of the Antiquities Act states “That the President of the United States is hereby
authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks,
historic and prehistoric structure
s, and other objects of historic or scientific interest
that
are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United
States
to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land,
the
limits of which in all case
s shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper
care and management of the objects to be protected
: Provided, That when such objects
are situated upon a tract covered by a bona fied unperfected claim or held in private
ownership, the tract,
or so much thereof as may be necessary for the proper care and
management of the object, may be relinquished to the Government, and the Secretary of
the Interior is hereby authorized to accept the relinquishment of such tracts in behalf of
the Government
of the United States.”
The Act states that
those
lands
that will become National Monuments
must be owned
or controlled
by the
government of the
United States
, which has
typically
not been the
case in
much of
the lands that constitute the National Monuments
created within
Arizona.
Nowhere within the Act does it
suggest that
the United States
has the
authority to
seize
State Trust
land
, especially
without state
legislative
approval
or
just
compensation
as required by Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17
.
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon
Watershed
National Monument, Page
7
of
10
T
he Ac
t encourages property owners with a “tract covered by a bona fied unperfected
claim or held in private ownership” to
relinquish
their property to the United States,
which conflicts with t
he
Fifth
Amendment that requires the
United States
to
compensate citi
zens when it takes property for public use.
7
However
, t
he Act
does
state “
t
he limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the
smallest area
compatible with proper care and management of the
objects
to be
protected
.
”
In almost every case, t
his provis
ion
of the Act
has
been violated
by the
United States
,
where
the average size of
the National Monuments
located within
Arizona
is
almost
17
4,000
acres
,
clearly not confined to the
smallest area
as called for
with
in the Act, lands that
includ
e
Arizona State
Trust,
private
and contractually
leased
public l
and
.
The United States has not demonstrated a
valid
justification for the
immense
1.7 million
acre size of the
proposed
GCWNM
, or in fact the other
22
National Monument
s
that
were created
within Arizona
.
W
h
ere is the inventory of each
specific
individual
“historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or
scientific interest” to be protected, as called for in the Act? Where
is
each
object
located
(GPS coordinates),
wher
e are the
digital photographs of each object
,
wh
ere
is the
independent
peer
–
review
ed
scientific documentation and justification
/ necessity
for
protecting each
object, how many square feet of land does each object occupy
and what
is the amount of land (in
square feet) that is required for the “proper care and
management of the objects to be protected”
as called for within the Act
?
4.
Arizona Enabling Act of 1910
and Public Education Funding
T
he creat
ion of National Monuments
direct
ly
conflicts with
Arizona’
s Enabling Act,
which repeatedly
refers
to
the
use of State Trust land, and in Section 24 states: “the
passage of this Act are hereby granted to the said State for the support of common
schools”.
If t
he United States
creates another National
Monument withi
n Arizona,
almost
1
6
2
,000
acres of State Trust land
will be financially unavailable for use by
the
beneficiaries outlined in Arizona’s Enabling Act, including public schools and
universities
. This
is a
violat
ion
, a breach
of
the contractual terms agreed to
by Congress
and by the State of Arizona within
its
Enabling Act, which
stipulates
that the financial
proceeds from
the
Arizona State Trust land would be used to support public education.
5.
National Monuments L
ocated
W
ithin Arizona
The
twenty
–
two
Nationa
l Monuments
created
within Arizona total 3
.
7
million
acres
.
The addition of the
proposed
1.7 million acre
GCWNM
would increase Arizona’s total
National Monument acreage
by 14
6
percent to 5
.
4
million
acres
.
T
he t
otal
size
of
National Monument
s
within Arizon
a would
then
exceed
each
individual size of the
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon
Watershed
National Monument, Page
8
of
10
states of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island,
an area
127 times larger than
Washington DC.
6.
Negative Economic Impacts
of National Monuments
According to the Congressio
nal Sportsmen’s Foundation, fishing and hunting
recreation generates $1.2 billion in spending and creates an economic impact of $2.1
billion to the
S
tate of Arizona annually. These activities support more than 18,000 jobs,
provides residents with $699 mill
ion in salary and wages and generates more than $132
million in state tax revenue. Our neighbor Utah reports that with
the
creation of the
Escalante
–
Grand Staircase National Monument, local counties and communities have
experienced rural depopulation, a ne
gative impact on public schools, and overall
economic losses and negative impacts to the cities, counties and state.
7.
Due Process Under the Law
The
seiz
ure of
1.7 million
more
acres
for the
GCWNM
by Presidential Proclamation
is a
violation of
the State o
f
Arizona
and
its
privat
e citizen
’s
constitutionally
guaranteed
Due Process
rights
. T
he
Fifth
A
mendment
states that
“
No person shall…
be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken
for public use,
without just compensation
.
”
8.
Guarantee
d Republican Form of Government
T
h
e
59.7
million
acres of land currently controlled
by the United States
within Arizona
is a violation both of Arizona state
sovereignty
and Arizona’s
constitutionally
guaranteed Repu
blican Form of
G
overnment
(Article 4, Sec
tion
4). W
hen w
ithin those
Federally
controlled lands, c
itizens
do not
have
a
voice or
vo
te, they do not have the
same
liberties
that are guaranteed
by Arizona
outside of those lands
, and the
y have
no
city, county o
r state representation.
9.
Doctrine of the Equality of States
Arizona’s Enabling Act of 1910 states “the proposed State of Arizona shall be deemed
admitted by Congress into the Union by virtue of this Act on an equal footing with
other States.”
The Supreme
Court ruled (
3 Stat. 489, 492 (1819))
concerning the
sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States, that inasmuch as the original States retained
sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within
their boundaries, retent
ion by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over
common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an
equal footing with the original States.
(
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article
–
4/22
–
doctrine
–
of
–
equality
–
of
–
states.html
).
The huge
81
percent
of land
controlled
by the
United States places Arizona
(
and the other western states
)
on an unequal footing
with
the original States
and with the eastern states
.
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon
Watershed
National Monument, Page
9
of
10
10.
Arizona Uranium deposits in the proposed
GCWNM
On June 24, 2015, the Arizona State Geologist released
its
new report “Partial database
for breccia pipes and collapse features on the Colorado Platea
u, northwestern Arizona”
(http://www.azgs.az.gov/news_releases2015.shtml#jun24) that found concentrations of
breccia pipes 10 to 100 times higher than previously known, in two test study areas.
Breccia pipes are
the
primary targets for uranium and other m
inerals. The State
Geologist believes that the same density of pipes extends across the entire region, which
would make the area
,
that includes the
GCWNM
,
one of the largest and richest uranium
districts in the world.
For the United States, Uranium has bee
n called “the most
significant of strategic minerals.”
From
a
safety standpoint, m
ore
Uranium
flows down
the Colorado River from
natu
ral
erosion
(60 tons)
than
is
annually
mined
worldwide
.
11.
Resolutions
,
Letters
and
O
pposition to the Grand Canyon Watershed National
Monument
I
nclude
•
A February 2015 letter in opposition written to the President by 25 members of
the U.S. House of Repres
entatives
•
A 2015 Arizona State Legislative Concurrent Memorial #1001
•
A February 2015 Legislative Resolution from the Arizona State House of
Representatives
•
A May 2012 Resolution from the Arizona Game and Fish Department
Commission
•
A March 2015 Resolution f
rom Jim Unmacht, the President of the Arizona
Sportsmen for Wildlife Conservation
,
which includes AZ Deer Association, AZ
Outdoor Sports, AZ Big Game Super Raffle, 1.2.3.Go…, AZ Antelope
Foundation, AZ Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Outdoor Experience 4 All
, Xtreme
Predator Callers, AZ Houndsmen, AZ Flycasters Club, Coconino Sportsmen, AZ
Bowhunters Association, South Eastern AZ Sportsmen’s Club, Mohave
Sportsman Club, AZ State Chapter of National Wild Turkey Federation, AZ Elk
Society, AZ Chapter of Safari
Club International, AZ BASS Nation, The BASS
Federation, SRT Outdoors, Anglers United, AZ Council of Trout Unlimited
•
An April 2015 Resolution from Mayor John Moore and the city council of the
City of Williams, Arizona
•
An April 2015 Resolution from the Town
Council of Fredonia, Arizona
•
A letter to The Honorable Sally Jewell, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior
and to The Honorable Tom Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture
from Whit Fosburgh, President and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt
Con
servation partnership
Arizona’s Opposition to the Grand Canyon
Watershed
National Monument, Page
10
of
10
•
A letter to U.S Representatives Grijalva, Kirkpatrick & Gallego from the members
of Archery Trade Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Boone
and Crockett Club, Camp Fire Club of America, Congressional Sportsmen’s
Fo
undation, Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports, Dallas Safari
Club, Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Houston Safari Club, Masters of Foxhounds
Association, Mule Deer Foundation, National Association of Forest Service
Retirees, National Rifle Assoc
iation, National Shooting Sports Foundation,
National Wild Turkey Federation, North American Bear Foundation, Orion: The
Hunter’s Institute, Quality Deer Management Association, Rocky Mountain Elk
Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club Internationa
l, Tread Lightly!,
Wildlife Management Institute, Wild Sheep Foundation, Whitetails Unlimited,
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
•
A March 2015 letter to Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick from the Arizona
Wildlife Foundation
•
A March 2015 letter to Congresswoman Ann Kir
kpatrick from the Apache
County Supervisor Barry Weller
•
An April 2015 letter from Steve Clark, Executive Director of the Arizona Elk
Society
•
A
public statement in
August 2015
by
Mohave County, the Mohave Cattlemen
association and the Mohave Sportsmen C
lub
•
Letters
sent to
Federal officials by the Arizona
Cattle
men’s Association
•
Letters sent to Federal officials by the
Arizona
Farm Bureau
•
Letters sent to Federal officials by
President Jim Parks and
the
Coconino County
Cattle Growers & Farm Bureau
•
Former
Yavapai County Cattle
Growers President
Andy Groseta
•
The members of
the
Arizona RockProducts Association
Easier to read:
http://www.thorpe4az.com/documents/National-Monuments.pdf
.
Senator Sylvia Allen
Lightning Bolt Update, 9/3/15
Bad, Bad, Bad Idea!
Two new national monuments are being proposed for Arizona: The Grand Canyon Watershed – 1.7 million acres, and The Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock – 160,000 acres including the town of Sedona.
Arizona has the third highest total designated wilderness acreage in the United States at 4.5 million acres.
Arizona has another 5.8 million acres affected by special land use designations including 18 national monuments (more monuments than other states.)
Why would we want to give up more of our land in Arizona and increase the oversite, regulation, and restrictions on the people and businesses of this state?
Why would we give more control of our water to the Federal Government?
Why would we support locking up thousands of acres of state trust land within the proposed monument boundaries?
Why would we impact private property and support the Red Rock Monument boundaries around Sedona? What a can of worms this will create!
The small minority who support these ideas are politicians who think it will give them leverage in their election with big green money donations and citizens who think it will bring some higher level of protection for the environment they love.
We already have numerous laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Forest Service Management Plan, and many others, to ensure the protection of these areas. We don’t need another layer of regulations spread across this state. Plus, the Federal Government has some of the worst-managed lands in the country.
Local control gives local protection to our citizens and businesses. Try dealing with someone 2000 miles away!
Rising tourism dollars is not a good reason either. How can you increase tourism to a place that is already saturated with visitors?
What can you do?
Write to the Arizona Congressional Delegation and President Obama and say NO to both monuments.
Lobby your local government if you live in the Verde Valley or near the Grand Canyon. Let them know you do not support the monuments.
Write letters to your local paper, post it on Facebook and forward this email to your list.
You can also sign the Petition shown here:
Click here to Sign Now: (copy and paste)
http://www.arizonaliberty.us/Vote_NO_SVVRRNM_U.html
Sincerely,
Senator Sylvia Tenney Allen
President Pro Tempore
Chairman, Rural Affairs and Environment
602-926-5409
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
To All Readers of The Eye:
To repeat just one more time…the proponents of the SVVRRNM are pushing to fast-track the NM designation by asking President Obama to sign an Executive Order to so order it. These NM proponents would like for you to believe that if and when the President signs the EO, that the NM will become an irreversible matter of law.
THIS IS UTTERLY FALSE YET INTENTIONALLY CONVEYED TO ALL OF YOU AS TRUTH!
The NM, if designated by virtue of a Presidential EO, can and probably will be reversed by federal Court action, or in the next Congress, or by the State of Arizona under the Tenth Amendment, as follows:
First, US courts may overturn Executive Orders and have often done so in the past.
Second, Congress may overturn an Executive Order by passing legislation in conflict with the order OR by refusing to approve FUNDING to enforce it.
Third, should the President veto the legislation, Congress could overturn the veto with a 2/3rds majority vote (BTW, rapidly growing opposition to federal land grabs is BIPARTISAN).
and,
Fourth, subject to the Tenth Amendment, the various state legislatures can nullify federal law that they deem unconstitutional. No federal court nor the U.S. Supreme Court has ever overturned this right of the states to Tenth Amendment nullification. Arizona and a majority of states, as a matter of fact, have already done this over several federal law issues. My next article here at The Eye will address the workings of the Tenth Amendment and its Nullification Clause. See the link below:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/
Thank you Rick for all of your in depth research especially on this 4th article.
What I find most alarming about this piece is all in the first paragraph, in one word: COLLUSION.
Whether by ignorance or intention, a serious problem in this small town of Sedona.
Red Rock National Monument meeting Sept. 15
From the Villager……..propaganda piece for VOC See below.
Please show up even if you don’t live in the VILLAGE, we need everyones support.
The main thing to keep in mind is that this BIG PARK COUNCIL has no power over the village. It was a good concept in the 90’s but was overrun by these same KSB players and all the bylaws were changed that now do not even resemble the original articles of incorporation(which has been removed from the Big Park Council Website).
This is now small groups of two or three people that are not necessarily actual stakeholders, parking lots posing as homeowners associations as business associations. Homeowners associations that do not exist or are disssolved in the AZ Corp Commission but still show up as a small group of 5 or 6 to vote. Business groups that are not listed in the AZ Corp Comm. Actual numbers are not being released but many, if not all of the stakeholders in the VOC are not canvassed for opinion before these people vote on issues.
They are all the same small group of retired players with too much time on their hands.
THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO REPRESENT THE 6000 Big Park Residents. Neither does VOCA.
———————————————————————————————————-
Plan to attend the next Public Meeting of the Red Rock National Monument from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 15, in the Community Room at the Village of Oak Creek Association (VOCA) Community Center, 690 Bell Rock Blvd., in VOC.
Your Big Park Regional Coordinating Council has unanimously endorsed the idea. Come to find out why! Attendees will learn more about the monument designation effort to protect the most popular areas of the Red Rock District Forest, as well as the actual timeline for public input, which is done on the Red Rock Monument website, redrockmonument.org.
Please show up and support each other. We will be in Sedona too!!!!
As a clarification to confusion about the reason for Keep Sedona Beautiful’s pursuit of a National Monument designation, the full page “notice” in the Red Rock News Friday, August 28, page 5A, clearly states “The Monument Workgroup, called to action by the City of Sedona, etc.” Further: “March-August 2015. A workgroup was formed in response to a request from the City of Sedona that KSB identify the most viable option for permanent protection of the world-famous scenic Red Rock Ranger District forest lands surrounding Sedona etc.”
It’s further curious the full page is not indicated as being a public service announcement or an advertisement, therefore the initial reference to “notice.” If it is, in fact, an ad, indication of source of payment for such is also missing.
So you see, Folks, once again Sedona City Council(s) overstep their jurisdiction beyond Sedona City Limits. This is a reminder of 10 or 12 years ago when the seated council had a bug to annex the VOC. The reception at the “old” clubhouse was standing room only and less than cordial, not so politely telling then Mayor Alan Everett to “go home – you are not our Mayor.”
Just a heads up that if any of you in VOC, Cottonwood, Clarkdale, Jerome, Camp Verde, Oak Creek Canyon or even Flagstaff find it inappropriate to constantly have Sedona City Council(s) attempt to run your lives, speak now or forever shut your mouths. Of course, the illusion they control the entire Verde Valley based on the policy set in place by the “regional” Chamber of Commerce continues to send the wrong message and quite possibly is the source of arrogance that spurs the former and present City Councils to spout off and attempt to control the entire Verde Valley as well as Oak Creek Canyon.
Pay attention. Much is at stake now and in the future. It isn’t too late to take a firm stance both within and outside incorporated Sedona City Limits to guide governing jurisdiction back to the appropriate areas.
It seems the rabbit-hole goes deep. Consider this from an news article about the San Gabriel Mountain NM:
The draft of the SGM National Monument Management Plan most likely will become part or an amendment to the U.S. Forest Service’s Land Management Plan, also known as the Forest Plan.
Though the two may share similarities, the Forest Service has identified needs for changes to be consistent with the president’s proclamation. These include: a transportation plan that “focuses on protecting those objects of historic and scientific interest” as identified by President Obama; updating land use zones to reflect new wilderness designations that have taken place since the forest plan was adopted; a revision to mineral withdrawal of lands within the Monument (Valid existing claims still will be honored); revising recreational settings and opportunities, according to a letter by Jeffrey Vail, forest supervisor of the Angeles National Forest.
For more information, visit: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=46964.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/environment-and-nature/20150617/public-can-weigh-in-on-san-gabriel-mountains-national-monument-plan
So you see folks, we’ll see a National Monument. It’s White House policy.
UNLESS YOU MAKE A STAND NOW! Protect your land and water rights. The SRRVVNM is nothing more than A MONUMENTAL MISTAKE!
Please read this article about transporting people into the National Monuments. The San Gabriel Mountain NM is the “new” forest plan from the White House. Is this what you want for Sedona?
http://www.sgvtribune.com/environment-and-nature/20150702/groups-want-buses-to-serve-san-gabriel-mountains-national-monument
interesting
Yeah Igie Stravros. Don’t make any other comment other than “interesting” or you might be called RACIST!
Bussing people into Sedona from poor, drug infested areas. What could possibly go wrong?
It’s very frightening to think one of the control freaks mentioned in the first paragraph of this article is running for the school board. We do not want for our children to be subjected to the influence of anyone so determined as to insist on applying their obsessions of what is politically correct. In fact, as radical as these fools are (“Councilors” and not “Council Members: Councilman, Councilwoman” as are commonly referred to elsewhere) are radical and self-imposing. We will move out of here before subjecting our kids to this sort of propaganda and allow them to be proud of their gender be it a boy, girl, he, she, her or him.
Who is —– Barbara? She wants the monument? Why?
@Lynn, Sedona
Former City Counselor and Keep Sedona Beautiful Barbara Litrell who is now rumored to want to run for our School Board. She is a progressive liberal/socialist who believes in more and more federal power and disdains state’s rights.
JRN
Go for it Barbara , a progressive liberal/socialist who believes in more and more federal power and disdains state’s rights.
Let me know what I can do, we need moor people like Barbara.
@steve Segner –
and just how did her highness Barbara Litrell get into the middle of this? Well because J Rick is trying (correctly) to tie all the ends together.
Barbara on School Board? Don’t they have enough of their own problems with out her?
steve Segner actually wrote: ” a progressive liberal/socialist who believes in more and more federal power and disdains state’s rights. Let me know what I can do, we need moor people like Barbara “.
steve segner – have never seen a person who is so far out of touch as you are. And you are the president of the lodging council? how in hell do they allow you to stay as their mouth piece?
Max says:
Steve segner – have never seen a person who is so far out of touch as you are.
Steve Segner actually wrote: ” a progressive liberal/socialist who believes in more and more federal power and disdains state’s rights.
Max, so I am out of touch being a liberal In Sedona?
Max you need to turn off Fox news and get to a city council meeting or join an arts group, then you will see the real Sedona.
Rick can cut and past articles all he wants to prove HIS point.
Yes, I do trust the Federal government more then I do the state government, it is that simple
Steve
@steve Segner
Over at sedonadotbiz you launched another personal attack in my direction and that of others, without ever mentioning the issue at hand, and then complained that I always “take over the debate,” implying that I take over where you’re concerned and that’s unfair.
Here’s my reply to your comment there, which I am posting here where all the thinking online readers in the Verde Valley go for intellectual relief:
I take over debates, Steve, in order to stop trolls like you from wasting everyone’s time which you do so well and so much. I have the ability to be dominant because I have excellent research capabilities, I’m a proven and published economist, a student of constitutional law and of deductive logic and of polemics and the rules thereto, as well (three years on college debate team).
And, I like to tell the truth to thinkers who AREN’T on the blog roll for self aggrandizement like you are way too much of the time.
Admittedly, I don’t like dealing with people that can’t research RELEVANT facts (you often upload reams of facts that aren’t relevant, in any way, to an ongoing debate in order to give the false appearance that you have some expertise), and those who can’t string together a logical argument, can’t stay on point, can’t deliver a debate by the rules and I really have a hard time with people who use emotional arguments which lead them to ridiculous conclusions and ad hominem counter-arguments as you ALWAYS do.
Take a good look at the entirety of your comments addressed to those who’re struggling to figure out what the hell you are trying to say at this site, and at sedonadotbiz, and count up how many are aimed at readers, in persona, without mention of the issue at hand….. and you can’t even do that in proper English with correctly spelled words. I remember your performance in the Mayor’s first economic steering committee. I was up at the chalkboard drawing some economics charts and out of seven people listening intently, you were the only one that just couldn’t grasp the simplest of concepts…yet you dare to show up on local blog-sites having no idea what you’re talking about while about half of your sentences are unintelligible. Give it up Steve! Really, you need to go find something else productive to do with your time rather than tell people who believe in the concepts of the Founding Fathers what you trust the federal government. Your statement implies, clearly, as a former career dog food salesman, that educated people should trust your judgment rather than that of the Founding Fathers who preached that this country’s subjects should believe in the protections provided by the U.S. Constitution AGAINST the power of a federal government.
JRN
How can Washington DC, 2000 miles away, take better care of our home than we do? Where are we mismanaging the red rocks? Where is the money for this designation going to come from?
Proponents think we’re going to get more money because the San Gabriel Mountain NM was promised $3Million. What you’re not being told is that money was raised by Friends of the Forest and the San Gabriel Mountain wilderness would have received that money whether they were a NM or not. No new money is forth-coming, but fund raising continues.
Blind trust isn’t something I want to support. We can and DO take better care of things here at home than some bureaucrat some 2000 miles away. Cut the red tape – keep the authority to do the right thing right here at home!
This weekend is a bust for tourists& biz. Friday night locals helped, Saturday was quiet as a church. Mostly daytimers, mostly nonspenders & even timeshares aren’t full on Saturday night. Why more beds in town? That the rest of us split a smaller pie? Steve, wise up. You don’t listen well & don’t represent well. I agree with some of your points but the bigger scale here isn’t full like you think. Stock market down? Goodbye tourists.
Chuck hotels 100% full , and by the way I am with you on new hotels. but zoning is zoning in Arizona,
This weekend most of the visitors are from Phoenix mostly nonspenders, Sept, Oct booking way up,
fyi
ss
Reposting this by request from sedona.biz comments:
Hahaha! “I trust the Feds.”
OK good for you, big guy.
They’ve lied too many times as far as I’m concerned.
“If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.” is just ONE of the White House lies we’ve had to endure. I lost my doctor, I lost my insurance, and I can’t afford Obamacare (premiums went from $165/mo to $1337/mo).
So you see, “If you like your Sedona, you can keep your Sedona” is just another hollow promise.
Sedona Verde Valley Red Rock Monument commented on Facebook that they weren’t even going to discuss the shutdown that occurred two years ago. So if they get a question they can’t answer, they are just going to ignore it. Ernie Strauch wrote a letter to RRN saying he can’t stand the politics – ahahaha! And why did Obama shut those National Monuments down? “To cause as much pain as possible” and the FEDS held the STATES under ransom until Republicans and Democrats could come to an agreement over the budget. As mentioned earlier, the Feds are now $459 BILLION short of meeting 2015 obligations – and you want to give them another thing to manage with that shortfall?
I keep hearing how the National Monument will keep the Feds in control of the state. The question is – This is the control you want? Are you insane?
How many Sedonians enjoy going out for a hike with their dogs? Well, too bad – because dogs AREN’T allowed inside a National Monument.
How many Sedonians enjoy going out to Shaman’s Cave to meditate? Well, too bad – under a National Monument TROLLEYS full of people only – no private vehicles. An those ATV rental companies? Too BAD – no business for you! What part of NO private vehicles did you miss? And tour companies? TOO BAD. Especially you solo tour guides – if you’re out with clients even on private property you will be arrested for not having the proper permits. People with their own wells and access to creek irrigation water? TOO BAD – the National Monument’s water rights exceed yours, even if you’ve had those water rights forEVER. You need a new road or improvements to your road? TOO BAD – no roads in National Monuments. You’d like to build a home? TOO BAD – you must abide by the draconian NM rules, adding more expense to the building. No way “affordable” housing can be built. Hotels – you’ll need to pay a fee to the FEDS to maintain your business. Where do think all that magic money will come from? MORE TAXES AND FEES!
idiots.
@chuck
Good point Chuck. August 12th I started warning people of an impending economic crisis, including reaching out to our representatives in Congress and the Senate.
Sure enough we’ve already seen the largest 3 day drop in DOW history. The VIX (volatility index) is highest on record. This is it people. Wake up. The mainstream media reports the news as it unfolds. They cant morally induce panic. They have a moral obligation to mitigate panic. Which is great, but in the end they never warn or foresee anyting coming. In fact they belittle the people who do and tend to promote the supposed “experts” who constantly get it wrong.
Then when the crisis hits they typically go back to the same “experts” who didnt see it coming and look to them for answers. Its a joke. Its called authoritarianism. The American people believe whatever they think authority is, whether its governement or the main stream media or the phony experts with their PhDs behind their name that get everything wrong.
We need to move from “authority = truth” to “truth = authority”. We’ve got it backwards. Heres a list of people who always get it right and have foreseen as a whole: ’87 stock market crash, dot com bubble bursting, ’08 crash, Fannie Mae, GM, the Russian Ruble collapsing, the Japanese Yen collapsing, and I could go on and on:
Gerald Celente, Martin Armstrong, Peter Schiff, Marc Farber, Jim Rogers, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, Ron Paul, Porter Stansberry, Lou Rockwell, Dr. Steve Sjuggerud
Truth = Authority, not the other way around.
We are on the verge of economic meltdown. The idea of givig more power to the federal government is pure insanity, ignorance, and naivety. There’s no more time to be asleep and naive anymore. The consequence of weak, poor leadership lacking foresight and discernement is what has brought us to this point. Im sorry for the old guard who loves their power and thinks their tremendous do-gooders, but the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
We get that your intentions are good, but your naivety has led us to brink of collapse. Theres no more time for psuedo-intellectuals and mental adolescence to be in charge anymore.
We need real men and women who can critically think and are more interested in truth than fitting in with the collective herd that is always last to wake up and last to get whats going on. Will the real leaders please rise up and help. We are in the fight of our lives to preserve this Republic and were out of time.
The National Monument issue is the perfect dividing line between who is awake and who is naive. Anyone who wants to turn our town over to federal control and lock us into a designated National Monument and control our lives from Washington DC during a time when we are fighting a war on terror and on the verge of bankruptcy is showing their true colors and going to get knocked out of the way. Its that simple.
You better get on the right side of this or you’re going to be publicly humiliated and never become electable or nominated for any position of power ever again. You’re a mental child and need to stay in the back seat and keep quiet while the adults drive and get us where we need to be.
This is a cut and paste from Facebook:
Jo Kontzer: I wonder why there is so much passion against this move to protect the beauty of Sedona from developers. That is all this will do. All the anti National Monument activity is just plain ignorant.
Ahahahahaaaaa! Look who’s the one who refuses to see beyond the propaganda!
This is actually tragic – that so many people are buying into the lies. I guess KSB is doing a wonderful job keeping people in the dark and making them believe that the National Monument is a GOOD thing.
Sorry Jo Kontzer, it will do MUCH more than put a pinch on developers! Any development you don’t like was approved by your City Council Zoning and Planning. Read the comments. Educate yourself. Don’t fall for the false light!
Good ‘ole Sedona… You have an expensive road that doesn’t move traffic and miles of lights that don’t light up anything. You got this by fighting with each other for seven years. Now you are looking at this ridiculous monument thingy…
Isn’t there a better way to spend your retirements, rather than ruining it for everyone else in the future?
Hay J Rick, I saw you at the Cowboy Church for the presentation against the NM, I walked in unsure and confused and walked out agreeing with every point made by the attendees. The one thing that I see that’s amiss is that you need a new photo on SedonaEye. Obviously life’s been good to you and it shows.
@Steve Segner actually wrote: ”Go for it Barbara , a progressive liberal/socialist who believes in more and more federal power and disdains state’s rights. Let me know what I can do, we need moor people like Barbara” (Litrell) Max, so I am out of touch being a liberal In Sedona?”
My answer to segner is easy: YES segner you are so far out of touch with your liberal bordering on socialist ideas that more people than you can count are disgusted with your tactics. Once again you try to attempt to switch the topic away from the real one. Barbara Litrell is not a part of the topic and if she decides to run for school board I’ll gladly give up a good portion of my retirement pay to defeat her.
What’s your next run around from the real topic going to be segner?
Please keep in mind the Real topic is a Vote NO on a National Monument for Sedona!!!
ok convinced
To All Readers at The Eye:
By now, you’ve all seen the glossy brochures printed by KSB extolling the imagined great benefits of federal land and resource management benefits. However, if you want the truth…go to this link at AZCentral and read about the Navajo Nation downstream from the Fed’s monumental toxic spill into the Durango/Animas River area which has now flowed downstream to the Navajo reservation:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/09/08/erin-brockovich-visiting-navajo-nation-epa-spill/71727656/
JRN
What false flag will they create for Sedona to make sure the National Monument goes through? Inquiring minds….
To All Readers @ The Eye:
Here is what happens when a local writer writes a piece in opposition to the Sedona-Verde Valley Red Rock National Monument designation. Former Mayor Rob Adams wrote an article at Sedonadotbiz entitled “To Find The Truth, You Must Peel The Onion” (which heaps praise upon his City administration) favoring the NM designation. He acted as an official voice of KSB.
Accordingly, his unprofessional responses to commenters opposed to the NM designation were also made as an official spokesman for KSB. Now, apparently, a critical fact-filled response to the KSB proposed NM designation, when written by an official spokesperson for KSB, constitutes a personal attack upon the KSB spokesperson calling for police retribution against the anti-NM designation writer.
Nevertheless, each of you readers must come to your own conclusion as to the connotations of the below email exchange as it relates to the former Mayor and to KSB for whom he speaks!
From: Robert Adams
To: J Rick Normand
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Picture of Sedona uptown traffic after Nat’l Monument designation!
I believe you are the one that initiated the attack with your response to my article. I have been told that you also threatened me online.
I don’t know what your problem is with me, but I don’t respond to play yard bullies. The Sedona Police Department has been notified of your threat.
From: J Rick Normand
Sep 8 at 4:44 PM
To: Robert Adams
Good, Rob, I will look forward to this in a public forum…like an investigative article, which will include mention of abuse of process by filing a false police report, and you’ll respond if I decide you’re going to respond. As to what I said online, I said “Maybe you’d like to say that to my face at the gym, Rob. As I said…if you dare!” Sorry, there’s no way that’s a threat but your response here is a reflection of your cowardly character. Of course, without the power of your Mayor’s office, you can’t pick on people like me anymore. You clearly started the “attack” as you call it by saying on the sedona.biz blogroll “I see you are off your medication again, Rick…Rob” which is libel, wise guy. That implies I’m a drug addict which is utterly absurd since everybody knows I’m a health nut. Oh, and you’re Police Dept, right now, is in no position to abuse it’s authority in your behalf, nor do they think so well of you to do it. And, finally, my problem with you is you’re a well recognized ingrate with an obnoxious mouth. ~Rick
JRN
@ J Rick right on!
Rob Adams is the PROBLEM! He did more harm to Sedona than anyone ever. A freak Rob Adams is.
Why is it that Rick, takes every discussion and make it personal.?
I read an article today about narcissistic personality disorder NPD.
and it hit me ,Rick yes !
Totally, fits the description, look at his posts he keep talking about how smart he is ,just like D Trump.
Rick has been banned from Sedona biz, for attacking people that have a divergent
Views.
Rick, made remarks about Rob as mayor, but Rick what have you done for Sedona except spew …….people go on line look at all the craze stuff he posts, all negative
On everything .
Ss
@steve Segner
OMG little buddy, speaking of attacks, I can see you’re having an acute jealousy attack. Is there anything I can do to help?
I read the post ADAMS started it, NOT Rick. Why is it you call names @Steve segner ?
I think Rick is right you have the small mans syndrome=Napoleon complex “”Napoleon complex” is a pejorative term describing a disproven psychological condition which has been said to exist in people, both men and women, of short stature. It is characterized by overly-aggressive or domineering social behavior, and carries the implication that such behaviour is compensatory for the subject’s stature. The term is also used more generally to describe people who are driven by a perceived handicap to overcompensate in other aspects of their lives. Other names for the purported condition include Napoleonic complex,[1] Napoleon syndrome,[2] and short man syndrome.[3]”
You are an BIG Sedona embarrasment Steve. So is Adams.
Coming to Sedona
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/watch-agenda-21-officials-at-work-telling-property-owners-what-they-can-do-on-their-own-property/141540
@ @Adams @segner
it may fit both of those guys also BUT I would NOT exclude Rick. without a doubt he’s right up at the top. If any of you saw Ricks behavior at the cowboy church i think that you would agree.
Anything that gets little Rick puffed up about is the kiss of death for the issue he supports..
Remember the school board override Rick..?
You spewed your much loved intellect all over this blog..
Keep it up… The national monument is sure to become fact!
Oh Really – I was at the cowboy church and saw nothing that I’d construe as poor behavior by Rick. On the other hand, Adams was a real a**hole. I know it takes two to tango, but if you keep poking, hands will be slapped.
All those good points made against the NM were answered with personal attacks. Darryl Z is right – if you can’t attack the data, attack the person.
For Adams to call the police about this thread is just plain mean and stupid. Stick to the issue. End the name-calling and personal attacks.
At the Cowboy church, I also saw nothing untoward by Mr. Normand. He was informative. I visit here now because of his information. Both sides are here and I appreciate that. (Feel that comment was a cheap shot to make the public think something that wasn’t true.) If Mr. Norman knows what’s best, he’ll let that comment go by because those of us there know better and now we’ve said so publicly. Have a good day. It’s beautiful out there.
@David,
I will, indeed, go with your advice.
@West Sedona Resident
I have no idea what your point is relative to the school board override. Please refresh me!
JRN
West Sedona Resident, right on, on the Napoleon complex comment, actually he was not short, just painted that way buy his enemies. Said to be 8,7 to 5to8
all I ever said was Rob has some good points, and Rick, went full on Rick ..
Ss
Here we go again. The same cast of characters that choose to point fingers when anyone attempts to produce facts that don’t agree with their thinking.
To be honest I’ve been trying to look objectively at the National Monument issue but must admit I’m being swayed by those in opposition to the designation. If Steve Segner and his Lodging & Regional Chamber are supporting the NM in addition to West Sedona Resident and some other familiar names that represent the pro-regional give-away program to Steve and Jennifer with city of Sedona, that explains why the Sedona City Council is pushing this for surely it must be to benefit their misconceived notion they are in charge of the Verde Valley. Very revealing indeed.
“actually he was not short, just painted that way buy his enemies. Said to be 8,7 to 5to8”
Probably the funniest thing Segner has said yet. I actually laughed out loud.
As a tourist in France I saw his bed. It was child sized. Must have been built by his enemies.
LIAR—- LIAR— LIAR
Napoleon Bonaparte
Military leader
Napoléon Bonaparte was a French military and political leader who rose to prominence during the French Revolution and its associated wars. As Napoleon I, he was Emperor of the French from 1804 until 1814, and again in 1815. Wikipedia
Born: August 15, 1769, Ajaccio, France
Died: May 5, 1821, Longwood, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
Height: 5′ 6″
Buried: May 9, 1821, Les Invalides, Paris, France
Spouse: Marie Louise, Duchess of Parma (m. 1810–1821), Joséphine de Beauharnais (m. 1796–1810)
Yes, 5’6″ is short for a man, thus the “Napolean complex”.
Name-calling is OT.
“The status quo is not an option…” Says who? and why not?
How can a sitting bureaucrat 2000 miles away take better care of our home than the Red Rock Ranger District – the RRRD and volunteers have not let us down.
Residents complain of land swaps, which the Cultural Park was one. Now there is booming construction tearing up the land at Upper Red Rock Loop Rd – the first of many to come for the “Western Gateway.” If the Rule of Law is applied, Tennyson can legally do one of two things = lease the land back to the Cultural Park or return it to the USFS. Any building there has been approved by City government and backed by the tourist industry in Sedona. This is the blatant rule breaking and destruction of Sedona residents are against = the Good Ole Boy Club. What guarantees that the rule of law will not be broken under another blanket of bureaucracy, rules and regulations when the White House is not impervious to politician grandstanding and undemocratic-like behavior? (See also two years ago when Obama shutdown ALL National Parks and National Monuments to “cause as much pain as possible.”)
According to the Federal Govt website, the 2015 budget is 459 BILLION short (so far). We are currently under Federal government jurisdiction = US Forest Service, which is paid out of the same government checkbook as the US National Parks and Monuments. If I have a budget that spends so much on rent, so much on groceries, so much on utilities and so on, and I have NO money, NOTHING gets paid until I come up with some funds. Looking back two years to the government shutdown, ALL forests, ALL National Monuments, ALL National Parks were shutdown because employees are paid out of that same government checkbook. Where’s the money going to come from? Fund-raising groups (Like the one that came up with the 3 million for the San Gabriel Mountain National Park? Would they have not gotten that money anyway, whether or not they became a National Monument?) Where’s the money?
@steve Segner,
Re: Your last comment relative to Napoleon Bonaparte
Talk about cut and paste…your favorite term. Segner, if you didn’t cut and paste or have your janitorial engineer at El Portal counsel you in communication skills, you wouldn’t be able to publish a single word spelled correctly much less write an intelligible sentence. Notwithstanding, now you’re a venerated historian, a vaunted critic of UN Agenda 21 and conspiracy theories, a supreme expert in federal land and resource stewardship, a scholar in Constitutional Law, a defender of the defenseless such as Rob Adams, and the world’s greatest moralist. That’s quite an accomplishment for a guy who can’t communicate anything in writing that anyone who can read can understand.
JRN
@steve Segner,
Steve, while for months now, between two different blog rolls, you and I have traded barbs, if you’ll review them all carefully, you’ll see that I’ve never questioned your integrity. I believe that you believe what you say. So, in light of this statement, and knowing that you’re a member of both the Sedona Chamber of Commerce and the Sedona Lodging Council, I want you ask you a fair and professional question. Are you a member of, or do you have a beneficial relationship with, KSB and/or the Sierra Club?
JRN
Happy to answer, no,I do give money to most local groups and if KSB has asked then I probably gave them some.
Rick look at how you asked the question, Right out of the 1950’s*.
Frankly I have not made up my mind on the National Momument. At this point I am leaning towards it, because, as I have said before I think the Federal Gov, will offer one more layer of protection, and you will see one more layer of federal interference.
Hope that answers your question.
Ss
*sir, are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party?
Ss