measure 5 phone call

just got a call from steve adair and now im on a live conference with a measure five meeting?  whats the deal?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

odie, you asked me to listen, I listened and apparently you do not like what was said that I pointed out.

Odie, can you tell us how many of the land purchase deals over seen by the Natural Areas Aquisition committee have been approved and denied?

Odie, there obviously should have been a more careful check done when listing those opposed in the legislature to this measure. There really is no excuse for mistakenly listing someone without first talking with them.

But if someone wishes to make an accusation of dishonesty, please get one of the sponsors of the measure to come on here and tell the ND voter if they paid people to collect signatures this round as they promised they would not.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

I got a phone poll being done by some oil interest.   I don't remember exactly.  She asked a few questions that were meaningless in my book then finally got around to measure five.  She asked what were the chances I would vote this fall.  I told her 100%.  She asked how I would vote on number five.  I said I would vote for it.   Then she started telling me all the terrible things it would do.  It would take money from schools and threaten the education of children blah blah blah.   I told her no it will do non of what you say.  Clunk the phone goes and she is gone. 

The conservatives against this are disappointing me with all their lies.  I always called myself a conservative.  Hmmm maybe it's those people that are not conservative.  What do you call money worshipers?   Now I'm thinking I'm a conservative libertarian cross.  A fellow told me that today that he was a conservative libertarian.  Sounds about right.  The dems and republicans can all kiss off.

gst I keep reading all the things you can't understand, or refuse to understand.   Everyone is onto you kid. 

odocoileus's picture
odocoileus
Offline
Joined: 12/30/06

gst Said:

I guess I would recommend you check out Dick Monson's,  a sponsor of the measure, comments early on over on Nodak about using these funds to block oil and gas development in areas they do not want developed.

He has been a bit quieter about that lately.

The orgs behind this measure like TNC have a bit of history with that kind of thing. But then when they can make a buck...............
 

Sorry couldnt help my self. BS. More false claims gst and you know it. Regardless of what one person said, it is written into the damn bill. Which you may want to have someone actually read out loud to you. Please have that person pay attention to "c".

The commission may not use the fund, in any manner, to finance:

a. Litigation;

b. Lobbying activities;

c. Activities that would unduly interfere, disrupt, or prevent the development of mineral rights;

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forest and fields in which you walk.  Immerse yourself in the outdoor experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person. -Fred Bear-
 

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

rsl what part of it will get spent do you not understand? The fact is that it is not mandated in the wording that it be spent annually as you and others want to claim even Dan did not challenge that because he knows it, and was a bit hard pressed when Joel would not let him continual repeat the same BS over and over!

I thought it was a good show, both sides where given a fair chance to speak! The best part is the show is state wide, and a lot of myths and falsehoods got shattered today just as they have in this thread. I especially liked the fact that it was pointed out just how invested in the state DU has been and I think the tired out of state interest thing is even more now going to hurt the opponents. odo thanks again for posting the link, I hope others do listen, it really was very informative!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

odocoileus's picture
odocoileus
Offline
Joined: 12/30/06


Hardwaterman Said:
rsl what part of it will get spent do you not understand? The fact is that it is not mandated in the wording that it be spent annually as you and others want to claim even Dan did not challenge that because he knows it, and was a bit hard pressed when Joel would not let him continual repeat the same BS over and over!

I thought it was a good show, both sides where given a fair chance to speak! The best part is the show is state wide, and a lot of myths and falsehoods got shattered today just as they have in this thread. I especially liked the fact that it was pointed out just how invested in the state DU has been and I think the tired out of state interest thing is even more now going to hurt the opponents. odo thanks again for posting the link, I hope others do listen, it really was very informative!

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forest and fields in which you walk.  Immerse yourself in the outdoor experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person. -Fred Bear-
 

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

odo getting desperate, is the term. Interest in this measure is growing and with interest comes research, the measure is plainly written and clear, all the innuendos are not working

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Carmen Miller is great at deflecting the interest in buying land. Always says the Industrial Commission and the Land Acquisition Board would never allow it.

North Dakota has a no net gain of acres law. The State cannot buy land but I would suppose they can accept donations. Or if the DU acts as a facilitator and helps spend general treasury money to acquire land.

Was digging around trying to find anything new on the State of North Dakota vs James Cook or Crosslands Inc. Found something that offers a little window into the psyce of one of the sponsors:

Postby Dick Monson » Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:13 am

http://www.state.nd.us/lr/assembly/59-2 ... RR0400.pdf





SB2145 has not received much attention from sportsmen or North Dakotan's in general, but it should and it ties into the Cook purchase. ND businesses should be especially concerned. Heres why.



The Ebert Ranch is a 5225 acre property that was part of Teddy Roesveldts original spread north of Medora. The Ebert family wished to sell it to the national park service. A tremendous boost for touism.



However ND has a No-Net-Gain (of acres) law for nonprofit land ownership. So the park service was out. The state stepped in to purchase the property, but because of the No-Net-Gain law, ND must divest it's self of 5225 acres of school land. Which will now be a loss for tourism.



The acquisition authorized by this Act may not result in a net gain of state-owned land. To ensure that the acquisition authorized by this Act does not result in a net gain of state-owned land, the board of university and school lands shall sell 5,225.2 acres of land in Slope, Golden Valley, Billings, and McKenzie Counties. Grazing must be included on the property. :wink:



Go figure. No one would argue that TRNP is the single biggest tourism $$$ draw to ND. Expanding the park would only have increased tourism, espically for western ND. Yet the property rights wackos demand the same acreage reduction, that will lower tourism in the same area they say they demand tourism to be expanded. :eyeroll: It is bizzaro world. Logic and reason do not prevail. 



These property rights wackos would cut off their nose to spite their face. In a way it would be better if Cook wins his suit.

Postby Dick Monson » Tue Aug 30, 2005 8:57 pm

Heard today that LANDS is going to spearhead the ballot measure for the eminent domain question. Meanwhile Jim Cook is going to be sued by the state for his private land purchase. :eyeroll:



1 So, if Cook wins, will the state law prohibiting nonprofits from owning land go out the window?



2 Would eminent domain play a role if it passes?



3 Would the LANDS boys go nuts if they were the ones that let the cat loose? (nonprofits buying land?) Oh there would be some major conservation purchases if it happens. Hmmmm. Might turn out he did a favor.

The approval committee is stacked against any nonprofit - read conservation organization - on purpose. Purely political. The Ebert Ranch was a good example. The committee was designed intentionaly to kill those land purchases.

Just north of Karank bridge there is a large chunk of native grass that was up for sale and would have tied in with an existing WMA. Perfect fit. But outfitters bought it because of another poison pill law that forbids NDGF from bidding over appraised value. Just another way for the anti hunter crowd in the legislature to stick it to NDGF. And they will do it every chance they get.

FBO, the picture is coming together.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Fritz again tell me what fiduciary right any elected board has in telling me who I can sell my property to? That is what is going to be at issue. So going forward the current laws of our state will apply. As pointed out today the Gov would have to approve any land purchase by DU or other group not once but twice.

Is the real reason your groups are so afraid of this measure is because it would highly erode any chance of winning with Cook? I think we may have just seen the light!

Now again I will say this, I find it interesting that you and yours have to try and dredge up old stuff to try and impact this that is not even related. Must have been really, really bad polling numbers!!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

odocoileus Said:

gst Said:

I guess I would recommend you check out Dick Monson's,  a sponsor of the measure, comments early on over on Nodak about using these funds to block oil and gas development in areas they do not want developed.

He has been a bit quieter about that lately.

The orgs behind this measure like TNC have a bit of history with that kind of thing. But then when they can make a buck...............
 

Sorry couldnt help my self. BS. More false claims gst and you know it. Regardless of what one person said, it is written into the damn bill. Which you may want to have someone actually read out loud to you. Please have that person pay attention to "c".

The commission may not use the fund, in any manner, to finance:

a. Litigation;

b. Lobbying activities;

c. Activities that would unduly interfere, disrupt, or prevent the development of mineral rights;

hey, just suggesting one listens to what a sponsor of the measure suggested himself. I didn;t make any claim that is what would be done.

If you can;t trust the sponsors to tell the truth about what this measure does or doesn;t do, who can you?

Oh yeah, then again Dick and his friends denied any connection to HSUS in the last measure they were sponsoring.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:
rsl what part of it will get spent do you not understand? The fact is that it is not mandated in the wording that it be spent annually as you and others want to claim even Dan did not challenge that because he knows it, and was a bit hard pressed when Joel would not let him continual repeat the same BS over and over!

I thought it was a good show, both sides where given a fair chance to speak! The best part is the show is state wide, and a lot of myths and falsehoods got shattered today just as they have in this thread. I especially liked the fact that it was pointed out just how invested in the state DU has been and I think the tired out of state interest thing is even more now going to hurt the opponents. odo thanks again for posting the link, I hope others do listen, it really was very informative!

It seemed others thought differently ron.  Do you acknowledge that Ms. Miller was completely wrong when she claimed part of the 75% could be "allocated into the trust? What else was she either uninfromed about or disingenuous about?

I notice you have avoided answering my question about the Cook lawsuit you so adamantly claim will over turn the states anti corporate farming law and disband the NAAC. Is it just that you do not want others to know what would happen if you are right?

Or do you just want to avoid having to address talking out both sides of your mouth.

Either the law is unconstitutional and as such will be over turned and the very safety plug you and the supporters of this measure claim will keep these billions from being used to buy land will cease to exist, or it is not.

Which is it ron?

Would you like me to go back and dig up your capital letter posts where you decree you are right and everyone else is wrong about the Cook lawsuit?

RSL's picture
RSL
Offline
Joined: 9/25/09

 

Hardwaterman Said:
rsl what part of it will get spent do you not understand? The fact is that it is not mandated in the wording that it be spent annually as you and others want to claim even Dan did not challenge that because he knows it, and was a bit hard pressed when Joel would not let him continual repeat the same BS over and over!

I thought it was a good show, both sides where given a fair chance to speak! The best part is the show is state wide, and a lot of myths and falsehoods got shattered today just as they have in this thread. I especially liked the fact that it was pointed out just how invested in the state DU has been and I think the tired out of state interest thing is even more now going to hurt the opponents. odo thanks again for posting the link, I hope others do listen, it really was very informative!

The proponents wrote the law.  If they didn't want all the monies to be spent each year why did the write the law so vague.  Why not just write the law so that only those approved grants would be funded and the balance of the monies could be kept in the fund until other grants were approved for funding at some time in the future.  YOU KNOW WHY.  That would make this measure like the OHF, which is controlled by the Legislature (as it should be and as this measure should be.)  They do not want the CWWP commission to be able to control the amount of monies to be spent.  If the commission is allowed to control the amount of money spent then this measure would be nothing more than a OHF on steroids but they still would not be able to get access to the money like they want (and feel that they are entitled since they spent so much money on funding the measure.)  It's in black and white if you read the measure.  If the monies aren't spent (allocated) the proponents will go to court with a Webster's Dictionary and show the judge the definition I quoted and say that the money has to be spent!

Steve.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:
Fritz again tell me what fiduciary right any elected board has in telling me who I can sell my property to? That is what is going to be at issue. So going forward the current laws of our state will apply. As pointed out today the Gov would have to approve any land purchase by DU or other group not once but twice.

But what about down the road when Cook wins? 25 years is a long time for your beleved nonprofits to buy lands with these dollars ron.
And ron is right about one thing, they will not buy RRV farmland so you guys in the valley are screwed out of your "habitat" from this measure anyways. they will target the areas with habitat  to "protect them". Guess what, those are the very same areas some people on here might be dreaming about one day buying themselves for a place to take their families hunting and enjoy their own spot.
Is the real reason your groups are so afraid of this measure is because it would highly erode any chance of winning with Cook? I think we may have just seen the light!

Now again I will say this, I find it interesting that you and yours have to try and dredge up old stuff to try and impact this that is not even related. Must have been really, really bad polling numbers!!!

And there it is in black and white in his claims that are emboldened . "today" the governor can block these sales, but not if Cook wins" tomorrow" .

Ron will not admit to his claims Cook will be overturned becasue then he has no leg to stand on with his claims these funds would not be able to be used by the nonprofits funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars into this state to change our constitution to buy land.

Cook gets overturned, the state has a constitutional amendment stating it can use these funds to purchase lands and the nonprofits line up at the trough.

The first time the IC tries to deny a purchase as the sponsors and supporters claim is the safety vale how much does anyone want to bet they will end up in court?

I took a little bit to get you there ron, but we all kinda knew you would. Go ahead and avoid answering about your position on Crosslands/Cook lawsuit, ron everyone knows what this is really about adn why the measure is worded how it is..

Nice find fritz, kinda hard to deny the sponsors of this measure have not been "busy little bees" plotting out their plan for quite some time

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

RSL Said:
 

Hardwaterman Said:
rsl what part of it will get spent do you not understand? The fact is that it is not mandated in the wording that it be spent annually as you and others want to claim even Dan did not challenge that because he knows it, and was a bit hard pressed when Joel would not let him continual repeat the same BS over and over!

I thought it was a good show, both sides where given a fair chance to speak! The best part is the show is state wide, and a lot of myths and falsehoods got shattered today just as they have in this thread. I especially liked the fact that it was pointed out just how invested in the state DU has been and I think the tired out of state interest thing is even more now going to hurt the opponents. odo thanks again for posting the link, I hope others do listen, it really was very informative!

The proponents wrote the law.  If they didn't want all the monies to be spent each year why did the write the law so vague.  Why not just write the law so that only those approved grants would be funded and the balance of the monies could be kept in the fund until other grants were approved for funding at some time in the future.  YOU KNOW WHY.  That would make this measure like the OHF, which is controlled by the Legislature (as it should be and as this measure should be.)  They do not want the CWWP commission to be able to control the amount of monies to be spent.  If the commission is allowed to control the amount of money spent then this measure would be nothing more than a OHF on steroids but they still would not be able to get access to the money like they want (and feel that they are entitled since they spent so much money on funding the measure.)  It's in black and white if you read the measure.  If the monies aren't spent (allocated) the proponents will go to court with a Webster's Dictionary and show the judge the definition I quoted and say that the money has to be spent!

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

 Rsl tell me this.  If the fund has 50 million in it for grants and only 30 million are applied for what is done after the year ends?  See if simple logic is used one can follow the fact that it does not require mandatory spending but then another leg of your three legged stool is gone leaving you where.  This is not even a challenge anymore.

So claim away but your wrong and you know it. 

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

RSL's picture
RSL
Offline
Joined: 9/25/09

 Hardwaterman Said:

 Rsl tell me this.  If the fund has 50 million in it for grants and only 30 million are applied for what is done after the year ends?  See if simple logic is used one can follow the fact that it does not require mandatory spending but then another leg of your three legged stool is gone leaving you where.  This is not even a challenge anymore.

So claim away but your wrong and you know it. 

Don't you ever believe that all of the fund money will not be asked for each year.  What would be the purpose of the measure if they didn't have programs already planned for all of the money appropriated each year!

Steve.

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Ron Gilmore wrote,

Fritz again tell me what fiduciary right any elected board has in telling me who I can sell my property to?

Back in the 1930's, when the people voted unanimously on an initiated measure for a corporate farming law, the intent wasn't to block you from whomever you wanted to sell to, the intent was to block banks and corporations from buying up all the land.
Somehow you always get things backwards in your head.

Is the real reason your groups are so afraid of this measure is because it would highly erode any chance of winning with Cook? I think we may have just seen the light!

 

Again, backwards in your head.

Now again I will say this, I find it interesting that you and yours have to try and dredge up old stuff to try and impact this that is not even related. Must have been really, really bad polling numbers!!!

 

The interesting thing about old stuff is it goes to show how long Dick Monson has been waiting for this dream Con Amendment. And another thing. The Cook lawsuit has been going on since 2005? How long does it take to settle this stuff?

James Cook (owner of Crosslands Inc.) is a silver and securities invester in MN worth millions. I would suppose he can afford to drag it out.

But, in all of this mess, it is wise to never to put the cart before the horse. First get the funding secured and then get behind Cook and push.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Hardwaterman Said:
 Rsl tell me this.  If the fund has 50 million in it for grants and only 30 million are applied for what is done after the year ends?  See if simple logic is used one can follow the fact that it does not require mandatory spending but then another leg of your three legged stool is gone leaving you where.  This is not even a challenge anymore.

So claim away but your wrong and you know it. 

From the Clean water Facebook page. A supporter of the measure seems to think there is a mandated spending portion and thinks it is a beneficial part of the measure.

Michael Van Beek You completely miss the point gabe. Obviously 5 has required spending and the ohf doesn't. It's easy to put your money in a checking account if you know you don't have to spend it. You are really having to stretch on these rebuttals pal.

Surely if Mr. Van Beek is wrong about the "required spending" the sponsors of this measure would set him straight wouldn't they instead of letting these false claims stay on their page?

Ron what you do not seem to understand is that while every single dollar may not have to be "alloted"  in that given year, 75% of them have to be "expended" on some program in an "ongoing" "annual basis".

So do you really think these groups that will be pulling the strings on the panel that have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to access these funds will not have it figured out each year how to come up with the programs to do this?

I would guess DU and others will hire people here in ND just for that purpose.

Do you really think the authors of this measure would write it so that the IC can do the very thing they are bitching and whining about them doing right know?

Especially when sponsors like Dick have been eyeballing these funds and what the Cook lawsuit would do for them for 10 years???

Yeah, you forget about the Cook lawsuit when it suits you ron. Why are you not posting in capital letters telling people they are "DUMB ASSES" for not thinking the anti corporate farming law will be overturned and these nonprofits will be able to buy land uncontrolled and that we will have no one but NDFB to blame when it happens???

How many times and threads have you done that in on here ron and yet suddenly you are silent on the matter????

Simple logic?????

This is a bit more complex and you and the sponsors of this measure don;t want people to know the facts.

Longshot's picture
Longshot
Offline
Joined: 12/1/03

gst Said:

odocoileus Said:

gst Said:

I guess I would recommend you check out Dick Monson's,  a sponsor of the measure, comments early on over on Nodak about using these funds to block oil and gas development in areas they do not want developed.

He has been a bit quieter about that lately.

The orgs behind this measure like TNC have a bit of history with that kind of thing. But then when they can make a buck...............
 

Sorry couldnt help my self. BS. More false claims gst and you know it. Regardless of what one person said, it is written into the damn bill. Which you may want to have someone actually read out loud to you. Please have that person pay attention to "c".

The commission may not use the fund, in any manner, to finance:

a. Litigation;

b. Lobbying activities;

c. Activities that would unduly interfere, disrupt, or prevent the development of mineral rights;

hey, just suggesting one listens to what a sponsor of the measure suggested himself. I didn;t make any claim that is what would be done.

If you can;t trust the sponsors to tell the truth about what this measure does or doesn;t do, who can you?

Oh yeah, then again Dick and his friends denied any connection to HSUS in the last measure they were sponsoring.

You're dishonest gst.   Just like you continue to say to others, prove these statements you say this sponsor made.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

fritz the people of te state have never voted to exclude non profits from ownership that came from the Leg via Ag lobby. So if you want to tout that the current law was passed and voted on that is an outright falsehood!!!

I would support going back to the original law as passed by the people no issue. No board, etc.... Lots of support for that, but it is clear the majority of callers do not support the current restrictions including farmers and landowners.

But honesty is not a thing your groups are interested in, they continue to make false claims that have been shown wrong or hypocritical!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

gst Said:

eyexer Said:

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
yea so they can spend it.  you don't put money in there for the hell of it.  it doesn't say when it has to be spent.

what don;t you understand about the words "continuing" and "annual basis"?

it's exactly that, continuing and on an annual basis.  guess you had no point

soooooooooooooooooo wouldn;t requiring the allocated expenditure of the funds on a continueing annual basis mean they have to be expended every year? That seems to be an idicator of when these funds have to be spent.

I don't think so.  But it would make a person wonder what the measure actually says/means regarding when it has to be spent.  That part isn't clear.  I think it leaves people to assume.  assuming doesn't usually turn out well. 

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

gst Said:
I never knew the English language was that hard to understand.

Indeed having to raise the debt ceiling does not mean you have increased your debt.

and allocated expenditures on an annual basis does not mean funds are spent each year.

You either understand English or you don;t.

no it really doesn't.  my wife works for the national park service.  they are allocated fund based on their budget every year.  she just finished year end closeout.  every year they usually have excess funds they have to relinquish.  this year for example they had a position to fill.  they had to budget for up to 60K for moving this individual to the park.  in the end the move only cost 5K for the individual they hired.  So they had to relinquish 55K back to the region. 

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

I can see this measure/money being used for reclamation of oil sites/land that was damaged during exploration.  doesn't appear to be anything that prevents money from the 75% allocation to be put in the trust if not spent.  the 10% put into the trust is a percentage of annual allocation.  Doesn't appear to be anything to prevent other money to be put in trust.  Just states at least 10% has to be.  So when the oil money dries up if it does, there will still be trust money accumulated over many years that can still be used for many years.  makes sense if you think about it. 

 

Dick McFiddleton's picture
Dick McFiddleton
Offline
Joined: 4/9/14

After seeing adults behave this way over politics makes me realize more just how poorly people can behave.  Disgusting.  I dont want one red cent from this bill and even less to do with the hypocrites on both sides of this thing.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Longshot Said:

gst Said:

odocoileus Said:

gst Said:

I guess I would recommend you check out Dick Monson's,  a sponsor of the measure, comments early on over on Nodak about using these funds to block oil and gas development in areas they do not want developed.

He has been a bit quieter about that lately.

The orgs behind this measure like TNC have a bit of history with that kind of thing. But then when they can make a buck...............
 

Sorry couldnt help my self. BS. More false claims gst and you know it. Regardless of what one person said, it is written into the damn bill. Which you may want to have someone actually read out loud to you. Please have that person pay attention to "c".

The commission may not use the fund, in any manner, to finance:

a. Litigation;

b. Lobbying activities;

c. Activities that would unduly interfere, disrupt, or prevent the development of mineral rights;

hey, just suggesting one listens to what a sponsor of the measure suggested himself. I didn;t make any claim that is what would be done.

If you can;t trust the sponsors to tell the truth about what this measure does or doesn;t do, who can you?

Oh yeah, then again Dick and his friends denied any connection to HSUS in the last measure they were sponsoring.

You're dishonest gst.   Just like you continue to say to others, prove these statements you say this sponsor made.

longshot there was a bit of back and forth Between Dick and I over a LTE that had suggested these funds could be used to keep oil exploration out of the Badlands. I held his feet to the fire a bit over why energy should support a measure that would use the taxes they pay to prevent what they do.  I donlt recall if it was on here or back over on Nodak. If you wish to take thetime to find it, be my guest.

Why not get Dick himself as a sponsor of this measure to come on here and address this and other issues?

Surely if this is not true, Dick would be able to set the record straight.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

eyexer Said:

gst Said:
I never knew the English language was that hard to understand.

Indeed having to raise the debt ceiling does not mean you have increased your debt.

and allocated expenditures on an annual basis does not mean funds are spent each year.

You either understand English or you don;t.

no it really doesn't.  my wife works for the national park service.  they are allocated fund based on their budget every year.  she just finished year end closeout.  every year they usually have excess funds they have to relinquish.  this year for example they had a position to fill.  they had to budget for up to 60K for moving this individual to the park.  in the end the move only cost 5K for the individual they hired.  So they had to relinquish 55K back to the region. 

Then it was not an "expenditure"  was it eye. Does she have a caveat in her budgetary rules that state these funds must be allocated for expenditure?

I'm guesssing the language that governs how the funds in your example are used is quite a bit different than the language in this measure.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

eyexer Said:
I can see this measure/money being used for reclamation of oil sites/land that was damaged during exploration.  doesn't appear to be anything that prevents money from the 75% allocation to be put in the trust if not spent.  the 10% put into the trust is a percentage of annual allocation.  Doesn't appear to be anything to prevent other money to be put in trust.  Just states at least 10% has to be.  So when the oil money dries up if it does, there will still be trust money accumulated over many years that can still be used for many years.  makes sense if you think about it. 

Read the measure eye. This is exactly the kind of crap the sponsors and supporters of this measure are doing.

5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section.
 
14. The state treasurer shall reserve five percent of the state’s share of total revenue derived from oil extraction taxes for the purposes described in this section. Ten percent of the funds so reserved shall be transferred by the state treasurer into the clean water, wildlife, and parks trust within thirty days after the end of each calendar quarter. Ninety percent of the funds so reserved shall be transferred by the state treasurer into the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund within thirty days after the end of each calendar quarter.


It does NOT say "at least" 10% or up to 10% or no less than 10%............... it says 10% two separate places.

period.

Perhaps Ms. Miller should "read the measure" as she suggested to Dan in their debate.

words mean something.

fullrut's picture
fullrut
Offline
Joined: 9/28/05

Seems like the opposition wasn't the only one to make phone calls.

In the 2012 election cycle the proponents of a constitutional ballot measure to create a conservation fund saw their signature collection effort fail when petitioners they hired – mostly NDSU football players – were caught forging tens of thousands of signatures.

In the current election cycle the conservationists, backing another measure, claimed that they’d be using only volunteers to collect signatures, something that was clearly untrue.

Now, adding to a laundry list of unsavory political practices, the conservationists who are backing what is now Measure 5 on the November ballot have been caught using less-than-legal polling practices.

BISMARCK, N.D. — A Democratic polling firm representing backers of a state conservation fund will pay $2,000 to resolve a complaint alleging violations of North Dakota’s do not call law, court records show.

The North Dakota attorney general’s office and Las Vegas-based Campaign Communication Solutions Inc. reached the agreement Wednesday. The company, which has offices in Washington, D.C., and California and also does business as Stones’ Phones, did not admit wrongdoing or liability, court records said.

The company allegedly made illegal prerecorded calls on behalf of North Dakotans for Clean Water, Wildlife and Parks, a group pushing a ballot measure that would funnel some of the state’s oil extraction taxes into a conservation fund. Backers of the measure want 5 percent of the state’s oil extraction taxes over the next 25 years, a sum opponents said would set aside almost $5 billion during that time for conservation projects at the expense of other state needs. …

“We clearly believe they violated the law,” Grossman told The Associated Press. “But the primary goal is to ensure that the calls are discontinued and we achieved that.”

Just another facepalm moment for the conservationists.

Given this pattern of behavior, maybe it’s time to start holding the conservationists accountable for the tactics they deploy. We all have our opinions about the proper way to implement conservation policy, but do we really want to make a massive fiscal commitment to a plan hatched by a bunch of people who are clearly ethically challenged?

Education will tell you a tomato is a fruit, while wisdom will tell you not to put it in a fruit salad.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Once these funds are taken out of the total extraction tax kitty, they have already been "allocated" or deposited to it as section 3 directs,  the  measure spells out what to do with them from there in Section 2 a-e.

It clearly states 75% of these funds that have already been "allocated" to the fund itself must be allocated for those purposes outlined in section 2.

2. There is created a clean water, wildlife, and parks fund that shall be used for grants to state agencies, tribal governments, local governments, political subdivisions, and nonprofit organizations for the following purposes:

a. Protect, improve, maintain, or restore water quality through the restoration and protection of rivers, streams, lakes or other surface waters, groundwater, wetlands, grasslands, prairies, or forests;

b. Improve natural flood control through the restoration or protection of natural areas along rivers, streams, lakes or other surface waters, groundwater, wetlands, grasslands, prairies, and forests;

c. Protect, restore, or create wildlife and fish habitat through voluntary programs on private lands, including working farms and ranches, and public lands through grassland, prairie, wetland, stream, lake, and forest restoration, creation, and protection;

d. Conserve or acquire natural areas, parks, and other recreation areas or provide access for hunting and fishing; or

e. Create more opportunities and places for children to learn about and enjoy nature and the outdoors.



 
"Any money deposited in the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund is hereby appropriated to the commission on a continuing basis for expenditure upon those programs selected by the commission as provided in this section.

This "as provided in this section" references back to the guidelines in 2 a-e


Where it pretty clearly spells out what the "continuing basis for expenditures" can be used on.


"5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. 

The language has already dealt with the "allocation" of the funds when they are "deposited in the fund". So then after they are already deposited in the fund and they must then be allocated for "expenditure" as the measure's language requires, what happens to the funds? They are "expended on the programs brought forth by the panel falling under the guidelines in section 2.

3. There is created a clean water, wildlife and parks commission that shall be comprised of the governor, attorney general and agriculture commissioner. The commission shall govern the fund in accord with this section. Any money deposited in the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund is hereby appropriated to the commission on a continuing basis for expenditure upon those programs selected by the commission as provided in this section. The commission shall keep accurate records of all financial transactions performed under this section

Once again, it would seem these funds are directed to being used for "expenditure" "as provided in this section" of the constitution whereby it states two sections later................................................ "5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis."

It spells out exactly what can be placed into the trust.

It spells out exactly that no more than 3% can be used for salaries.
 
It spells out exactly that 75% of these fund deposited into the fund MUST be expended to pay for the programs created by the panel every year.

THAT seems to me to be mandated spending.

 

matt04's picture
matt04
Offline
Joined: 1/7/08

 

guywhofishes Said:
The "Vote No on Measure 5" mailer I received yesterday says "ND Farmers and Ranchers know best how to conserve our resources" or some such phrase.

Q: What are farmers and ranchers in the Red River Valley doing to conserve the land, our hunting opportunities, our fishing opportunities?

It also says that the supporters of the bill don't really care about conservation - they care about the money and control it affords them. Reminded me of Red River Valley farmers attitude.

You guys out central and west have no idea what "caring farmers" are capable of once they pass a certain threshold of habitat destruction. There's a point at which habitat conditions are so miserable that they just quit even remotely considering conservation and move into "farm every square foot and manage water for farming period" mode and it's Katy bar the doors.

Sure, once you get 20-30 miles west it starts to moderate and the vast majority of farmers still care about habitat. But what's going on out here IS moving west - don't kid yourselves.

gst - before you have a heart attack, send me a PM before you come east next time and I'll take you on a local tour that will make you think we're driving around in Iowa, not ND.

What's the point of my post? I guess my point is that here in the east, where a lot of voters live, the land has been rendered "habitatless" and we could use targeted programs to generate some habitat to support local activities for outdoorsman. Outside of measure 5... what do the farmers and ranchers of ND have to offer voters in the eastern part of ND as an alternative if we stand with them and vote NO?

Access to their land if we drive the hour or five it takes to get to what you centrals and westerners take for granted?

People in places like Fargo need "after work" or half-day opportunities too. Right now we have very very VERY few. At least #5 would produce a glimmer of hope. Without targeted spending we're SOL for sure.

So... without running to the "hey - you're a farmer basher!" well, I'd appreciate some concrete evidence that voting NO would improve our lot out east.

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

gst Said:

eyexer Said:
I can see this measure/money being used for reclamation of oil sites/land that was damaged during exploration.  doesn't appear to be anything that prevents money from the 75% allocation to be put in the trust if not spent.  the 10% put into the trust is a percentage of annual allocation.  Doesn't appear to be anything to prevent other money to be put in trust.  Just states at least 10% has to be.  So when the oil money dries up if it does, there will still be trust money accumulated over many years that can still be used for many years.  makes sense if you think about it. 

Read the measure eye. This is exactly the kind of crap the sponsors and supporters of this measure are doing.

5. The commission must allocate no less than seventy-five percent nor more than ninety percent of the revenue deposited in the fund on an annual basis. Ten percent of earnings of the fund shall be reserved and transferred on an annual basis to the trust established in this section.
 
14. The state treasurer shall reserve five percent of the state’s share of total revenue derived from oil extraction taxes for the purposes described in this section. Ten percent of the funds so reserved shall be transferred by the state treasurer into the clean water, wildlife, and parks trust within thirty days after the end of each calendar quarter. Ninety percent of the funds so reserved shall be transferred by the state treasurer into the clean water, wildlife, and parks fund within thirty days after the end of each calendar quarter.


It does NOT say "at least" 10% or up to 10% or no less than 10%............... it says 10% two separate places.

period.

Perhaps Ms. Miller should "read the measure" as she suggested to Dan in their debate.

words mean something.

you don't get what I'm saying.  The measure states the commissioner has to deposit 10% of this money into the trust.  that is fully understood by everybody as far as I can tell.  The measure doesn't appear to prevent some of the remaining 75% to be put into the trust of they so desire if those funds aren't allocated to a specific project for the year. 

 

Pages