[Vision2020] Domenstic Benefits?

[Mark Solomon]

Phil,

Trust lands are held in trust by the State Land 
Board and managed by the Department of Lands. 
There are many different types of trust land 
generally defined by the purpose of the trust. By 
far the largest one is the trust established by 
the Idaho Constitution for the public schools. 
Initially, every Section 16 and 30 in each 
township of the state (that's 2 sq. miles/every 
36 square miles) was given to the state  from the 
federal domain by Congress as part of Idaho's 
admittance act. The lands were to be sold or used 
to generate income for the purposes of the state. 
Idaho sold some of the land to give its new 
government a physical presence and then put the 
rest in trust for the public schools. (There was 
an enormous amount of fraud involved locally in 
the Clearwater as it's one thing to say each 
Section 16 and 30 belongs to the school trust, 
it's another to actually go out and survey and 
claim those lands before others claimed them 
through other acts of Congress establishing 
National Forests, Indian Reservations, Railroad 
Land Grants, homesteads, etc. but that's another 
story.)

The emphasis in that story is the lands were 
established for the benefit of the school trust: 
that's K-12, not University. Other lands were 
given to Idaho for purposes of establishing the 
University of Idaho. They are specific and widely 
scattered in the state. Some examples include the 
actual modern footprint of the UI, the UI 
Experimental Forest on Moscow Mountain, the 
Parker Farm on the Troy HiWay, the McCall Field 
Station, some ag land research stations in south 
Idaho and other misc. land.

Other state agencies have their own trust lands 
usually derived from gifts of land from private 
individuals. Fish and Game lands generally fit 
into this category.

You raise an interesting point regarding zoning 
and UI trust land. While I haven't really 
considered the implications previously, you're 
probably right regarding the original trust lands 
if they are put to their original purpose. But 
none of that is of import to the land around 
Moose Creek Reservoir. Those state lands are 
school trust lands, not UI lands. They are 
currently managed by the State Land Board to 
provide the maximum economic return to the trust. 
Depending on their nature, they are either 
logged, grazed, mined or leased for recreation. 
Assuming that the circumstances haven't changed 
since I was county commissioner, the land 
surrounding the Reservoir is leased by Latah 
County for purposes of providing recreation 
opportunities for area residents and visitors. 
The lease amount is based on returning 5% of the 
lands value to the trust annually by policies 
established by the Land Board. All money goes to 
the Endowment Trust Board which then invests it 
on behalf of the public schools and returns some 
amount annually to the school fund for 
distribution across the state.

Let me repeat: the land around Moose Creek is 
school trust land, not UI trust land. UI 
endowment land is managed directly by the UI. 
Ross Applegren is in charge of the school forest. 
Gerard Billington is generally in charge of their 
more miscellaneous holdings.

I've got enormous problems with how the lands and 
endowment are managed that range from 
environmental concerns to investment strategies, 
but that's another story.

best,

Mark Solomon

At 5:22 AM -0700 6/4/05, Phil Nisbet wrote:
>Saundra
>
>Nope, I am a poor private sector geologist and 
>not an employee of the University of Idaho.
>
>Yes, the University is going through tough 
>times.  One of the reasons that they are is not 
>only the general down turn in the State's 
>Ecomony and therefore the lowering of tax 
>revenues for feeding the budget of the 
>University, but also the lowering of income to 
>the University from the land holdings that the 
>state holds in trust for the University system.
>
>During the discussion on zoning earlier, many 
>folks seem to have screwed up what a land grant 
>University is.  It litterally means that land 
>was granted and that land is held in trust by 
>the Idaho Department of Lands for the benefit of 
>and to supply the financial need of, the 
>Universities in this state.  The University 
>itself is not built on state lands held for that 
>purpose, it sits on land purchased for the 
>construction of a University.  It is, however, 
>state land, and as such is not subject to the 
>zoning codes of either the city or the County.
>
>The reason I bring this up is that the land that 
>was granted is all over the place here in the 
>state.  Unfortuneately, in too many instances, 
>that land is not being put to productive use. 
>University Trust land is often treated as if its 
>function were to provide recreational value or 
>some such similar benefit to society as a whole. 
>It was never envisioned to be something for 
>that, its supposed to generate revenues to pay 
>for salaries and benefits for you folks who work 
>at the Universities.
>
>Just a one good local example, Moose Creek 
>Reservoir is a great place to recreate, but its 
>state University Trust land.  While its great 
>that we have places like the old Simplot Clay 
>Mine Reservoir to play in, that land was granted 
>to provide money so that we do not have to lay 
>off University employees.  The properrty there 
>really ought to be managed to bring in revenue, 
>even if its just charging for camping and using 
>the lake, with the funds turned over to the 
>University trust fund.
>
>Phil
>
>>From: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at adelphia.net>
>>To: "'Phil Nisbet'" <pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com>,<vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Domenstic Benefits?
>>Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:52:49 -0700
>>
>>Hi Mr. Nisbet,
>>
>>Well . . . I guess it's a safe guess that you don't work at the University
>>of Idaho, which is Latah County's largest employer.  Hopefully, if I
>>bollocks this up, someone will correct me  :-)
>>
>>Without addressing coverage details (which, IMHO, again decreased for UI
>>employees in the form of new & increased deductibles, increased co-payments,
>>increased out of pocket limits, switching to MOB, etc), I can tell you that
>>our family (employee, spouse, 1 child) will be paying less in premiums this
>>upcoming fiscal year.
>>
>>Why?  Well, if I understand correctly, it's because our particular
>>configuration (employee, spouse, 1 child) has been used in the past to
>>***subsidize*** the premiums of other groups.  Specifically, the spouse
>>portion has subsidized employees with ***no (covered) spouse*** but with
>>covered children.  [This information is available from
>>http://www.hr.uidaho.edu/default.aspx?pid=80749; scroll down, click on
>>PowerPoint Presentation of Changes under FY06 Program Change Highlights,
>>then read the notes for Slide 16.]
>>
>>So, with respect to the UI, I would have to strongly disagree with your
>>statement:
>>"But there are one heck of a lot of single parents, people who do not have
>>two people raising children or two paychecks to cover the costs who are just
>>as deserving of assistance, but as singles are expected to shoulder the
>>burden for those who are not single."
>>
>>To the contrary:  at the UI, the spouse premium has apparently been
>>subsidizing the premium of single parents with children.  Is that fair?
>>
>>I don't think I'm missing your point, but sometimes things aren't as they
>>seem, as I think I've just shown using the UI as an example.
>>
>>
>>Saundra Lund
>>Moscow, ID
>>
>>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
>>nothing.
>>Edmund Burke
>>
>>***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2005, Saundra Lund.
>>Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
>>without the express written permission of the author.*****
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>>On Behalf Of Phil Nisbet
>>Sent: Thursday, 02 June 2005 3:13 AM
>>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: [Vision2020] Domenstic Benefits?
>>
>>There was a spirited discussion on spreading benefits about for gays and
>>lesbians and transgenders, etc.  Though it has dried up, I was wondering,
>>
>>Why is there a benefit for people simple because they happen to be sharing
>>the same bedroom?
>>
>>Don't get it wrong, I benefited from it back while I was married and before
>>I became a single dad, but now I am happily not married and intend to spend
>>the rest of my life in happy bachleorhood.
>>
>>So I guess I am wondering why it is that simply because two people make a
>>choice to sleep together and live together in some sort of bonded
>>relationship, those of us who have been there and done that and got the
>>Tshirt, but are not to particularly wanting to do it again any time soon,
>>are expected to pay higher taxes and spring for higher bills for insurance
>>and the rest, simply because somebody else is having a wonderful time of
>>matrimonial bliss.
>>
>>As long as we as a society chose to favor couples with tax breaks and
>>benefits, I do not see how all types of relationship are not granted special
>>privileges equally.
>>
>>Those who suggest that marriage is one man and one woman and deserve
>>benefits are doing so based on the premise that this is about kids, the
>>having and raising of them being something that society needs to assist.
>>But there are one heck of a lot of single parents, people who do not have
>>two people raising children or two paychecks to cover the costs who are just
>>as deserving of assistance, but as singles are expected to shoulder the
>>burden for those who are not single.  And of course, lesbian and gay couples
>>can have households with kids as well.  Then you have childless couples, the
>>Double Income No Kids (DINKs), who never are going to have kids.
>>
>>So if taking care of children is the key, why not attach the benefit to the
>>kids and not to the couples?  That means that DINKs do not get a benefit
>>simply because they are sleeping together, but that struggling single
>>parents see the same benefit as two parent households.
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
>>http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN 
>Search! 
>http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/