I must admit that I originally was not going to write about SB 107, Possession of Graffiti Paraphernalia for one main reason: I have very mixed feelings about the bill. However, after members of the online group Anonymous targeted (for some unknown reason) the Salt Lake City Police Department’s website in protest of this bill, I figured I should chime in.

First things first, it is clear that Senator Karen Mayne (D –  West Valley, District 5) is coming from a point of frustration on this one.  Graffiti continues to be a chronic problem in the urban areas of the state, and prevention is almost a herculaneum task. The problem is that graffiti is a symptom of bigger issues, so simple law-making isn’t enough.

In desperation, Mayne is proposing that we target the materials used to create graffiti in an attempt to slow the proliferation of tags in the community.

Here is where I take issue with the bill.  The bill can’t cut a sharp enough line between discouraging the act of tagging and simply possessing the materials that can be used to tag.  The legal term “intent” must, therefore, be included in the bill so that we only arrest those who “intend” to tag.

Of course, we can never know someones “intent” at the time of arrest or, in theory, ever.  Indeed, this was the main reason why Anonymous protested the bill.

But intent is a common phrase in the law – and it should be.  If you posses drug paraphernalia, the odds are high that you intend to take illegal drugs; get drunk and then sitting in your car (even when the keys are not in) shows that you intend to drive – the list goes on and on.

Now, Anonymous (using the crutch of pop culture) compared this to pre-crimes in the movie Minority Report; however if this is their main protest, they have clearly missed the mark - exposing how this will create “raids at 6 am over spray paint” and “end in corporations selling miniature drones to police offers chasing 13 year old’s.” The tradition of prosecuting intent dates far back in our legal history.  I am concerned not about police knocking down doors, but of officers abusing the law to put people away that they don’t like, even for a night (a far more realistic scenario).

It is not that something should not be done to address the issue of graffiti, but I think it would behoove us all to focus on the disease rather than the symptom.

To contact Sen. Mayne, Click Here or call 801-968-7756

Impact: 2

Need: 1

Overall: -1

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

I have come to a conclusion: Representative John Dougall (R-American Fork, District 27) has no idea how cause and effect, prevention, or general common sense, works.

Why else would he be proposing HB 298, Motor Vehicle Safety Inspection Amendments? A bill that, based on his own arguments in the media, is a bad decision.

HB 298 would eliminate the requirement that automobile owners have to pass a safety inspection in order to drive on Utah’s roads…let that sink in for a moment.  Now, I would at least wrap my head around the concept that a far-right, anti-environment lawmaker may want to do away with emissions inspections…but safety? Really?

Dougall’s justification for this bill is that we have reduced deaths on the road and that people don’t repair their cars anyway until they are forced too come inspection time.

So, your argument is that we have fewer deaths, so getting rid of safety standards would…reduce that…somehow? By that logic Dougall should propose a law increasing the amount of alcohol in “Utah beer” to national levels – after all, we have fewer alcohol related incidents in the state, so adding that back in shouldn’t cause a problem.

The second point is equally perplexing. I know that people tend not to fix mechanical problems such as poor breaks and dangerously cracked windshields until the state forces them to. But I guess Dougall is missing the point that issues such as these DO GET FIXED.

I mean, does Dougall honest want to be on roads where people have bald tires, worn breaks, and broken tail lights?

This logic originates from the Land of Conservatism, where people always have money to fix things and no one struggles to get by.  In this same land people magically just take it upon themselves to do things even when the path of least resistance is far easier and it is much less work to simply ignore problems…until they blow up in your face.

Conservatives like this fundamentally don’t understand the role of regulation.  Regulations such as these force people to do things they are not normally inclined to do.  We don’t impose laws like safety requirements on cars because the DMV gets a kick out of making citizens struggle (despite what people like Dougall might think), we impose regulations because failure to do so puts you, me, and everyone else on the road in danger. Regulations such as these are a requirement for living with other human beings that have as many faults as you do.

This bill, if it were to pass (and I hope it does not), would be putting peoples lives in danger in a very real way. Remember, with this law in place, you may have a perfectly running car, but that does not mean that the person who side-swiped you  because their unsafe car ran a red.

To contact Rep. Dougall, Click Here or call 801-708-5170

Impact: 3

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

This time last year, Senator Wayne Niederhauser (R – Sandy, District 9) showed just how much disregard he has for local government sovereignty by proposing SB 243 – Historic Areas or Sites Amendments. Apparently, in the past year, Niederhauser realized just how draconian his law really was to begin with…but is still missing the point.

Time to pull out your flip-flops on this one folks, because Niederhauser, by proposing SB 115, Historical District Creation Requirements, he is attempting to remove the very law he so desperately wanted on the books this time last year.

Yes, Niederhauser’s bill puts a giant strike-through on everything he proposed last year as necessary for the protection of citizens in this state.  I suppose he could have changed his mind…he certainly has the right to do that.  But if I had to wager a guess, it has more to do with the fact that he was able to get what he wanted last year by helping a buddy build McMansions and realized just how crap-tacular his bill actually was.

This current reincarnation does set into place various requirements for a city to set up a so called “historical district.” Although the thresholds are not impossibly high, I have to ask the same question I asked last year – how is this a State issue?

Isn’t it the right of a city and its citizens to determine what is or is not a historic district within their city limits? Shouldn’t the citizens decide what areas deserve protection? And shouldn’t those citizens create the mechanisms to determine such a status? Up until Niederhauser stuck his nose into the process last year, the issue largely worked itself out without interference from the state.

Yes, from time to time, issues of proper historical designation reared its head – but the courts were able to adequately  handle the problem.

The first half of the bill where Niederhauser wishes to get rid of his mistake is fantastic, however the second half is unnecessary.  I begrudgingly say that this is a good bill, but only kinda-sorta.  What would be ideal is if we went back to pre-2011 law.

To contact Sen. Niederhauser, Click Here or call 801-942-3398

Impact: 4

Need: 2

Overall: 2

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

In what appears to be an ongoing theme of hypocrisy this legislative session I present to you SB 243 – Historic Areas or Sites Amendments as proposed by Senator Wayne Niederhauser (R – Sandy, District 9). I know you may be shocked at this, but let me explain.

You know how Republicans have been hooting and hollering about how they feel the federal ‘guvment is encroaching on the states right to govern itself? And do you remember how they feel that government should be as local as possible, saying that the people have the right to govern themselves without outside interference? Yeah, I remember the protesters and the current proposed resolutions talking about such issues.

That is why I find it odd that Republicans such as Niederhauser would support such a bill because, after all, this bill seems to completely ignore that.

For those of you who have not been paying attention, Salt Lake City is looking to make portions of the Yalecrest neighborhood an historic district, the result being that it is difficult for owners to make modifications to their homes in an attempt to make sure the area maintains its charm and not suffer from McMansion Syndrome. Some property owners balk at the idea while others embrace it – I, as a Salt Lake City resident, think that the area should be maintained the way it is. Senator Niederhauser (again, from Sandy) thinks that the state should step in to prevent such an atrocious affront to property rights.  That is why his bill would prevent any city from “designat(ing) an historical area or site on or after May 10, 2011 and before May 8, 2012.”

But, if you truly believe in local control of government, why would Senator Niederhauser (again, I want to point this out, who is from Sandy) want the state to interfere with what is almost the definition of a city issue. The state has nothing to gain one way or the other. Now if it property rights Senator Niederhauser (did I mention he was from Sandy?) cares about, why allow the creation of historical districts on May 9, 2012?

It is almost as if Senator Niederhauser (from Sandy) does not really care about either of these things. Rather he wants the state to stick its nose into Salt Lake City’s business. But why, esteemed Senator from Sandy, do you want to do this? What do you have to gain?

If you care about the protection of local rights, you should not like this bill – even I, the bleeding heart liberal from Salt Lake City that I am, know that this is an infringement on local control. This bill should be abandoned like the many mammoth homes I am sure Senator Neaderhauser sees around his Sandy neighborhood.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Senator Nedierhauser (email works in Sandy).

You know what I love most in my lawmaking? Bald faced hypocrisy. That is why I am so glad Representative Wayne Harper (R – West Jordan, District 43) is proposing HB 226 – Local Government Fee Authority. I mean, it just smacks of double standards, and it makes no attempt to pretend it doesn’t.

Remember a short while back when Salt Lake County slapped what amounted to a tax on those in the unincorporated portion of the valley to ensure that they could pay cops to be on the street and firemen to show up when a house is burning down? If you don’t, you probably did not have to pay. Needless to say the tax was unpopular, but it is what the county government felt had to be done to ensure that these services were provided.

Now I am not here to debate the validity of the service fee, rather I am here to ask why Representative Harper (along with many of his Republican friends) is so willing to interfere when the internal matters of county government when they themselves cry and moan about federal interference of internal matters regarding the state?

The bill itself would eliminate the tax and make it illegal for any county with a population of 31,000 people or more to impose such a tax, thereby severely restricting the ability for that county government to govern.

Why can’t Representative Harper trust that the democratic process might actually work on this one? If enough people disagree with the tax, they will vote people in at the county level who vow to eliminate such a tax. But that’s just it – it is the place for the residents of the county to make such a decision, not 104 legislators who may or may not have an understanding (or even an vested interest) in what the county does.

Again, many faux-conservatives complain about state’s rights, but a true conservative would also ask the question of county, city, and neighborhood rights. Does the legislature have the right to restrict the action of a county simply because they don’t like the idea of taxation…ever…for anything? I say no. Let the county do what the county will do, and let the voters decide though our representative democracy if it is the best course of action.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Representative Harper.

Although you wouldn’t think it, Utah is actually is actually one of the more densely populated states in the nation with 2.3 of its 2.7 million residents stretching along a corridor 120 long and 40 miles wide equating to roughly 500 people per square mile. This is due, in large part, to the geography of the state and its relatively small zone of habitable space.

And so, we have an active urban core, with the problems associated with it. One of these problems has been severe air pollution, especially in the winter – as a result we have seen emissions inspections as part of the annual ritual of renewing your cars registration. People living in Salt Lake, Utah, Weber, and Davis Counties have all had to submit to pollution controls, and many people comply with the law.

But, at the same time, there are people who try to cheat the system; crossing county lines in an attempt to avoid paying the fee (and any repair bills associated with getting their car up to code). On top of that, pollution knows no boundaries, and increasingly polluted air is drifting into the urban core (and drifting out into formally “fresh” areas).

To help clamp down on this problem, Representative Jackie Biskupski (D – Salt Lake City, District 30) is proposing HB 96 – Mandatory Emission Inspections and Maintenance Programs. Currently the EPA requires the four counties listed above to have emission standards, this bill would require the counties surrounding those four counties to also require emission control standards. In other words, if you live in Rich, Cache, Box Elder, Tooele, Juab, Sanpete, Carbon, Duchesen, Wasatch, Summit, or Morgan County, you too will have to have your cars emissions inspected.

This bill should come as no surprise, I don’t know how many times I have driven through Logan, Brigham City, Lehi, Park City, or Price and seem the haze of pollution. In many ways this is a bill that will at least maintain current levels of pollution across the state. Furthermore, the bill will provide more income to the state to continue pollution control and give small businesses such as auto shops another opportunity to sell a service to people.

Yes, those giant pickup trucks will have to stop spewing black smoke into the air when they drive into town to shop at Wal-Mart, but the $25 they will have to pay every two years is worth it to me. Pollution harms us all, and could care less about what side of an imaginary line you live on.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Representative Biskupski.

It is very rare, being a Democrat in Utah, to help on a campaign that is successful. When you do work on a campaign, successful or not, you often do it because you believe in the candidate and think that they are the best person for the office. Oftentimes, however, citizens (and campaign workers) become upset when the candidate becomes the office holder and they fail to deliver on what they have promised.

Well, I am happy to report that Mayor Ralph Becker is quite the opposite, he was a candidate who not only delivered on what he promised, but he has even gone above and beyond what I thought he could do as a first term mayor of the largest city in Utah.

Becker has astutely handled a major budget crisis without harming major public goods, he has pushed for a much needed Public Safety Building and a Athletic Complex on the West Side, reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the city, enticed Goldman Sachs to move downtown, signed a Nondiscrimination ordinance with the churches blessing, responded quickly and decisively to both oil spills in Red Butte Canyon, has made city hall more open, expanded glass recycling, and secured funding for a streetcar in Sugar House just to name a few! For a more complete list, check out the Trib’s article on the matter by clicking here.

Now, some of Becker’s critics have tried to chisel away at the Mayor’s success – and some of these objections are worthy of note. But, to date, I can count on one hand the number of issues that have caused any sort of dust up in the city, with the most recent regarding his veto of the Parleys Historic Nature Park plan; but despite a very vocal minority, his overall job approval is at an astounding 84 percent…84 percent! Find 20 people and 17 of them like the guy. This, despite the fact that he has done an efficient job in creating a very progressive city – progressive policies that, if done in the wrong hands (Rocky *cough, cough*), could easily draw negative attention towards the city.

Although the path to reelection looks clear for Reserved Ralph, that does not mean that he will simply assume that this one is in the bag. I saw him walk door to door all across this city, and I am sure he will do the same again.

And, yes, Blueprint Man appears to be back…I will let you stew on that one for a bit.

Salt Lake City Councilmember J.T. Martin clearly does not care about Salt Lake’s West Side; well, at the very least, he does not care enough about his fellow Salt Lakers to actually understand the complaints of his fellow citizens.

You see, Martin seems to be under the impression that the area west of I-15 has streets made out of gold and that his east bench community is suffering because these petulant children refuse to pay an incie-wincy $2.3 million to improve North Temple for the upcoming TRAX line – “improvements” that are standard on almost 90 percent of the current system in Salt Lake City proper – “improvements” that the whole city, county, state, and even every American, paid for.

But this time around specific residents are being approached by the city to pony up. This, despite the fact that this line, more than any other, will benefit the city. The Airport line literally connects UTA and the Wasatch Front to the rest of the world and would be the first thing many visitors will see when entering the city, but now we decide to be stingy.

I really do understand that the city is in a cash crunch, but we are seeing several examples of how rails equate to growth and growth, obviously, equates to higher revenues. Now, more than ever, the city needs to invest in the future of the western half of its population, yet the council seems hesitant to do on the west side what it has been so eager to do on the east side for years.

The anger that Councilmember Martin showed just proves that the east side fundamentally does not understand the west side and its issues. Year after year the west side gets overlooked because of more ”sexy” projects on the east. The one time west siders dare to raise their head and complain, Councilmembers cry foul and complain that they are being ignored. Indeed, Councilwoman Remington-Love added to this feeling by pointing out that multiple east-side projects were put on hold for the North Temple project. Almost as if the council begrudgingly gave up their pet projects and they are appalled that the citizens on the west side citizens would be upset at having to pay a special fee that no other community had to pay.

 I support mass transit, and I support the TRAX line to the Airport, and I even support paying a tax to pay for these projects, but it is fundamentally unfair for the businesses along to pay an additional $110 per foot of property on North Temple every year for the privilege of having a service that no other property owner has to incur.

The council has done a great job of adding insult to injury by acting as though their districts are the ones that are being ignored. Year after year the west side has improvements that go by the wayside as east siders flex their political muscle, and year after year animosity grows. It is one thing to have this feeling come from the citizens, but it is quite another for civic leaders to enforce this idea. Mayor Becker, I feel, has worked to reverse this trend, but much more work clearly needs to be done.

I want to show you a picture:

That is a picture of a parking stall that should have contained this type of car in our apartment complex:

That car is known as a Buick Rainier, and the one owned by MRF is pleasantly known as “Cheney,” yes, as in Dick Cheney.

Cheney was driven by MRF to a Honk and Wave for Tim Bridgewater yesterday…this honk and wave:

That Honk and wave took place on North Temple and State Street in Salt Lake City. That is right here:

Funny story, that parking stall lives here, along with MRF and myself at 200 East and South Temple:

Now, some of you more observant readers may have noticed that our home, the parking stall, and the honk and wave are two city blocks away…

MRF drove her car two blocks to go to a Republican honk and wave.

…

Just felt the world needed to know.

P.S. This is my car:

This time last year I discussed how Senator Luz Robles (D – Salt Lake, District 1) was sponsoring a bill to designate the portion of Redwood Road in Salt Lake City the “Pete Suazo Memorial Highway.” Sadly, the bill had the enacting clause struck and made it nowhere.

For those of you who don’t know, the enacting clause is the portion of any bill that basically says that it is a law if passed, specifically it says “be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah.” If it is removed, it means that it is not enacted and is not, therefore, a law. To have an enacting clause struck is, quite possibly, one of the most dishonorable ways to kill a bill, as it is worse than just not voting on it – having the clause struck it is sort of like the legislature saying to the bill sponsor “we don’t like this idea so much, we are going to spend extra time just to kill it.”

Thankfully, Senator Robles is back with SB 117 – Pete Suazo Memorial Highway. The bill, again, would make Redwood road (from 2100 South to 1700 North officially the Pete Suazo Memorial Highway (see below).

I went to school with the Suazo children, and I remember how vivid the events of his tragic death were to the west side – a strong and passionate leader was removed from us so quickly.  Senator Suazo was the first Hispanic legislator and was a great inspiration to those who often felt disenfranchised – he truly represented what government could and should be about.

I hope this bill passes, it has already made it out of the Senate at the time of writing, and I hope it makes it to the Governors desk.

Click here to contact Senator Robles.