edward
06-16-2008, 10:21 PM
“If They’ve (AZ private property owners) Got The Guts We’re Going To Stand Behind Them”
This quote is from GB Oliver of the Paragon Foundation during a radio interview on June 12 regarding the current dust requirements that have generated more than $1,000,000 in fines in Maricopa County in a few short weeks.
One Dairy farmer was fined $2500 for a single event. This magnanimous event occurred when he drove some equipment across a paved road to get from one part of his farm to another. So what you say, he drove across the road there is no crime to that. Well, actually there is, because he tracked out dirt/dust onto the road and according to Maricopa County 310.1 Trackout is a serious violation subject to serious fines. In fact, he was told that if he decided to wait to pay the fine it would be increased to $5000.
For those among you that have dirt driveways that exceed 3000’ square anywhere in Maricopa County get ready to fight this issue or pay the necessary expense to have your driveway comply with dust abatement requirements.
There are as many aspects of the dust issue as there are tentacles on an Octopus and some are more important than others. In this article we will attempt to explore two fundamental issues. First, is SB 1552 consistent with the Arizona State Cons***ution? Second, does the Federal Gov’t have the authority to compel the state of Arizona to comply with EPA set standards and withhold funds if the state fails to do so.
The answer to both questions is no. The Arizona State Cons***ution Article 2 Section 13 requires that laws must be equally applied to all the citizens across the state. SB 1552 applies to Maricopa County and one city in Pinal County only. It is not cons***utional.
In Mac vs. The U.S. decision, US Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority. In it he stated that the federal gov’t may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems nor command the states officers or political sub divisions to administer or enforce any federal regulatory program. And he went on to say it matters not whether policymaking is involved and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with the cons***utional system of dual sovereignty.
When city, county and state politicians tell us the Federal Gov’t can and will withhold funds and that there are no options, either they are ignorant or deceitful.
Isn’t it time we all stand for the rights of our neighbors in Maricopa County to prevent this type of thing happening in the rest of the state?
Contact the Arizona State Horsemen’s Association at www.azasha.com or Ed O’Brien at www.allabouthorses.com
Email info@allabouthorses.com
City of Scottsdale
Amy Ganley’s (Horseowner-private citizen) Dust Referendum was shot down recently when a judge ruled it to be an “administrative” rather than a “legislative” issue and therefore ineligible to be on the September ballot. It was disappointing to hear about the ruling but this issue is not dead by any means. In the end, we are confident that the state legislature will decide to revoke this unjust law.
This quote is from GB Oliver of the Paragon Foundation during a radio interview on June 12 regarding the current dust requirements that have generated more than $1,000,000 in fines in Maricopa County in a few short weeks.
One Dairy farmer was fined $2500 for a single event. This magnanimous event occurred when he drove some equipment across a paved road to get from one part of his farm to another. So what you say, he drove across the road there is no crime to that. Well, actually there is, because he tracked out dirt/dust onto the road and according to Maricopa County 310.1 Trackout is a serious violation subject to serious fines. In fact, he was told that if he decided to wait to pay the fine it would be increased to $5000.
For those among you that have dirt driveways that exceed 3000’ square anywhere in Maricopa County get ready to fight this issue or pay the necessary expense to have your driveway comply with dust abatement requirements.
There are as many aspects of the dust issue as there are tentacles on an Octopus and some are more important than others. In this article we will attempt to explore two fundamental issues. First, is SB 1552 consistent with the Arizona State Cons***ution? Second, does the Federal Gov’t have the authority to compel the state of Arizona to comply with EPA set standards and withhold funds if the state fails to do so.
The answer to both questions is no. The Arizona State Cons***ution Article 2 Section 13 requires that laws must be equally applied to all the citizens across the state. SB 1552 applies to Maricopa County and one city in Pinal County only. It is not cons***utional.
In Mac vs. The U.S. decision, US Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for the majority. In it he stated that the federal gov’t may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems nor command the states officers or political sub divisions to administer or enforce any federal regulatory program. And he went on to say it matters not whether policymaking is involved and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with the cons***utional system of dual sovereignty.
When city, county and state politicians tell us the Federal Gov’t can and will withhold funds and that there are no options, either they are ignorant or deceitful.
Isn’t it time we all stand for the rights of our neighbors in Maricopa County to prevent this type of thing happening in the rest of the state?
Contact the Arizona State Horsemen’s Association at www.azasha.com or Ed O’Brien at www.allabouthorses.com
Email info@allabouthorses.com
City of Scottsdale
Amy Ganley’s (Horseowner-private citizen) Dust Referendum was shot down recently when a judge ruled it to be an “administrative” rather than a “legislative” issue and therefore ineligible to be on the September ballot. It was disappointing to hear about the ruling but this issue is not dead by any means. In the end, we are confident that the state legislature will decide to revoke this unjust law.