Complete responses to Deseret News questionnaire:
1.What do you believe is the major issue in your race? How would you address it?
The major issue is being supportive of legislation which strengthens Utah families; including,funding education, paying off the national debt so more money is available for working families, shoring up social security providing a plan for health care coverage for all families. Helping our seniors by ensuring they have a prescription drug benefit.
2. Why should people vote for you November 7 instead of your opponent.
People should vote for me because we need changes in government. Mr. Hansen has been in Washington for 20 years. No one owns a seat. It "s time for a change, a new voice, a different perspective. Our government thrives when all voices are heard; when more than one party is in power. It"s important to have at least one female elected official in Washington from Utah.
3.Specifically detail your stand on federal gun control. Do you support the Brady Bill? Do you support background checks at gun shows? The guns-in-schools initiative petition will not be on the2000 Utah ballot. Still, do you support or oppose the petition?
I support the Brady Bill. I support background checks at gun shows. Guns do not belong in schools, churches, or in private homes and/or businesses (without permission of owner). I would support the guns-in-school initiative.
4.One of the biggest votes this year was on China free trade. Do you favor Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China? Why?
I believe in permanent, normalized trade with China. Economic relations have proved to be more instrumental in promoting a more Democratic system than sanctions. America has more influence for good by being a trading partner them being an adversary on all levels.
5. What steps should be taken to end the decades of debate over how much Utah wilderness to protect? How much wilderness do you support? Do you tend to side more with environmentalist, or more with ranchers, minors and those who want more recreational uses?
In terms of wilderness —the amount should be determined by negotiation of all interested parties — environmentalists and ranchers. All sides should come to the table. Further, any wilderness designation must be consistent with the provisions of the wilderness Bill. Any land suggested for wilderness should really be wilderness.
6. What, if any, type of campaign finance reform do you support. Please be specific. For example, do you favor or oppose the McCain-Feingold bill?
I support finance reform — some federal funding for federal campaigns, caps on spending and no soft money.
7. As the federal budget surplus grows, what specifically should be done with it?
Pay down National Debt. Shore up social security — fund education, provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors.
8. What more can be done to stop the shipment of nuclear waste to the Goshute Indian Reservation in Skull Valley?
Encourage elected officials in surrounding counties to refuse to provide services for the dump.
Encourage citizens to object.
A comprehensive Federal Plan to deal with nuclear waste with more guidelines as well as provisions governing the waste is a priority is necessary and should be a priority for Congress.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: As part of the Deseret News survey of candidates, each person seeking public office is allowed one question of his opponent. Here is Jim Hansen's question for Collinwood: )
I believe strongly in the 5th amendment which prohibits the taking of private property by the federal government for public use without just compensation. Do you believe that the Endangered Species Act should be allowed to severely decrease the value of private property and result in the "taking" of this property without just compensation? What specifically would you propose to rectify this injustice?
I support the 5th amendment. The taking of private property by the federal government for public use without just compensation is constitutionally prohibited.
The purpose of the amendment is one of protection. That is, individual Americans should be protected from financial sacrifice in the face of an obviously much stronger federal government. It is a matter of fairness and equity. The fairness principle should apply to all citizens equally.
The problem we face in Utah is that it has not happened here. A recent example is Jim Doyle in the St. George area. Mr. Doyle claims his land is worth $37,000 an acre now that the federal government has restricted his use of the property because of the Endangered Species Act and the presence of the desert tortoise. The property surrounding Mr. Doyle"s land (including an adjoining parcel he himself recently sold for about $7000 an acre) sells for approximately $30,000 an acre less (!) than what he is demanding. Mr. Doyle"s unfairly inflated land value claim is, unfortunately, supported and facilitated by Jim Hansen. Government has a duty to protect all Americans from inflated and unfair land values as a result of eminent domain, but in this case, our federal representative wants the taxpayers of Wisconsin, Texas, Florida, and everywhere else in America to give Mr. Doyle a multi-million dollar windfall. That is wrong. No matter how much Mr. Doyle has contributed to Jim Hansen"s re-election campaign, it is still wrong.
It is as equally unfair to give special privileges by inflating the value of a parcel of property for one individual at the expense of the taxpayer as it is to take a piece of private land without just compensation. The issue is whether we treat all our citizens with the same degree of equity. One way to resolve some of the questions of mishandling of the Doyle property would be for Mr. Hansen to release the several land value appraisals to the public for open review. We challenge him to do that.
We also challenge Mr. Hansen to stop pretending Mr. Doyle is a victim of a government "taking.' The law is explicitly clear on the meaning of a "taking.' A "taking' occurs when the landowner"s relationship to the land has been fundamentally changed as a result of government action.
Mr. Doyle"s land does not fall into this category for the following reasons: Mr. Doyle purchased the land knowing the value would be impacted because of the presence of the endangered desert tortoise. Indeed, the price he paid for the land was low precisely because an endangered species was on the land; At the time Mr. Doyle purchased the property, the zoning use restrictions only allowed one structure per every 20 acresa situation hardly conducive to the mammoth development he had in mind. To this day, we have been told, that zoning remains in effect. Mr. Doyle knew that when he bought the property, and he knows it now. His land, with only 1 structure allowed per 20 acres, could never be worth $37,000 per acre. It is ludicrous on the face of it. But that is not all; see below: Most of Mr. Doyle"s propertyabout 85 percent—is without water and is therefore undevelopable. This is a serious matter for landowners in St. George where water is extremely scarce. Moreover, some 40 percent of the land is not developable because of the steep grade; whether an endangered species were found there or not, such land would still remain undevelopable. Mr. Doyle wants $37,000 an acre for land that could never be developed because of its natural terrain. That is unconscionable. It is an insult to the people of America.
In sum, the value of Mr. Doyle"s land was not destroyed as a result of government action after he purchased it; the value was low when he purchased it because there was an endangered species on it, because it carried on it highly restrictive zoning, because almost none of it has available water, and because some 40 percent of it is too steep to ever build anything on. Thus, Mr. Doyle"s relationship with the land since the time he purchased it has not changed and, therefore, does not meet the requirements of a government "taking.' These facts notwithstanding, Mr. Doyle wants the taxpayers of Utah and the rest of America to pay him millions of dollars (perhaps as much as $50 million !) in compensation for a "hurt' he never suffered. It is unfortunate that he cares so little for the family budgets of those taxpayers who may end up paying him his windfall. But it is even more outrageous that Mr. Hansen has agreed to join him in blindsiding the American people.
Mr. Hansen has used his position as an agent for the government to abuse the American taxpayer. It is shameful.