KVNUFTP

Please add my Cache Valley blog to your blog listings

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CacheCountyUtah/

Thank You!

I usually agree with a lot of what you guys say and enjoy your show but yesterday you shocked me with one of your comments. You stated (and I dont remember which one of you did) that you didn’t care what the stand of a candidate was on obortion or on gay marriage as long as that candidate was strong on the economy and made it so you could get ahead. One of the most liberal people I ever met made the same statement about Bill Clinton when he was doing interns in the oval office. He didn’t care how immoral the so called leader of our country was as long as the economy was good and he was making money. Maybe thats whats wrong with this country is people who relax or ignore their values and stands for the almighty dollar. Shouldn’t the leader of our country at least come close to representing some of our values?

As I listened to your show last night, the segment on road cyclist, I was reminded of the skier/snowboarder situation. A minority of skiers (motorists) find it annoying that a boarder (cyclists) would use ‘their’ mountain (road). On the flip side a minority of boarders (cyclists) find it appropriate to ride recklessly in traffic. Because of this a lot of skiers (motorist) look down on the borders (cyclist).

Let me tell you of an experience I had as a cyclist. We were riding in Grand Junction on a fairly deserted highway. We were riding two by two and a car would come every now and then and they would go around us; and they didn’t even have to slow down! However, one car did slow down. Instead of politely passing us in the lane and a half they had like the others, the occupants wanted to tell us how they felt about us. They had very colorful language. There are drivers here in Logan who, while they don’t stop to swear at you, they do slow down and honk even on the long deserted roads on the west side.

Am I saying all motorists are like this; no. Am I saying all cyclists follow the ruled laid out for them; no. But I did find it disturbing that some of the callers found it so easy to stereotype all cyclists as reckless punks. I would ask motorists to be polite. I can’t speak for the cyclist crazy enough to go down Logan Canyon or ride on congested streets. But for cyclists who ride on fairly quite roads pass to the left politely. Heaven forbid if cyclists have to be on busy roads to get to the quite ones, even then we all need to be polite.

I was hoping to call in about the imigration issue but got called out.

First off, I would like to say that I really enjoy your show. You guys inspire the thought process and give forum to Valley as well as national concerns.

Tonight you had a guest from Farm Bureau that discused the problem of verifying the identity of a potential employee. His comment was that if an employer suspects that the documents provided are fradulant, they can do nothing about it for fear of being sued under a civil rights violation. I feel that this argument is a cop out for industries who are prone to hire undocumented immigrants. I have heard it before, and will certainly hear it again. However, it doesnt hold under scrutiny.

My wife is currently a State Licensed Daycare Provider. If she hires anyone to help her, she is required by law to have that person submit to a BCI background check. Not only does this apply to employees of her facility, but to anyone who resides in the home over the age of 12.

Recently there was an article in the Herald Journal concerning the amount of requests for background checks that BCI is undertaking. I believe the article stated that they are receiving upwards of 10,000 requests a month for these checks. BCI receives these requests from government, as well as private employers. So there are numerous employers out there, both govenment and private who require potential employees to submit not only the normally required documentation (ie drivers license, social security cards) but also finger print cards. If BCI finds that any of the documents submitted do not add up, they notify the submiting business (not the potential employee).

If an individual fills out an I-99 form and provides the above mentioned identifications for use as ID and they are later found to be fraudulant, the I-99 form plainly spells out they may be prosecuted for fraud.

Now, what does all that mean….it means that if a farmer required his employees to go through that process, it would ensure that he would not be employing an undocumented worker. The same of course would apply to ANY business.

Unfortunately, business who hire undocumented workers, have an interest in NOT looking to deep, because they wish to keep the wages low. Then when an undocumented worker is arrested, they hid behind the above mentioned excuse.

My second comment is that it seems to me there is another way to easily locate undocumented workers who have used a fradulant or stolen Social Security number.

All employers are required to file quarterly taxes.

When I filed my income tax several years ago, only about 3 days passed before I got a call from our accountant stating he had been contacted by the IRS because one of the social security numbers for my children did not match. Seems when the number was typed on the tax form, a clerical error was made. The mistake was quickly resolved.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China…simple. When an employer files his quarterly taxes, the IRS should easily be able to see that an employee is either using a fradulant social security number, or someones elses. They should notify the employer to possibly correct the mistake, or verify the employees number. PROBLEM SOLVED.

I just dont understand why this has not been implimented before.

Thanks for your time.

Again….LOVE the SHOW

Continuation of the above. To make it short. Based on the appraisal the appraised value jumped from $114,361 to $144.361. A 26% increase. The primary reason given for the raise when it was contested was a comparison with the land in the lot next to it which was appraised higher. Although the county recorder said that land was so steep it was unbuildable. Many other specifics could be named. The appraiser said the land was moderate upslope.

The problem with the Logan-cache Airport and 4200 North has just been in this month’s news. We all remember the Airport Expansion and the closure of Hyde Park lane (3800 North) Two years ago the Cache Chamber and others were talking about commercial flights coming to Cache Valley. The orignial plan was for the I.L.S. to be installed back in the fall of 2006. It seems as though there was not much planning for the height restriction to have it suddenly come out now. Who hid the fact this was always the plan by Airport Officials to end up closing 4200 North? The Airport Officials now say it is out of our hands. Why was there no public comment on this issue a year ago? What is there to stop the airport from exapnding to 4600 North or to the south end of Smithfield? WE WILL HAVE TO MOVE TO THE RESERVATIONS WITH THE INDIANS BECAUSE OF BROKEN PROMISES MADE BY THE AIRPORT BOARD! The County Officials want to preserve agriculture, but you will no longer be able to farm around the airport if you cannot use your farm equipment!

Sincerely Yours,

Thomas H. Gibbons

I just wanted to say that I LOVE listening to and reading FTP comments.

You guys are doing a GREAT job!

The Sardine Canyon roads winds through a natural masterpiece that dynamically changes with the seasons. As the traveler progresses towards Cache Valley and rounds the final corner of the canyon this view is only rivaled by the breath-taking scenes that spring forth in the first glimpses of Cache Valley. This visual feast begins with the beautiful subdivision of Mount Sterling Estates, and continues until the eye rests upon the two foundational pillars of this valley; the Logan Temple and Old Main. Even the first glimpses of this valley suggest that it is full of industry and prosperity. This legacy has been preserved for us by just and equitable laws that serve the people and hold inviolate the three pillars of the rights of man; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The astonishing view that bursts forth before the travelers of Sardine Canyon is also enjoyed by the many residents of Cache Valley. Those who live here have a desire to preserve and protect these views for future generations; it would almost seem “Un-American” to desire anything else. This good desire has led some to frame Proposition 1, which seems harmless enough to the innocent bystanders of Cache Valley.

The desire to preserve the beauty of Cache Valley cannot be pitted against any of the three pillars that good government must preserve, otherwise it will destroy industry and prosperity in it’s efforts. Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, Proposition 1 violates the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and therefore is in direct violation of the principles that form good laws.

The farmer who binds his estate to this proposition will have just traded his liberty and the liberty of his posterity, as pertaining to his estate, for the funds of the residents of Cache Valley. Much like Jacob and Esau, the birthright of liberty will have been sold for a meager meal of bread and lentil stew.

The pursuit of happiness is interpreted as the right to own property. Can this right be upheld when government acts as a puppeteer? Imagine two generations from now when the land bound by Proposition 1 is owned by the posterity who wants to subdivide the land and allow future residents of Cache Valley to enjoy the pursuit of happiness. The liberty of the entrepreneur is gone, and the right to the pursuit of happiness is lost.

This bleak scenario is still better than the possibility of what Proposition 1 might hold. It makes no guarantee of what property is to be bought, and opens the floodgate for devious minds with political power to seize the funds for themselves with a sale of little or of no value. Where will our liberty and the promised preserved views of the valley be then? What will the money of the people have bought then? It will have bought the dishonesty of corrupt men.

We are fools if we believe that we can violate these principles and preserve the beauty of this valley for our posterity. The very principles that ensure the legacy of industry and prosperity will diminish if we pursue the preservation of the beauty of Cache Valley through laws such as Proposition 1. Rejecting such laws does not alleviate the desire to preserve this beautiful valley though, and some alternative must be sought.

The solution lies in the very first glimpses of Cache Valley; Mount Sterling Estates. The beauty of this subdivision is enhanced by the homes that surround the designated open-space in the center of the subdivision. The secret of preserving the beauty of Cache Valley is in the planning and execution of subdivision development. There are other such subdivisions in Cache Valley that provide horse pastures, large grassy fields, orchards, and playgrounds for the residents. The burden of the expense of the open-space lies with the residents and developers. The liberty of the people is preserved, because each generation can make an active choice about the open-space they are willing to develop and to fund. The burden is placed on those local to the decision instead of on the general public.

The role of the government is then to ensure that the beauty of Cache Valley is preserved by only approving future subdivision developments that include open-space, and enhance the valley. To guarantee the execution of such plans the government should enforce that any developments of open-space happens first; much like curb and gutter, so that they are not discarded at the end of development as unnecessary.

This solution preserves the rights of the people and upholds the legacy of beauty, industry, and prosperity known to Cache Valley.

I would like to believe that the government officials supporting Proposition 1 are innocent of proposing and supporting corrupt laws, yet I have seen them allow developers to ‘finish’ a subdivision without completing the promised park, or to rezone the land to fit a few more homes where the open-space should have been. The solution that I previously proposed is the solution that they have voted against time after time, and now they have come forth with this ‘great’ law to preserve the beauty of Cache Valley. It is my hope that the citizens of Cache Valley can see through the guise of Proposition 1, and support the leaders of the community who preserve the laws founded on principles that propagate the legacy of industry and prosperity known to this valley.

Thank you.