Bill to use Common Schools Trust Fund for property tax relief





Sum1

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Posts
4,817
Likes
291
Points
313
Location
Bismarck
How are we even surprised by this shit anymore? Washington isn’t the only place infested with swamp creatures, our whole governing body is corrupt, on a state level and national.
 

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,317
Likes
2,094
Points
758
Location
Mobridge,Sd
Killed some big deer on school land it is public and open to use Fromm all as long as there are no standing crops. It is not marked and takes effort to know where it is I love it
 

scrotcaster

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Posts
1,256
Likes
132
Points
233
This bill also allows/directs for the sale of our state lands to fund our school which scares me..! If we lose public land to private sales to big corporations "we" never get them back.
 


Uncle Jimbo

★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Posts
464
Likes
6
Points
118
Location
ND
This bill also allows/directs for the sale of our state lands to fund our school which scares me..! If we lose public land to private sales to big corporations "we" never get them back.

Combined with SB 1428 and public land sportsmen could lose A LOT!
 

Ponyroper

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Posts
1,042
Likes
20
Points
221
Location
Mandan
yet it gets posted

State trust lands can only be posted with permission from the Trust Lands Department and the postee must use posters printed by the Department that specify the length of time that livestock will be on the unit. The unit can not be posted if there are no livestock actually on it and the posters must be taken down immediately when the livestock are removed and can not be put up before the livestock are put on the unit. If you see a state tract with official or unofficial posters on it and there are no livestock on it make a call to the State Department of Trust Lands and I guarantee the posters will come down very quickly as it is a serious violation of the lease agreement.

As to the article about the proposed new law, it tries to draw false conclusions about the current laws by quoting selected tracts of the state constitution out of context in order to support its opinion. The writer states:

[FONT=&quot]There’s little question that serious changes are needed when it comes to education in North Dakota. I’d love to strip control of it away from the state. But that’s a tall order when we’re talking about changing the State Constitution. And besides, we must take one step at a time. Having said that, the very least we can do under the current circumstances is to remove this unfair and unnecessary burden from the backs of property owners.

Who does he want to control PUBLIC education instead of people elected by the public, some sort of corporation? Without a doubt no government does a perfect job, they are just like us, not perfect, but no government can please every individual with a different opinion. To try to do that would cause anarchy and paralyze the state government and we would end up in the same situation the federal government is in.

Also, the article writer makes it sound like there will be no more property taxes because the state will have to pay all school expenses but Section Three of the proposed bill states:

[/FONT]
The governing body of any school district shall/may levy taxes annually for a schoolbuilding fund, not in excess of twenty mills, which levy is in addition to and notrestricted by the levy limitations prescribed by law, when authorized to do so by sixtypercent of the qualified electors voting upon the question at a regular or specialelection in any school district.

Unless I'm interpreting it wrong that means the school district can still levy property taxes so what burden does this legislation remove from the backs of property owners. If I'm interpreting something wrong here please enlighten me.
 

PrairieGhost

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
10,363
Likes
765
Points
483
Location
Drifting the high plains
This bill also allows/directs for the sale of our state lands to fund our school which scares me..! If we lose public land to private sales to big corporations "we" never get them back.
I said that a few months ago and was told no no we would never do that. Then I posted some videos of ???? that guy that lives in Bozeman, Montana and promotes public land hunting. I just at the moment can't remember his name. Wow you would have thought I swore and mother Teresa. Money worshipers at work.
 

scrotcaster

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 20, 2015
Posts
1,256
Likes
132
Points
233
I said that a few months ago and was told no no we would never do that. Then I posted some videos of ???? that guy that lives in Bozeman, Montana and promotes public land hunting. I just at the moment can't remember his name. Wow you would have thought I swore and mother Teresa. Money worshipers at work.

I hear ya, but you can rebuttle the argument the we would never do that with the facts of how many acres the state of ND has already sold since statehood. Randy Newberg i think is the guy you are talking about..
 


eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,730
Likes
708
Points
438
Location
williston
State trust lands can only be posted with permission from the Trust Lands Department and the postee must use posters printed by the Department that specify the length of time that livestock will be on the unit. The unit can not be posted if there are no livestock actually on it and the posters must be taken down immediately when the livestock are removed and can not be put up before the livestock are put on the unit. If you see a state tract with official or unofficial posters on it and there are no livestock on it make a call to the State Department of Trust Lands and I guarantee the posters will come down very quickly as it is a serious violation of the lease agreement.

As to the article about the proposed new law, it tries to draw false conclusions about the current laws by quoting selected tracts of the state constitution out of context in order to support its opinion. The writer states:

There’s little question that serious changes are needed when it comes to education in North Dakota. I’d love to strip control of it away from the state. But that’s a tall order when we’re talking about changing the State Constitution. And besides, we must take one step at a time. Having said that, the very least we can do under the current circumstances is to remove this unfair and unnecessary burden from the backs of property owners.

Who does he want to control PUBLIC education instead of people elected by the public, some sort of corporation? Without a doubt no government does a perfect job, they are just like us, not perfect, but no government can please every individual with a different opinion. To try to do that would cause anarchy and paralyze the state government and we would end up in the same situation the federal government is in.

Also, the article writer makes it sound like there will be no more property taxes because the state will have to pay all school expenses but Section Three of the proposed bill states:

The governing body of any school district shall/may levy taxes annually for a schoolbuilding fund, not in excess of twenty mills, which levy is in addition to and notrestricted by the levy limitations prescribed by law, when authorized to do so by sixtypercent of the qualified electors voting upon the question at a regular or specialelection in any school district.

Unless I'm interpreting it wrong that means the school district can still levy property taxes so what burden does this legislation remove from the backs of property owners. If I'm interpreting something wrong here please enlighten me.
read this snippet of our constitution. Article X prohibits property taxation. What am I missing?

North Dakota’s constitution states: Article VIII, Section 2: “The LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SHALL provide for a UNIFORM system of FREE public schools THROUGHOUT THE STATE beginning with the primary and extending through all grades…”. Article X, Section 1: “The LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SHALL BE PROHIBITED from raising revenue to defray the expenses of the state through the levying of a tax on the assessed value of real or personal property.”

- - - Updated - - -

just to clarify the posting I mentioned. Some school lands get posted around here. Nobody knows the rules or they don't care. Not all but some. I've never seen anything but ordinary posted signs on em. In regard to still being able to tax via mills, that would have to be approved by 60%. And they will be receiving the funding from the trust fund so shouldn't be needing any. I imagine that was for extreme emergencies. Or if a local school district thinks they have to have the taj mahal of schools but the state just wants a normal school they could levy.

- - - Updated - - -

I hear ya, but you can rebuttle the argument the we would never do that with the facts of how many acres the state of ND has already sold since statehood. Randy Newberg i think is the guy you are talking about..
how many acres of school lands have been sold?
 
Last edited:

Ponyroper

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Posts
1,042
Likes
20
Points
221
Location
Mandan
"just to clarify the posting I mentioned. Some school lands get posted around here. Nobody knows the rules or they don't care. Not all but some. I've never seen anything but ordinary posted signs on em."

I'm sure some state land gets posted because I've run into some myself but the signs were gone within a day or two after I reported them. Like I said, if you know it's state land just make a call and they'll be gone. They send us out to check on violations if one is reported.
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,730
Likes
708
Points
438
Location
williston
In North Dakota, approximately 1.8 MILLION ACRES, or 75% of the total awarded at statehood via the Enabling Act.
your trying to say 1.8 million acres of the school sections initially set up have been sold?
 

Uncle Jimbo

★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Posts
464
Likes
6
Points
118
Location
ND
your trying to say 1.8 million acres of the school sections initially set up have been sold?

Yes! The state was awarded just over 2.5 million acres of land from the federal government at statehood. Sections 16 and 36 of every township were given to the state from the feds to serve as school trust lands. In the case those sections were already privately owned, other sections within the township were awarded. Today there are approximately 700,000 acres of state school trust lands remaining. Do your own research. ND doesn't have the best track record of holding state lands.
 
Last edited:


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 160
  • This month: 139
  • This month: 126
  • This month: 123
  • This month: 109
  • This month: 92
  • This month: 89
  • This month: 86
  • This month: 80
  • This month: 75
Top Bottom