4 OPINION Page 4 Wednesday, October 31, 1984 The Michigan Daily T Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Vol. XCV, No. 48 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board 'No' to Proposal A STATE BALLOT Proposal A has not received the attention given to proposal C-nor should it-but it does deserve to be looked at more closely. The proposal seeks to ensure legislative veto power over any rules proposed by a s ate agency or depar- tment. It does not deserve support owing to questions of its con- stitutionality and the amount of power it would give the state Legislature. The proposal would put the Legislature's Joint Committee on Ad- ministrative Rules into the state Con- stitution. Lawmakers feel the need to do so because of concerns stemming from a 1983 Supreme Court decision in- terpreting the "congressional veto" of federal agency rules as uncon- stitutional. Supporters of Proposal A feel that the state amendment is necessary to protect against legal challenges arising from the Supreme Court precedent. Such legal challenges should not necessarily be avoided. If the rules committe is indeed unconstitutional then it does not deserve protection by the state. In addition there are very real questions concerning the committee apart from its constitutionality. The panel has the substantial power to adopt or reject any rules proposed by the executive branch of the state. This is necessary, supporters argue, to check any independent agency that might run amok. But the Legislature possesses alternative channels for regulation should any real crisis develop within an administrative agency. The executive should be held accountable for its own agencies without legislative interference. The 10-member committee would simply possess too much power if protected by this amendment. Its veto power would open the door for special interest influence on the committee. By concentrating pressure on a small number of legislators, lobbyists could strongly influence executive programs. Such a mechanism should not be allowed to exist. Proposal A would concentrate too much power in the legislature even if constitutional, and if unconstitutional it is entirely unworthy of support. Vote 'No' on Proposal A. Defend By James Murray In Michigan most large tracts of public land are located far from the state's population areas. While those lands certainly provide tremendous recreational opportunity for numerous people, they often fail to provide opportunities for many among us who can't afford to travel because of expense or cir- cumstances. One way to begin to deal with these problems is to vote for state Proposal B -- a proposal to establish a natural resources trust fund and a board to administer it. In many respects, the pattern of public ownership in Michigan fails to meet the needs of Michigan residents. Senior citizens, the laid off auto worker who is no longer able to drive long distances, intercity children, or urban and suburban families who wish to par- ticipate in an outdoor activity for only a few hours a day instead of a week receive little or no benefit from these lands. In an attempt to rectify this problem, Michigan Voters in 1968 approved a $150 million Recreation Bond Proposal to im- plement the Recreation Bond Fund Program. This was to address the needs outlined above and provide funds for land acquisition in areas nearer to population centers. When they approved the Recreation Bond issue, Michigan voters agreed the program would be paid out of future tax dollars. The final payments on that bond issue will be paid in 1989. The Michigan Land Trust Fund, established in 1976, was to provide an easier way to pay for future recreational lands. The Land Trust Fund Act provided for revenues from mineral mining and oil and gas drilling on state land earmarked for recreation land acquisition. Each year the revenue plus the interest received on that revenue would be deposited in the Land Trust Fund to purchase important fragile areas and wildlife refuge lands in ad- dition to recreational land areas. A cap of $150 million was set on the fund. SINCE 1976 the fund has been successfully' "raided" (diverting money in the fund for other uses) four times. In 1978 through legislation the State Treasurer was directed to loan a maximum of $6 million of the fund to petroleum carriers to be used for refurbishing double bottom tankers. This program itself did not endanger the integrity of the fund, but it did establish a precedent, making it easier for future "raids" to follow. In 1981, $26 million, the entire balance in the fund, was tran- sferred to the general fund to balance the State budget. In 1982 $46.2 million, again the entire balance in the fund, was transferred to cover the General Fund budget deficit. In 1982, the Heritage Trust was established and funded by money diverted from the Land Trust Fund to finance community economic development and provide venture capital for small to medium sized businesses. In establishing the Heritage Fund, the Legislature repealed all provisions for General Fund repayment and for lost interest to the Land Trust Fund. Several other attempts have been made to use the Land Trust Fund money for other purposes including loans to establish van pools, subsidies for state school aid paymen- ts, and acquisition and development of sanitary landfills. Some people argue that enshrining the Land Trust Fund andhestablishing Fund limits in the state Constitution is an over- reaction to the problem. Further, they argue that the Legislature has been elected to provide for the proper use of Michigan's assets and needs the flexibility to respond to future emergency fiscal problems. However, these usually compelling arguments do not compare with the critical fact that more and more land areas each year are lost to development with no effort to protect fragile areas and open spaces for recreation. The reality of the matter is the intent of the Land Trust Fund has not been met since its passage. Further, the total impact of the dollars available to the Fund on an annual basis is less than .0001 of the total state budget -- a small, if not insignificant, amount compared to important environmental and recreational lands that could have been protected for public uses. The ideal of the Land Trust Fund, suppor- ted by members of both political parties and leaders from across the state, was to guaran- tee that the one-time benefits received from the mining of the state's non-renewable resources was to be committed for the long term benefit of present and future generations by purchase of important fragile lands, wildlife refuge areas, and recreational lands. A yes vote on Proposal "B" is a recommit- ment to ourselves in the preservation of that ideal. resource ideals 4 Murray is Vice Chair of the Michigan Water Resources Commission and is Washtenaw County's drain commis- sioner. Cramer 4 'Yes to Proposal B IN 1976 THE state created the Land Acquisition Trust Fund aimed at the purchase of public lands. The fund, however, has been perenially raided -and gutted- by the Legislature. Proposal B would incor- porate the fund into the state Con- stitution. Such protection is necessary and Proposal B deserves strong sup- port. The money for the fund comes from royalties on oil and gas leases and was to be set aside until $150 million was accumulated at which point the in- terest would be invested in recreational lands. In the past few years, however, the principle has been raided to the point where only $8 million remains in the fand. Most often the money was used for programs entirely unrelated to the program's intended purpose. Millions of dollars have gone to potholes and the hulls of ships, instead of toward recreational lands. The proposal would make such raids impossible. Legislators complain that they should retain the right to spend money where it is most needed. This is a legitimate sentiment, but it is being passed off as a substitute for the real issue: legislative responsibility. The state should not have to use money from oil and gas royalties that is set aside for public lands to pay for potholes. If it is easy to raid the fund, then the fund will be raided by legislators looking for easy solutions to tough budgetary problems. The natural resources of this state, both existing and potential, should not be the victim of fiscal irresponsibility. The fund should be incorporated into the Constitution in order that this does not happen. 4 I 'No' to Proposal C *~ W LETTERS TO THE DAILY SANS not responsible for vandalism. P ROPOSAL C OR "Voter's Choice" should not be treated as just another incomprehensible ballot proposal for it could endanger many state services. If passed, it would im- mediately roll back taxes to Decem- ber 1981 levels .unless voters held a special election and voted otherwise. All tax measures would be submitted to a vote by the people. In addition, license, user, or permit fee increases can pass only with a four-fifths vote of the legislature, or a vote of the people. The damage to the state, this Univer- sity, and other state-funded in- stitutions and programs far outweighs the alleged benefits to taxpayers if Proposal C passes. Voters should fir- mly oppose it. Voter's Choice supporters contend that passage of this proposal will put an end to high taxes and excessive government spending. They forget, however, that holding popular elec- tions to get each voter's stamp of ap- proval on every tax measure that comes before the Legislature is not only time consuming, but an erosion of fundamental democratic principles. would take away the power from those elected representatives and give it to individuals who have much less knowledge of the system and little time to invest studying it. The state's credit rating is in the pro- cess of being restored after an economic downturn forced the state in- to the red. If Proposal C passes, it would mean a drastic shortage of money and decreased opportunities for borrowing. Services such as education and human resource programs for the poor and elderly would suffer under such conditions. University officials calculate that this proposal could result in a "devastating" $38 million loss in state aid to this institution. Eastern Michigan and Michigan State univer- sities would be struck by comparable blows. State tax revenue shortfalls resulting from the proposal's passage will be felt by parents and students as University tuition skyrockets as much as 19 to 21 percent. Fifty-four private organizations and 80 school districts across the state have condemned the To the Daily: The article "Student may ask 'U' to Stock Suicide Pills" (Daily, Oct. 28) was printed with a pic- ture of the Business Ad- rinistration Library defaced with the words "suicide pills." The implication of the jux- taposition of these two "works of art" is that the student group, Students Against Nuclear Grenadian ignorance Suicide, supporting a pill cam- paign like Brown University and the University of Colorado is also responsible for the graffiti on many of the buildings and sidewalks of Ann Arbor. This is not true. As the organizer of SANS, I wish to divorce us from any acts of vandalism to University property that the community may link us with by circumstan- ce. No member of SANS acting on his or her own behalf or on behalf of the group has spray-painted any of the "free advertising" that has appeared on campus. As a group, we have elected to use administrative channels to make our proposition that "nuclear war is suicide." We have chosen to work through the system rather than battle against it by defacing University proper- ty. We ask for your support in this upcoming campaign to sprea nuclear awareness by you serious thought and discussion of the growing threat of nuclear war and not the action of spraypain- ting the walls and walks of the University. -Karen Mysliwiec October 30 To the Daily: The editorial "Foreign Policy Victories?" (Daily, Oct. 20) seeks to discredit Reagan's decision to invade Grenada.As a Democrat, who did not vote for Reagan in 1980 and will not in 1984, I think you ought to give credit for the one undoubtedly good action in his administration. You may disapprove of the in- vasion, but from 80 to 90 percent of the Grenadians welcomed it then; and after a year of sorehead journalists running down to Grenada to find fuel for anti-Reagan articles, the Grenadians still approve of the American presence. What they hated was their Communist-line people hate Reagan more than they love democracy. I'd like to point out that Mondale backs Reagan on Grenada. If you wish to remedy your ignorance about Grenada, a good article by a native Grenadian surveys the history of the past 30 years in the September-October number of Freedom at Issue, the journal published by Freedom House, which opposes left as well as right wing totalitarianism. -George Gomez October 30 BLOOM COUNTY Unsigne d editorials ap- pearing on the l of this page repr majority opinion Daily's Editorial eft side esent a of the Board. 4 -== (p009 N K'TFaro EEI YOU A44 ARE76 by Berke Breathed - 7F 7", 5 IK P l$.. W/o M .I