Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Crown lands of Great Britain do not at present afford the fourth part of the rent which could probably be drawn from them if they were the property of private persons. If the crown lands were more extensive, it is probable they would be still worse managed.
One thing that seems to be ignored is that the land sold (if it were to be) would not as likely be sold to a few millionaires or billionaires as to the Chinese, as they are the fastest growing buyer of American real estate. Anyone have a good Chinese name for the vast Western grasslands?
What ever. It was typical of the US federal government to turn over Federal land over to states ASAP until the 20th century. State management is far better than Federal management. You can have basic laws apply , but direct management is all but idiotic. The people that care the most are the people that live there. Pretty east for a predatory interest to get a hold of the Feds. Anything bad will affect few of us at the national level so what do we care.
As the Framers of the Constitution understood, people care most about the environment in which they live, and the level of government closest to the people is the most effective at implementing policies that promote conservation of land while respecting property rights. These current proposals, however, would enhance the federal government's appetite foræand its ability to own and manageæeven more of the nation's lands, reducing even further the amount of private property owned by individual Americans. Thus, they run counter to America's constitutional legacy.
“I’m in favor of fracking, but I think that voters should have a big say in it,†Trump said in the interview. “I mean, there’s some areas, maybe, they don’t want to have fracking. And I think if the voters are voting for it, that’s up to them.â€
He said the country needs fracking, “but if a municipality or a state wants to ban fracking, I can understand that.â€
An oil refining industry executive who also requested anonymity to talk about Trump said the comments were concerning.
“He said states and municipalities,†the executive noted. “That’s a big leap, and I’m sure he doesn’t appreciate the big leap he just took.â€
So he is saying cheap oil for all while fracking in an area should have a local say. Scary huh?
Are you expecting to be taken seriously when you suggest we need to sell off our public lands to a few millionaires and billionaires "for the schoolchildren"?
Certainly, from a policy standpoint.
The BLM already has to make payments in lieu of taxes to the local governments where these lands are situated because the land is off the tax rolls. Those local tax rolls are what support the education of the schoolchildren in those localities. Because these federal payments-in-lieu tend to be quite meager, local education suffers as a result. Case in point: Eddy County, NM, where 62% of the land is managed by BLM, and about 19% is managed by the State of New Mexico. The remaining 19% of the land in the county constitutes the local ad valorem tax base, augmented by taxes on oil/gas production on the public lands. The payments in lieu from BLM help somewhat, but frankly, all that does is transfer the job of financing the local schools in Eddy County from the local taxpayers to the federal government. This is responsibility that rightly belongs with the parents and taxpayers of the locality involved, and not with the feds.
It should come as no surprise to anyone, then, that the public schools in Eddy County, as a general rule, aren't very good, primarily because they are starved for revenue.
Selling some of this land would do several things: 1) BLM would get its payments-in-lieu back with the purchase price on the parcels sold; 2) the land would be placed back into the marketplace where its highest and best value may be realized; 3) the land would become a wealth-producing asset for the locality instead of a financial drain thereon, and 4) it would reduce future federal expenditures on payments in lieu.
It would not be my recommendation to dispose of any national parks or dedicated wilderness areas. Nor could the feds do anything with the Indian reservations; but then again, nobody who isn't a tribal member can either. But that still leaves a vast amount of range land in the West that would be eligible for sale, and doing so would certainly benefit the localities where the land is situated.
In any event, I would suggest avoiding getting so wrapped up in the stale, shopworn "millionaires and billionaires" meme that we lose sight of an important societal goal, which is educating the next generation, a task that would be difficult enough as it is without having huge chunks of your tax base owned by a tax-exempt entity such as the federal government.
The BLM already has to make payments in lieu of taxes to the local governments where these lands are situated because the land is off the tax rolls. Those local tax rolls are what support the education of the schoolchildren in those localities. Because these federal payments-in-lieu tend to be quite meager, local education suffers as a result. Case in point: Eddy County, NM, where 62% of the land is managed by BLM, and about 19% is managed by the State of New Mexico. The remaining 19% of the land in the county constitutes the local ad valorem tax base, augmented by taxes on oil/gas production on the public lands. The payments in lieu from BLM help somewhat, but frankly, all that does is transfer the job of financing the local schools in Eddy County from the local taxpayers to the federal government. This is responsibility that rightly belongs with the parents and taxpayers of the locality involved, and not with the feds.
It should come as no surprise to anyone, then, that the public schools in Eddy County, as a general rule, aren't very good, primarily because they are starved for revenue.
Selling some of this land would do several things: 1) BLM would get its payments-in-lieu back with the purchase price on the parcels sold; 2) the land would be placed back into the marketplace where its highest and best value may be realized; 3) the land would become a wealth-producing asset for the locality instead of a financial drain thereon, and 4) it would reduce future federal expenditures on payments in lieu.
It would not be my recommendation to dispose of any national parks or dedicated wilderness areas. Nor could the feds do anything with the Indian reservations; but then again, nobody who isn't a tribal member can either. But that still leaves a vast amount of range land in the West that would be eligible for sale, and doing so would certainly benefit the localities where the land is situated.
In any event, I would suggest avoiding getting so wrapped up in the stale, shopworn "millionaires and billionaires" meme that we lose sight of an important societal goal, which is educating the next generation, a task that would be difficult enough as it is without having huge chunks of your tax base owned by a tax-exempt entity such as the federal government.
All they need to do if those states value education so highly is to have funding managed by the state via income taxes or other arrangements. You're making a bizarre argument out of a state's inability to think outside of a box. Vermont relies on property taxes for schools but redistributes the funding through the state so poor towns get adequate funding.
Now for the rest of your argument, it's pure foolish money worship. "The highest and best use" is a buzzword of developers and I don't think the highest and best use of that land that currently supports wildlife and a clean environment for all the benefits that extends (clean air, watersheds, etc.) and provides for incredible recreation opportunities unheard of in other western nations, is to sprout mcmansions and become another drain on the scarce water resources of the west. There are more important things than making a few dollars to be spent in the near future. Money is soon spent and forgotten, the land is not. Do you realize too just how many people are drawn to the states with those vast public lands? Some of those communities would shrivel up and wither away if those lands are in private hands.
Crown lands of Great Britain do not at present afford the fourth part of the rent which could probably be drawn from them if they were the property of private persons. If the crown lands were more extensive, it is probable they would be still worse managed.
-Adam Smith.
Adam Smith died in 1790. The crown lands of the UK are not the public lands of the U.S. Totally irrelevant quote.
The fedguv owns about 30% of the land in the US. Time for an auction
Yep way too much. There are some states where the government owns the vast majority of the land (Alaska and Nevada come to mind).
Interestingly, there is very little federal land in TX for some reason.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.