Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-01-2017, 02:44 PM
 
20,622 posts, read 19,284,184 times
Reputation: 8224

Advertisements

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2017, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Southern West Virginia
763 posts, read 377,163 times
Reputation: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtGen View Post
Hey Mr. Wizard!!!


The Federal Government does not have the legal right to own land? Did you know that?

No, you didn't... carry on buttercup! I am sure that public education is going to do wonders for you burger flipping abilities!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Have you ever read the Constitution? Or do you only use it as a coaster for your beer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 2

Buttercup!

Maybe Mr Khan has an extra copy of the Constitution for you since Trump was not interested in it.
NxtGen is quite the constitutional scholar
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Virginia
10,068 posts, read 6,367,422 times
Reputation: 27555
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 02:54 PM
 
20,410 posts, read 12,332,798 times
Reputation: 10197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracer View Post
Why not? Obama and hillary sold 25% of our uranium supply to Putin, their a wholl buddy.


Lot of land confiscated by the EPA because they claim ownership to any puddle of water on private land.
that needs to be said every time an anti trumper starts talking nonsense like in this thread.




Thank you for saying that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 03:04 PM
 
20,622 posts, read 19,284,184 times
Reputation: 8224
Quote:
Originally Posted by user491 View Post
NxtGen is quite the constitutional scholar

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.

The Federal Government's Poor Management of America's Land Resources
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.


Trump rattles industry with fracking position | TheHill
“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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 03:05 PM
 
2,359 posts, read 1,030,010 times
Reputation: 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 03:29 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,421,493 times
Reputation: 11335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milton Miteybad View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 03:32 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,421,493 times
Reputation: 11335
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 03:45 PM
 
Location: Lost in Montana *recalculating*...
19,606 posts, read 22,481,604 times
Reputation: 24580
One thing that unites most all Montanans are public lands, thank-God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 03:50 PM
 
8,275 posts, read 7,917,350 times
Reputation: 12122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top