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.
Republicans would have us drilling in the Grand Canyon if they could.
Uh, no. There's no oil or gas in the Grand Canyon, hence, no reason to drill it or even lease it.
Them's the facts. Sorry.
The Bureau of Land Management administers 264 million acres, and this proposed sale could dispose of a mere 3.3 million acres of that total, or 1.25% thereof. There will still be plenty of federal land left after this sale, if it ever takes place. The BLM could sell off a whole bunch more acreage than 3.3 million acres and they'd never miss it in their inventory. The Feds own a lot of range land out in the west that isn't part of the national park system and isn't otherwise dedicated for preservation. The Feds could sell off a few strips, gores and the odd lot here and there, and they would never notice it's gone.
This proposed sale is a good idea on two counts: 1) It will take acreage out of the public domain and get it on the local ad valorem tax rolls, and 2) It will commensurately reduce PILT (payments in lieu of taxes) that the federal government has to remit to the local governments for that land.
It's a win-win proposition. We would be wise not to dismiss it out of hand.
Uh, no. There's no oil or gas in the Grand Canyon, hence, no reason to drill it or even lease it.
Them's the facts. Sorry.
The Bureau of Land Management administers 264 million acres, and this proposed sale could dispose of a mere 3.3 million acres of that total, or 1.25% thereof. There will still be plenty of federal land left after this sale, if it ever takes place. The BLM could sell off a whole bunch more acreage than 3.3 million acres and they'd never miss it in their inventory. The Feds own a lot of range land out in the west that isn't part of the national park system and isn't otherwise dedicated for preservation. The Feds could sell off a few strips, gores and the odd lot here and there, and they would never notice it's gone.
This proposed sale is a good idea on two counts: 1) It will take acreage out of the public domain and get it on the local ad valorem tax rolls, and 2) It will commensurately reduce PILT (payments in lieu of taxes) that the federal government has to remit to the local governments for that land.
It's a win-win proposition. We would be wise not to dismiss it out of hand.
That land belongs to over 300 million Americans and a few millionaires and billionaires have no right to it. We have far more freedom when we have these public lands. We can walk away from the miseries of civilization and roam, hunt, fish, camp, and more free of fences in our way and no trespassing signs telling us no. Hunting in Texas (mostly private land) is a rich man's hobby. Hunting in a place like Montana or Wyoming, anyone can take part in. I have absolutely no doubts there are many people who would miss any of those lands that got sold off. Instead of being shortsighted we should continue the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt and others who saw the importance of keeping these lands public. There are far more important things than dollar signs on a few spreadsheets.
This was the number one thing I was afraid of with the Republican taking power, selling off national land.
I saw it with the Bundy's who thought because they made money off of the land they should own it, welfare property grab.
It belongs to ever American and future American. It's not for sale.
I've never protested or marched for a cause but I will for this one. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ement-chaffetz
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!
honestly, the federal government should not own land. The states, individuals, and businesses should be the only land owner
So, you'd privatize or develop the national parks?
Get a clue: we already own those national parks, forests, and other national lands. They belong to us, the people of the United States of America. This land is your land, and all those other old Woody lyrics are true - they're ours.
People with any degree of common sense want to keep it that way and not sell them off to the highest private bidder.
That land belongs to over 300 million Americans and a few millionaires and billionaires have no right to it.
This statement indicates that your understanding of the "commonwealth" concept in relation to public lands is poor at best.
You see...millionaires and billionaires have the exact same rights to U.S. public lands as you do.
Yet your statement appears to disenfranchise them, as if you actually have the imprimatur to do so, when, of course, you don't.
The BLM could dispose of 1.25% of its inventory and nobody would know the difference, There would still be vast areas of range land available for recreational activities of the type that appear to preoccupy your thoughts.
The only people who would notice an acreage disposition on this tiny scale would be the schoolchildren (and their parents) in the localities where the former federal acreage is now contributing to the local tax rolls, thereby directly benefiting said schoolchildren by providing additional resources for their education.
Unless you hate schoolchildren, along with the prospects for their educational betterment, I suppose. You don't hate schoolchildren, do you? Because if you do, we will have to part company on that score.
This statement indicates that your understanding of the "commonwealth" concept in relation to public lands is poor at best.
You see...millionaires and billionaires have the exact same rights to U.S. public lands as you do.
Yet your statement appears to disenfranchise them, as if you actually have the imprimatur to do so, when, of course, you don't.
The BLM could dispose of 1.25% of its inventory and nobody would know the difference, There would still be vast areas of range land available for recreational activities of the type that appear to preoccupy your thoughts.
The only people who would notice an acreage disposition on this tiny scale would be the schoolchildren (and their parents) in the localities where the former federal acreage is now contributing to the local tax rolls, thereby directly benefiting said schoolchildren by providing additional resources for their education.
Unless you hate schoolchildren, along with the prospects for their educational betterment, I suppose. You don't hate schoolchildren, do you? Because if you do, we will have to part company on that score.
What a silly false equivalency. "When did you stop beating your wife?"
What you propose is a slippery slope indeed. It would set a very dangerous precedent, enrich a few at the expense of the many, and it's my land you're proposing selling, to boot. Sorry, not gonna let you have it.
This statement indicates that your understanding of the "commonwealth" concept in relation to public lands is poor at best.
You see...millionaires and billionaires have the exact same rights to U.S. public lands as you do.
Yet your statement appears to disenfranchise them, as if you actually have the imprimatur to do so, when, of course, you don't.
The BLM could dispose of 1.25% of its inventory and nobody would know the difference, There would still be vast areas of range land available for recreational activities of the type that appear to preoccupy your thoughts.
The only people who would notice an acreage disposition on this tiny scale would be the schoolchildren (and their parents) in the localities where the former federal acreage is now contributing to the local tax rolls, thereby directly benefiting said schoolchildren by providing additional resources for their education.
Unless you hate schoolchildren, along with the prospects for their educational betterment, I suppose. You don't hate schoolchildren, do you? Because if you do, we will have to part company on that score.
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"?
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.
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.
