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 06-22-2019, 06:58 AM
 
7,800 posts, read 4,413,205 times
Reputation: 9438

Advertisements

Quote:
The purchase also placed the Wilks high on the list of well-heeled landowners who are buying huge parcels of America. In the last decade, private land in the United States has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few. Today, just 100 families own about 42 million acres across the country, a 65,000-mile expanse, according to the Land Report, a magazine that tracks large purchases. Researchers at the magazine have found that the amount of land owned by those 100 families has jumped 50 percent since 2007
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/22/u...gtype=Homepage


The Wilkes made their fortune in fracking and now own about 700,000 acres in Montana and Idaho.


These new landowners are now keeping those Idaho families that used to snowmobile, ski, hunt and fish off their properties. These families being affected now are not liberal types but conservatives who for generations used these lands or crossed them. In many cases, these landowners are denying access to public land as well. The natives are none to happy.


No one disputes that private land owners can keep trespassers off their land or what they are doing is illegal. These landowners are both liberal and conservatives. Regardless of ideology, their views are the same. Stay off!


The question here is it healthy for a nation to have a handful of families control all this land? What the ramifications for the future?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-22-2019, 07:17 AM
 
Location: NJ/NY
18,499 posts, read 15,306,609 times
Reputation: 14368
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard View Post
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/22/u...gtype=Homepage


The Wilkes made their fortune in fracking and now own about 700,000 acres in Montana and Idaho.


These new landowners are now keeping those Idaho families that used to snowmobile, ski, hunt and fish off their properties. These families being affected now are not liberal types but conservatives who for generations used these lands or crossed them. In many cases, these landowners are denying access to public land as well. The natives are none to happy.


No one disputes that private land owners can keep trespassers off their land or what they are doing is illegal. These landowners are both liberal and conservatives. Regardless of ideology, their views are the same. Stay off!


The question here is it healthy for a nation to have a handful of families control all this land? What the ramifications for the future?
Yes. It is healthy. It means we have a country where people can spend their own money on whatever they want.

What is the alternative? Limiting how much land a person can own? That just seems really wrong to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2019, 07:22 AM
 
7,800 posts, read 4,413,205 times
Reputation: 9438
It is important to note as well that hedge funds are buying huge swathes of land as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2019, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Austin TX
11,027 posts, read 6,527,204 times
Reputation: 13259
Is it becoming a thing now to cry over people who own land?!

What’s next?? Shall we limit automobile ownership, too?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2019, 07:24 AM
 
7,800 posts, read 4,413,205 times
Reputation: 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD View Post
Yes. It is healthy. It means we have a country where people can spend their own money on whatever they want.

What is the alternative? Limiting how much land a person can own? That just seems really wrong to me.
You have a good point. I suspect if this trend continues there will be greater controversy about this, especially in the west.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2019, 07:25 AM
 
4,445 posts, read 1,455,699 times
Reputation: 3609
Treebeard does not believe in ownership of property. What does that tell you about him? What ideology does that align with?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2019, 07:30 AM
 
7,800 posts, read 4,413,205 times
Reputation: 9438
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncguy50 View Post
Treebeard does not believe in ownership of property. What does that tell you about him? What ideology does that align with?
This is an idiotic statement. The story was in the news. If you have nothing intelligent to say or contribute, go back to sleep and leave this discussion to the adults
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2019, 07:31 AM
 
4,445 posts, read 1,455,699 times
Reputation: 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard View Post
This is an idiotic statement. The story was in the news. If you have nothing intelligent to say or contribute, go back to sleep and leave this discussion to the adults
How much property tax revenue does 40 million acres of land produce?

And sure, I'll admit I was mistaken about my conclusion if you admit in writing that you are good with private citizens owning land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2019, 07:33 AM
 
Location: Austin TX
11,027 posts, read 6,527,204 times
Reputation: 13259
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard View Post
This is an idiotic statement. The story was in the news. If you have nothing intelligent to say or contribute, go back to sleep and leave this discussion to the adults
What exactly is idiotic about the poster’s comment? My takeaway is also that you have an issue with land ownership.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2019, 07:38 AM
 
7,800 posts, read 4,413,205 times
Reputation: 9438
I own property. I am fine with property ownership. I believe in it quite strongly. The story is in the news. If one can't start a thread on a controversial subject without being subject to outrageous insinuations, then what is the point. The OP is not about private property per se but the concentration of it in the hands of a few.

As I wrote in the OP it is not lilegal and it is not a pure liberal or conservative issue. All this is a discussion on an issue that is in the news
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. The time now is 09:17 AM.

© 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