And the money this will generate will probably barely pay for a B-2 flights.
Escalating the dynamic is bad, because we ultimately need to pull out of the corruption. But continuing the dynamic of letting the looters keep their ill gotten gains having them declared as untouchable "private property" is worse.
Also even if this does not end up happening, broadcasting the intent far and wide puts a chilling effect on the current looting. The point is there needs to be possible consequences on the table to balance the official policy of having a fire sale.
I think you'll be lucky if there isn't something closer to France's épuration sauvage - the "wild purge" after liberation but before France's civil government was fully in control again. Later there are trials, the ordinary operation of justice, the accused have lawyers, evidence is produced, some are executed, many go to prison, more walk free, but as German infantry flee and the Allied tanks roll towards Paris local French people just grab that guy everybody knows is a collaborator and they slit his throat, maybe he was really what they thought he was, maybe the leader of the mob just fancied this guy's wife. It's done now.
As it stands now, the text of this specifically calls for only .5 to .75% of the 250M acres for both USFS and BLM lands to be sold. No more than 1.5% of the 250M acres will ultimately be sold off. Further, they need to be sold off for specific purposes, and these purposes need to be cost-efficient for the buyer. The map on the page absolutely looks scary, but that fear is diminished a fair bit when you realize that less than a percent of the lands in each color will be sold, and those that are sold are likely not going to be spaces that are deep in the forest and are expensive to reach and develop.
By no means do I want to see this happen, I just wish that folk like Wilderness Society were a bit more clear on what to expect.
maybe a better question is - why? even if it's 0.01%, what is the (hopefully legitimate) purpose of this?
The proposed purpose is residential use. See my other comment for the text of the law.
that just means the stuff that is easier to access is going to be prioritized. there's already 17+ classic rock climbing destinations that are in the proposed areas which could be sold off to his cronies. nobody is going to be buying up the land in the middle of nowhere with no access to it. this is devastating regardless of the absolute percentage.
80% !!!
Over 50% of Oregon, and over 60% for Utah
I even have libertarian diehard friends that are against this sale, if for nothing else than the fact you -can not- trust the government to sell it in a legitimate non-corrupt manner.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of libertarians IMHO, but supporting Trump isn't really one of them.
80% is inherently too much.
[1]: https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentag... [2] https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/runte1/prologue...
So if it belongs to me, can I build a house there? Plant crops? Go hiking or camping? Can I do these things whenever I please without asking anyone? Because I wouldn't say "that land belongs to me" in any meaningful sense. National parks aside, I don't see how citizens benefit from the government owning large tracts of land.
If you are not constrained by a vault toilet and pack your own water, it is a playground.
This is all such easily accessed information direct from NFS, NPS, and BLM government websites, it's impossible to not view your comment as written in bad faith. Public lands are broadly your lands to enjoy and use as they exist in their natural state, so long as you're not depriving others of the same access.
Yes, you can. I do it frequently.
It is shared ownership. You want to build private property on land that everybody owns?
I'm curious why you exempted national parks and not national forest when the latter allows for even more use.
Personally, I use my public lands all the time, visiting several times a week and camping frequently. There's a 30K-acre chunk of national forest nearby we sold to a private corporation over a decade ago and now that's all cut off. They're just sitting on it. Used to be hunters and foragers and mountain bikers and motorcyclists and horses... Now all off limits. And what did we get in exchange?
We should be expanding public access, not selling it off
These sales will close the land to a few wealthy people/businesses, or be destroyed by extractive industries. Once these areas are sold they will be lost forever, after being open for generations. All so billionaires, who currently pay a lower effective tax rate than most HN posters, can pay even less.
Do you have evidence that "most" of Nevada's 80% "public lands" are used by "millions"?
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/InterimCommittee/REL/Documen...
Red Rock gets over 3 million visitors a year by itself.
https://www.blm.gov/visit/red-rock-canyon-national-conservat...
Do you have evidence it is not?
And frankly Nevada is mostly land that no one wanted. Because it's mostly in the endorheic basin, and the soil is not great for agriculture. The BLM will let you graze animals without having to buy the land, and because it's so arid and pasture use will degrade the existing vegetation, IIUC it wouldn't make sense to purchase. I think federal ownership is kind of natural when the nation wants territorial control, but the land itself isn't capable of being productive.
This makes me sad that my children won’t be able to visit some of my favorite camp sites.
This will likely also require raising the debt ceiling further; apparently DOGE did not save as much money as they told us they did. What a farce, what shameful theater.
Water usage can also be optimized and is becoming part of the sustainability conversation at most of the hyperscalers with multi-gigawatt energy footprints:
https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/natural-resources/wat...
If they were concerned about future redevelopment they should have put a 50-100 year restrictive covenant in the bill, not only 10 years.
- the housing crisis isn't about a lack of land to build on really
- there's a decent amount of vacant housing, but it's not meeting people's needs if it's far from jobs, schools, food, healthcare, or if it financially doesn't make sense
- especially in the western states where most of the BLM land is, building more housing surrounded by/abutting wild land creates/exacerbates fire risks, which perhaps makes new housing expensive or impossible to insure, etc.
So even setting aside the environmental or even ethical objections to this (did a property developer lobby for this?), it just seems like a bad way to accomplish their stated goals.
I don’t see it as a good faith argument, but open to be corrected.
The proposed law is clear and readable. The relevant part starts on p. 30.
The law anticipates that the States themselves and local governments will be among the buyers, and priority consideration is given to them.
State and local governments, including the sovereign Indian Tribes must be consulted regarding which land goes up for sale.
Use of the sold lands must be residential or otherwise contributing to community needs associated with residential development.
The land cannot be sold for less than FMV.
For private buyers, sales are designed to be competitive to make it hard for a single buyer to end up with many tracts.
[0] https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/DF7B7FBE-9866-4...
However, the bill is being considered under reconciliation rules so it supposed to only do things related to revenue, mandatory spending, or federal debt. So as a technical matter, the land sales are in the bill purely as a revenue raiser. A lot of folks who might be sympathetic to Sen Lee’s interest in housing are very uncomfortable with what is on paper a straight land-for-money sale. Seems like a bad precedent, like a dairy farm that starts selling its cows to pay expenses.
A few Republican senators have stated opposition: Crapo, Risch, and Daines are what I’ve seen so far. With 53 GOP members, they can’t afford to lose any more.
Personally I’m sympathetic to the housing needs of localities in the West. But I don’t think this belongs in a pure budget bill, and I feel like the long-standing movement to “privatize the West” has poisoned the well and makes it hard to believe this actually just a little housing thing.
darth_avocado•2h ago
Apreche•2h ago
japhyr•2h ago