It’s not about generating revenue. It’s about intentionally transferring wealth TO the billionaires.

Yep. I live in Idaho and finding places to enjoy is already painful. You can drive through gorgeous canyons and see nothing but private property no trespassing signs everywhere, with not a single page to get out and hike. I'm sure it's great for the private owners, but it sucks for all the rest of us, and it's not like some startup is going to come produce a bunch more land...

Courts would never uphold the notion of a fraudulent conveyance. Your thinking is delusionsal.

If you're "picking up the pieces" you have tabula rasa. So nobody owns anything unless you say so.

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.

The maneuver seems to be to offset tax cuts this budget year. I think they need to set a precedent so they can offset tax cuts through subsequent years.

It is a slippery slope. How often will the republicans be drawing from this well now in the future?

The rationalization that is being provided here is exactly the goal. It’s not to sell all the land right at this moment, but to set a precedent and sell it piece by piece over an extended period of time because people have extremely short memory. They used to fight tooth and nail when it came to raising the debt ceiling by billions, now we raise it by trillions every year. It’s the same playbook here. People will justify the sale by saying it’s 1-2% of the land, and over a couple of decades we’ll be losing that much every year.

what governs how frequently that % can be sold or increased?

maybe a better question is - why? even if it's 0.01%, what is the (hopefully legitimate) purpose of this?

How do we have any idea which lands will be sold? In many ways, the lands the public least would want to be sold are the ones that someone would be most interested in, and that kind of thing is exactly what I'd expect from the Trump administration - find a billionaire and sell them 100 acres right next to national park for a "residence."

I will be looking for places specifically deep in the forest. Ideal for a hunting lodge or accessing the remaining wilderness. Perhaps a small campground or cabins for others.

> I just wish that folk like Wilderness Society were a bit more clear on what to expect.

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.

The government is going to sell it to whoever is in office's buddies and they are going to strip mine and log it. Most of Nevada and Utah are uninhabitable, but perfect for corporations that don't want to abide by environmental laws. It's actually hilariously insulting that Mike Lee is saying this is to help solve the housing crisis as if someone is going to build a housing development with no water or road access.

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.

Keep in mind that federal ownership doesn't mean that the land can't be used productively or generate revenue. Mineral rights, range leases, and many more things don't require selling the land. Having large regions close to their natural state is also a priceless treasure, and checker-boarding them, or ruining the view at national parks, is a real net negative. (That said, I do think there probably are federal lands it could make sense to sell. But I have no confidence coming up with an arbitrary amount of land to sell to raise revenue is a good policy.) Also keep in mind, that transforming some of these areas to residential use might have complicated impacts on water use and wetlands, though presumably less than agriculture would.

You say that like there is some inherent reason that it’s bad. Federal land belongs to you, to me, to all Americans. This land belongs our children. We’re selling it off to pay for tax cuts for the super wealthy.

Why would those numbers mitigate how bad this is? Public land is awesome and open to everyone. These areas are currently used by millions of hikers, hunters, ranchers, miners, researchers, campers, OHVers, and so many other groups.

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.

I don't get why recalling that change your mind. If anything its a reason for not selling any land to keep so much control on public hands.

Nevada became US territory through the treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, and the US paid per acre ceded. Who should it have gone to? Lots of people fought in the Mexican-American war, and the military was funded by taxpayers. Is it wrong for it to become public land in that context?

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.

Well how else are the rich supposed to buy the land, silly?

You're gonna need a lot of water too. Stop watering your goddamn plants, max twice a week.

The proposed law does not permit the land to be sold for this purpose.

The irony

It's sloppy writing (if we're being charitable). The secretary, in consultation with State and local governments and Indian Tribes, would be authorized only to sell up to 3 M acres out of 250 M eligible acres.

I live in the West and have spent a lot of time on BLM land and in rural parts of Utah. The housing argument seems specious to me. BLM land is often on the extreme end of rural. A lot of it is uninhabitable - no utilities, no buildable acreage, no jobs nearby, very limited accessibility.

I don’t see it as a good faith argument, but open to be corrected.

Who do you think will give priority to the states and local governments? Do you think it will be people in the Executive Branch? What kind of prioritizations do you actually think they'll give to, for example, the California vs. Texas state governments and on down the line?

Once those groups you mention are consulted, who actually chooses which parcels to sell? Is it someone or a group in the Executive Branch? Do you think "consulted" means more than "we're considering selling these specific lands... What do you think?" Once that consultation is done are there any restrictions, based on the feedback, about which lands can be sold? Or is it enough to have asked for comment and then it's ok to ignore those comments?

RE FMV, in particular for large parcels of land, valuation is a very subjective exercise. It's not only the land itself that determines that, but the credibility of the buyer. You might get an offer that's x, but then that buyer is considered unable to perform, but this other buyer at .5x has the means to close and therefore that's the FMV? Who decides whether a buyer is able to perform? That's a simple example, but there are countless ways to massage the definition of FMV. That applies to the sale of an every day home, but for large tracts of land it's impossible to argue FMV unless there's language in the law that says "at least x appraisals, with the appraisers drawn from lottery, for each parcel, must be performed and than averaged to get the asking price. And then qualified buyers are drawn from a hat once their ability to close is vetted." Are any of these checks in place in the bill?

You've read the bill. I'm begging the question(s) here, but I'm open to be surprised to find adequate checks that make the skepticism of so many comments in this thread unwarranted. If you tell me to read the bill myself I get it, but I'm interested in the dialogue if you're willing to share what you've learned about the details.

edit: autocorrect

> The proposed law is clear and readable. The relevant part starts on p. 30.

Speaking as someone who worked on the TikTok bill, what the text of the law says is currently loosely related to what will happen.