The New Land Rush

[richlevy]

From here.

The Bush administration identified Friday more than 300,000 acres of national forest, including about 85,000 acres in California, that could be sold to pay for services in rural areas across the country. National Forest Service officials said they want to sell about 200,000 acres to raise about $800 million over the next few years to pay for schools and roads in rural counties hurt by logging cutbacks on federal land. The Bureau of Land Management has said it also plans to sell federal lands to raise an estimated $250 million over five years.

I'm all for selling off decomissioned military bases in the middle of the desert, but forests? Some of this land is pristine. I thought the government was trying to stop urban sprawl.

[Tonchi]

No, the government is trying to stop the CONTRACTS for uban sprawl. (from going to anybody not hand-chosen from the pool of their contributors)

[xoxoxoBruce]

I thought the government was trying to stop urban sprawl.

These aren't suburban properties, they're out in the boonies. More importantly, they belong to me.....and you. Federal land is owned by the people, not the government and I don't remember them asking me.

[Kitsune]

Dammit. So this is how we will pay for this administration's fuck-ups? Hemorrhage money for years and then "fix" it by selling off pieces of our national parks?

In general, these are not areas used frequently by the public

Wow, that's great. So they really will be selling off some of the last pristine wilderness in our country. That justifies it right there.

And what the hell happened to:

US Constitution Section 7, Clause 1
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

[Beestie]

If the proceeds from the sale will be used to fund projects proximate to the land then the Federal Gov is not to blame. Roads, schools, etc. are the responsibility of the local jurisdictions.

If the locality has asked the Feds to sell the land and give them the money which is what it sounds like then its really not for anyone outside that locality to question.

[richlevy]

I just think it's another way the adminstration can say 'fuck you' to its critics, in this case the environmentalists. This is payback for the spotted owl.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I just think it's another way the adminstration can say 'fuck you' to its critics, in this case the environmentalists. This is payback for the spotted owl.

I understand the initial reaction - and actually agree with it - initially. But I need to know, in this specific situation, who are the winners and who are the losers?

If the locality is ok with it then of what concern is the opinion of environmental interests who have no stake in how the proceeds are distributed. Why would I give their position in this matter more consideration than the family whose children are being educated in an underfunded school system? Or the family whose breadwinner has to commute to work on a crumbling road system?

I just don't think a blanket response is as on point as a response based upon the readily available specifics of the situation. If those affected aren't howling then who cares what the environmentalists think? If I have to decide between an owl and a person, I think I'll go with the person.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Beestie

If the locality is ok with it then of what concern is the opinion of environmental interests who have no stake in how the proceeds are distributed.

a) It's not their land, it's federal land. b) How do the proceeds from the sale of federal lands get into the hands of local communities?

A few years back, their was an April's Fool joke about the government selling naming rights to the Liberty Bell to Taco Bell. This sale reminds me of that.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by richlevy

a) It's not their land, it's federal land. b) How do the proceeds from the sale of federal lands get into the hands of local communities?

Your original post indicated that the proceeds from the sale would be used to fund local roads and local schools. The Federal government does not build local roads and it does not build local schools. The Feds therefore must distribute the sale proceeds to the localities to do so.

... There's no reason why the world's biggest economic power needs to sell parkland to make ends meet."

This quote by the Sierra club representative doesn't make any sense because local schools and local roads are not included in the Federal budget because its not an obligation of the Federal government.

Now, if you want to back up one level and discuss the prudence of the Feds selling Federal land to loggers which is cited as the source of the problem this idea is being floated to fix then I'll have a lot less to say.

Originally Posted by Beestie

Environmentalists lie and cheat

(sigh) Where to begin? Shall we try logic? Oh, what the hell. As least you won't be able to say that you were never exposed to the concept. And I'll let you slide on having the faintest knowledge of science on account of the fact that public schools now seem to teach intelligent (their word, not mine) design in place of actual science.

Federal = national = belonging to the nation ( a nation is made up of ALL its citizens).

Local = local.

Suppose your grandfather had a 1,000 acre farm. He dies and leaves the farm to all the members of the Beestie family. equally. Let's say that at this point the Beestie tribe has 40 direct descendents of Beestie the First. Without consulting you or anyone else, one of your cousins decides to appropriate 100 acres of land, sell it, and keep the proceeds of the sale for himself since he still lives in the same home town your grandfather did, while the rest of the family has moved away. Do you say to him, "Great idea, Cousin! You go right ahead and help yourself to that land, now valued at $1,000/acre. Go ahead and keep all the money, and if you decide to sell some more of the inheritance gramps gave us all, hey, don't even bother telling me or anyone else in the family. You're "local", after all!"

If the Federal government is going to sell Federal land, then, at the very least, the proceeds of the sale must go to benefit the nation as a whole, not some hicks in Bumfuck, Idaho who can't be bothered to go find another job after the sawmill closed down.

Federal land is NOT sold to the big logging outfits. The timber on that land is sold to them. That's it. In the past, the Feds gave in to a short sighted and greedy timber industry and allowed widespread clear cutting of national forests. The forests of the Pacifc Northwest and in the southern part of the US could regenerate to some extent from these massive clear cutting operations because these areas receive a higher amount of rainfall, and it doesn't take as long for a tree to grow maturity in these locations.

In the Rocky Mountain West, the practice of clear cutting was devastating. The soils here are too thin and the rainfall is inadequate. Clearcut 500 acres in Colorado and 100 years later, what you have is 500 eroded acres of land, covered with myrtle spurge or tumble weed plants (the tumble weed originated in Russia, beleive it or not).

You can rave about pinko environmentalists all you like, but the factors of rainfall, soils, geography and plant ecology, as well as climate, will remain indifferent to your rants. Its a bit like the idea of intelligent design. You may beleive in the literal interpretation of the Bible, but the earth still revolves around the sun - not the other way around - the rock you have climbed up on to give your sermon remains far more than 6,000 years old, and viruses continue to mutate happily along, proving that genetic change does occur in living species now just as it did back when.

Now anybody over the age of 6 understands that even under the best of conditions, you are not going to plant a sapling tree and have it grow to a size making it worthwhile for the timber industry to harvest in 5 yerars. It won't happen in 10 years. In our southern forests, its possible to harvest timber after 15 years, but that's under the best possible conditions of rainfall and climate.

So the Feds giving in to the logging companies and the congressman from Bumfuck, authorized the sale of all the timber on the National Forest within a 100 mile radius of town. The yokels in Bumfuck all got logging jobs for a while and then the trees were all gone and the logging company is now down in the Amazon cutting down the rain forest. The logging company didn't bother to replant the acres it harvested since it was Federal land and not their problem. Bushco thinks trees cause forest fires, so why use the taxpayer's dollar to replant forests when that money could be given to Halliburten, instead?

W. and his cronies come up with a bandaid solution for a severed artery. Let's sell Federal lands and give some of the proceeds to the local school district. That's nice for a few years, but what happens when THAT money is all used up? The land around Bumfuck is now in the hands of a private developer who sold out the parcels as ranchettes to folks who come stay on them for two weeks out of the year and spend the rest of their time somewhere else. Now, not only do the youth of Bumfuck have no funding for their schools, their folks still don't have jobs either, and the region has become another Appalachia.

Don't bother to respond, I already know what your well thought out reply will be

Originally Posted by Beestie

Marichiko cheats and lies

Frankly, I don't give a damn. I have no children and I'll be dead. You and your kids get to live with the environemtal/financial nightmare that such policies will cause. I won't.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by marichiko

So the Feds giving in to the logging companies and the congressman from Bumfuck, authorized the sale of all the timber on the National Forest within a 100 mile radius of town. The yokels in Bumfuck all got logging jobs for a while and then the trees were all gone and the logging company is now down in the Amazon cutting down the rain forest. The logging company didn't bother to replant the acres it harvested since it was Federal land and not their problem. Bushco thinks trees cause forest fires, so why use the taxpayer's dollar to replant forests when that money could be given to Halliburten, instead?

Very nice argument Mari. Also explains why there are towns in this country with no industry left and polluted soil or mine tailings.

One thing is different. If the logging companies own the land and actually have some foresight, they might replant.

A pure Libertarian would say that anyone who buys land has a right to do whatever they want with it. An environmentalist would explain that systems are connected and that opening a toxic waste dump would have an effect beyond the borders of the property. Also, opening an explosives plant, while not causing environmental risk, would expose the neighbors to physical danger. This is why most people are in favor of zoning laws.

When the federal goverment gets into it's 'free market' and 'pro-business' at all costs mode, it usually ends up costing the taxpayer money for cleanup. If you or I went into a party rental store and rented a helium tank, we would be expected to provide some assurance that it would be returned. The same assurance is rarely required when it comes to land use. It's not just toxic chemicals and Superfund sites that are the result. Deforestation can result in soil erosion, mudslides, silt in streams, and other impacts which affect neighbors, the community, and possibly the region.

Since one of the advantages of being a corporation is the ability to dissolve and dissappear, this leaves the government, the local residents, or in the case of Superfund the next generation of businesses holding the bag.

[Undertoad]

When the federal goverment gets into it's 'free market' and 'pro-business' at all costs mode

A pure Libertarian, and here is where I would agree, would say that "free market" and "pro-business" are very different beasts indeed, and 9 times out of 10 when the government gets all "pro-business", it is working against free market forces.

[Undertoad]

Marichiko cheats. The bulk of Mari's post covers a very different sort of problem than selling public lands. Cutting of timber on Federally owned property is an example of "the tragedy of the commons", which occurs when nobody owns the land they are working.

The tragedy of the commons is usually described as: "When cattle are raised on the public square the farmers let them overgraze it; when cattle are raised on private farms this is never permitted to happen." Ironically, Mari's post is an argument for private ownership of land.

[busterb]

Mari. Where in this thread did you find the quotes that you used? I can't find them. Are my eyes that bad? Perhaps I just don't understand the the topic.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Marichiko cheats. The bulk of Mari's post covers a very different sort of problem than selling public lands. Cutting of timber on Federally owned property is an example of "the tragedy of the commons", which occurs when nobody owns the land they are working.

The tragedy of the commons is usually described as: "When cattle are raised on the public square the farmers let them overgraze it; when cattle are raised on private farms this is never permitted to happen." Ironically, Mari's post is an argument for private ownership of land.

I did mention that. However, assuming that because they purchased the land that they will not clearcut it is also wrong. Mining companies own the land that they strip mine. This does not make them better stewards.

The larger issue is the government using the argument that because the spotted owl protection is costing communities income, federal land should be sold as reparation. There are any number of environmental regulations that have a financial impact. Should we start selling federal land to reimburse utilities for required pollution abatement equipment?

The US government never did give freed slaves their 40 acres, and everyone can agree that the government, through the Fugitive Slave Law was an accomplice to slavery.

If we didn't hand federal land over to former slaves, why should communities affected by spotted owl restrictions be compensated in this fashion?

Of course, if the government does decide to go through with this plan, look for a lawsuit by the descendents of slaves to attach the assets with the justification that the government has started a new precedent and can no longer claim that federal land grants to aggreived parties, even if only in passing along the sale price, are not done.

It would of course help if these descendents registered as Republicans.