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.

[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.

[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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by richlevy

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 difference is that miners are engaged in a one time extraction of a resource whereas a sensible timber company can count on returning to a tract of land. A local outfit would be most likely to manage for the long term.

We argue about this stuff a lot when we mountain bike because the gov land we sometimes ride on is mixed use and each group is always trying to get the others thrown out. Enviros vs timbermen vs horsey people vs mtn bikers vs atv riders vs enviros. Many of the lands out West were managed for timber for many years, then enviros normally from away with no economic stake come in and for good or ill change the purpose the lands are managed for. Privately held land is easy to manage for a specific purpose.

I don't like the idea that some politician in Boston, Mass. can decide that a working community in Idaho isn't economically viable. What I'd like to see is a competitive bid process. Let groups of people purchase the lands for their stated purpose and manage it accordingly. Land where timbering can be viable would be the focus of timber companies and outfits like the Nature Conservancy could buy up the environmentally important pieces. We know with the Bush administration that open government isn't priority one reducing the likelyhood that sales will be truly open. It would be cool and useful to put together a map of all the lands and have a real time observation of bid prices for sections. Groups could get together and buy ajoining pieces if they have compatible goals say mountain bikers, cc skiers, and campers...

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Griff

We know with the Bush administration that open government isn't priority one reducing the likelyhood that sales will be truly open. It would be cool and useful to put together a map of all the lands and have a real time observation of bid prices for sections.

That's a nice dream. You do know that even with the scandal running around Congress, if the GOP and it's advisers think that the public isn't paying attention, the chances of a transaprent process in all of this are remarkably slim. The official notice for these auctions will be on the back page of smallest newspapers that can be found and they'll be held at midnight on the farthest green of the most exclusive country club in the country, or maybe on top of some desert plateau only accessible by private helicopter.

Maybe they'll just post it in the Skull and Bones Alumni newsletter.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The US government never did give freed slaves their 40 acres

40 acres were made avaiable to every ex-slave. All they had to do was READ the instructions. WRITE the myriad of applications. TRAVEL to several locations to complete the process. BUY livestock and building materials to build a dwelling, fence the entire property and raise a viable crop for 5 years, to get the title/deed.
Remarkably, some actually managed to do it, but of course most didn't because they couldn't read or write and had no money.