Skip to main content

View Diary: Romney would sell federal land (25 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Should have been sold ages ago. (0+ / 0-)

    Good for Romney.

    national parks, monuments and reservations
    Those items are a tiny fraction of federal land out West, and not what he's referring to.  There's gigantic tracts of empty land which the federal government holds and refuses to sell, stunting development across much of the West.

    It should be sold to the States or private investors to grow the tax base. Having almost 85% of your state owned by the Federal government is ridiculous

    •  I wonder if you'd find much support (4+ / 0-)

      for this in the states. Many ranches boast an acreage that includes their BLM leases, often more than 50% of the total. That land is leased for a song, at a few dollars an acre. My guess is ranchers aren't going to pay $1,000+ an acre for land they can use for $2 a year.

      "I had seen the universe as it begins for all things. It was, in reality, a child's universe, a tiny and laughing universe." Loren Eiseley

      by cadejo4 on Tue Oct 02, 2012 at 07:14:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My guess is that you aren't an outdoorsman (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ed in Montana

        Federal PUBLIC lands are the places people go.  These lands belong to the people, not to rich landowners who put up "no trespassing" signs.

        •  Cadejo is right. The valuable forage lands (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cadejo4

          are already privately owned.  The public forage lands of the BLM and USFS are leased below cost to ranchers.  The mineral interests can file for claims and if they develop the claim they can then buy the land for a pittance due to laws from the 19th century.  

          Recreation, by law, is supposed to be accorded equal value to the others (the USFS has grazing, timber, water, recreation and mining supposedly equal) and between the BLM and USFS they both have recreation areas.  Still, the vast majority of the land is used by a tiny number of people and it's very important that mixed use prevails.  That way you have protections from any one group that wants to lock the land away for their sole use, be it ranching, mining, hunting or timber harvesting.

          I'm just glad that Rmoney would not be able to just sell the lands off as he chose.  Laws are in place, and Congress would have to go change those laws before he could do so.  I don't think Congress, even one with majority Republicans, would make sales to any great extent.

    •  why, it was all the federal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ed in Montana, Cassandra Waites

      government's land to begin with.  The state voted itself into existence knowing that.   There are other states out there.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site