• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

House just made it eaier to sell off OUR pullic lands

Thebobo

Lifer
This includes BLM lands National parks National forest National monuments and BLM lands. The right wing Cliven Bundy extremist party will not be happy until all of OUR public lands are being drilled mined logged or developed. Just fraking amazing how a small group of zealots can do this to OUR public lands.

Full story

The U.S. House of Representatives just made it easier for the government to sell or give away national parks, national forests, and other public lands.

A new rule, written by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT), establishes as fact that any legislation to dispose of public lands and natural resources would cost taxpayers exactly $0. This paves the way for the new Congress to get rid of vast swaths of public lands — all at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Under Congressional Budget Office accounting rules, the House is required to account for the cost of any legislation it considers. Now, the House does not need to even estimate any financial losses from giving away public land. Bills to dispose of public land will skip several steps in the normal legislative process, coming up for a vote without any discussion of the costs and benefits. The House approved the rules change by a vote of 234 to 193 on Tuesday.

Since the move applies only to House rules, it is not subject to approval by the Senate or a presidential signature. It is effective immediately.

“The House Republican plan to give away America’s public lands for free is outrageous and absurd,” Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said in a statement just prior to the vote. “This proposed rule change would make it easier to implement this plan by allowing the Congress to give away every single piece of property we own, for free, and pretend we have lost nothing of any value. Not only is this fiscally irresponsible, but it is also a flagrant attack on places and resources valued and beloved by the American people.”
 
Welcome to Wallmart Yellowstone Park, hourly rate entry tickets sold to your left, visa/Mastercard/AE accepted
 
Let me guess without reading it..

Oil and mineral rights for pennies on the dollar?

Amirite?


Bonus points if it's in environmentally sensitive areas.
 
I can't imagine why anyone would upset with protecting areas that are of great historical value. The government should do all it can to protect these historic sites and create laws with teeth to protect them from damage.
I am definitely in favor of protecting important sites. I am not in favor of the WAY it has been done sometimes.

For example, twice now a President has declared a huge national monument in Utah just days (or hours) after adamantly denying that there was any plan at all in the works. Clinton went to the Grand Canyon in Arizona for his press conference to create the 1.88 million acre Grand Staircase-Escalante monument on 9/18/1996 just two days after directly telling Utah Congressmen that he had no plans to create the monument at the time. Obama didn't even leave his office in D.C to create the 1.35 million acre Bears Ears monument in Utah and the 300K acre Gold Butte monument in Nevada at Midnight on 12/28/2016, and did so shortly after Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell told Utah representatives that any plans for new monuments - and specifically Bears Ears - would be open to public discussion and thorough studies prior to creation of a new monument (neither of which happened). Both of these huge monuments in Utah do have a wide variety of natural and historic landmarks that should be protected, but also include a lot of land that really shouldn't be part of the monuments and that have a significant negative impact on the nearby communities.
 
Public discussions and studies have underway for protecting lands in southern Utah for decades.
Continuously, but while there have been some proposals in the past for protected lands in these specific areas, those proposals have been rejected for various reasons, and the final designations for Grand Staircase and Bears Ears weren't even presented as options for discussion because the administrations at the time either denied that they were happening at all (Escalante), or said that they were in the works but not happening any time soon because the public discussion and environmental studies still needed to happen (Bears Ears).
 
I see, since you think it's settled as a left wing Democrat, that means it's been settled for all time. Sorry, political debates don't work that way.
It isn't a political debate, it's a series of Supreme Court rulings. You're regurgitating Bundista bullshit. Congress has the Constitutional authority to regulate the use of the public lands as it sees fit.
 
Back
Top