Utah demands land surrendered from Fedgov by Dec 31

[lozina]

No, not all land in the East was destroyed by development.

I live in the midst of national park land here in the mountains of North Carolina.

There are plenty of protected lands in the S.E., some federally protected and others protected by the state.

Fern

Yes, in New York there is an excellent state park called Harriman which is a mere 45 minutes from downtown NYC. Westchester county which borders the city has a large portion of its land devoted to state and county parks.

 

[Fern]

My stance is that the federal government had done a god damn impeccable job of protecting our national jewels so far, it should continue to do so for the next millennia. With regards to other countries and their national treasures, that it their business not ours.
-snip-

Yes, they've done a pretty good job with the more well known beautiful national parks.

Although I don't live in the West, over the years the occasional article that comes to my attention has indicated that there is more going in western federal lands than merely protecting it as they do with our better known national parks. IIRC, corporations, likely fueled by lobby money, have been allowed to build solar plants etc. Harry Reid seems to have been involved in some shenanigans with federal law where he, or his friends and family, have profited. So there is more to it than the feds holding on to it for national park purposes.

I think an objective study should be done and those lands that are truly deserving of national park status should be designated so (if not already) and retained by the US gov. The rest should be transferred to the states as promised. I have driven and camped all through those Western states and not all of it is national park material. I don't believe the federal gov has any business holding land that isn't suitable for national park status (or military bases etc.).

In an effort to grow the early nation we relied upon the 'territory' model and that was fine for its purpose. But somehow the Western states were not ceded their land, unlike the others who were not in the original 13 and that should be corrected.

(Yes, the US should keep the land out there for existing military installations etc too.)

Fern

 

[trenchfoot]

Again, that you see environmentalism as a left/right thing is nutty. Regardless of political viewpoint we all live in the same environment. But based on your comment I guess it was just a lame attempt at trolling since you can't really be that stupid.

*ahem* - CBD remember? Some of them have a condition that we all should be compassionate about. Well, when I think about it, that condition can also be used to excuse oneself from rational thought, but then while in public they should extend the courtesy of wearing signs draped around their necks or make use of those smarty designed and oh-so-chique height enhancing metallic-like shimmering conical headwear as a symbolic gesture stating so, or at least warn.....err, notify the rest of us that they have the condition prior to posting so we can be understanding and sympathetic in return and not mistake their condition for some other purposeful mean spirited design.

 

[lozina]

Yes, they've done a pretty good job with the more well known beautiful national parks.

Although I don't live in the West, over the years the occasional article that comes to my attention has indicated that there is more going in western federal lands than merely protecting it as they do with our better known national parks. IIRC, corporations, likely fueled by lobby money, have been allowed to build solar plants etc. Harry Reid seems to have been involved in some shenanigans with federal law where he, or his friends and family, have profited. So there is more to it than the feds holding on to it for national park purposes.

I think an objective study should be done and those lands that are truly deserving of national park status should be designated so (if not already) and retained by the US gov. The rest should be transferred to the states as promised. I have driven and camped all through those Western states and not all of it is national park material. I don't believe the federal gov has any business holding land that isn't suitable for national park status (or military bases etc.).

In an effort to grow the early nation we relied upon the 'territory' model and that was fine for its purpose. But somehow the Western states were not ceded their land, unlike the others who were not in the original 13 and that should be corrected.

(Yes, the US should keep the land out there for existing military installations etc too.)

Fern

Well said sir.

And in the cases I've read about (including Utah) they do make exception to protect the national parks.

 

[ElFenix]

Fair point, although even a demand by the legislature would kind of be unconstitutional, considering they are required to forego any claim to it. I guess if they're just asking the feds to reconsider that's one thing though.

demand to hand over title inherently recognizes that you don't have title*, so, no, not unconstitutional.





*unless your demand says "as the rightful title holder," which i doubt they did

 

[Zorba]

Yes that must be it. I don't subscribe to your extreme left environmentalist propaganda so therefore I am ignorant.

You think entering a national forest or national park is trespassing, therefore you ARE ignorant. No thinking about it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Sure, that's a nice extreme you paint. Or we could go to the other extreme where we are still living in caves and have an average life expectancy of 18.

If you look back on the history of the development of National Park system in the western US, if the country had followed your path, the Grand Canyon would probably be a Disneyland park and Yellowstone would probably be called Jelleystone Theme Park.

But hey, don't let reality get in the way of a good ideological rant.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The federal govt should have to pay property tax for the federal land.

The drugs you take, they don't seem to be good for you.

 

[Victorian Gray]

If anybody cares, this was, imo, a pretty good series on the historical development of the National Park system in the US. The tension between private interests and the public interest was there from the very beginning.

http://www.pbs.org/nationalparks/history/

 

[Zorba]

I will drop this right here: Percentage of land ownership

Louisiana is 4.97% owned by the Federal Government, 2.67% state owned. So please stop spinning this as the states getting and controlling all the land. If not the feds it'll be the corporations. If you think Lake Meed is low now, just wait until private companies own all of the Colorado River watershed.

BTW: 63.12% of Utah is Federal, than leaves ~37% but the state only owns 7.27%. So again, I don't think Utah is going to hold all that land for the public good.

 

[lozina]

I will drop this right here: Percentage of land ownership

Louisiana is 4.97% owned by the Federal Government, 2.67% state owned. So please stop spinning this as the states getting and controlling all the land. If not the feds it'll be the corporations. If you think Lake Meed is low now, just wait until private companies own all of the Colorado River watershed.

BTW: 63.12% of Utah is Federal, than leaves ~37% but the state only owns 7.27%. So again, I don't think Utah is going to hold all that land for the public good.

The majority of it will end up private land, like it's supposed to be. Like it is for the majority of the country. If it works for most of the country, it will work for the western states.

 

[Darwin333]

Sure, that's a nice extreme you paint. Or we could go to the other extreme where we are still living in caves and have an average life expectancy of 18.

So you didn't actually have an intelligent answer or reply, especially considering there are quite a few more "eastern" states than the ones that existed before the Federal government. Basically wasted everyone's time with a pointless reply that still hasn't addressed my question in anyway.

Gotcha

 

[lozina]

So you didn't actually have an intelligent answer or reply, especially considering there are quite a few more "eastern" states than the ones that existed before the Federal government. Basically wasted everyone's time with a pointless reply that still hasn't addressed my question in anyway.

Gotcha

You are complaining about my rhetorical response to his rhetorical response?

edit - pretty sure you mis-quoted a post

 

[Darwin333]

The federal govt should have to pay property tax for the federal land.

Oooh, good point!

 

[Vic]

The majority of it will end up private land, like it's supposed to be. Like it is for the majority of the country. If it works for most of the country, it will work for the western states.

I am more than open to the federal lands in the west being privatized. Provided that the federal government disposes of those lands by selling them at fair market value. Preferably by auction. With the proceeds going directly to pay down the public debt.

But that's not what you're wanting, now is it?

And conservatives say that only liberals want 'free stuff' from the federal government. Yeah right.

 

[lozina]

I am more than open to the federal lands in the west being privatized. Provided that the federal government disposes of those lands by selling them at fair market value. Preferably by auction. With the proceeds going directly to pay down the public debt.

But that's not what you're wanting, now is it?

And conservatives say that only liberals want 'free stuff' from the federal government. Yeah right.

I think that's a fair solution too.

Maybe have some perks for residents of Utah to get a pre-sale before it opens up to the nation.

It's certainly better than the federal government maintaining all that land.

 

[Zorba]

Oooh, good point!

Property taxes pay for local schools, junior colleges, libraries, fire departments, etc. None of that is provided for on federal land, so there would be no property tax either way.

 

[IronWing]

Property taxes pay for local schools, junior colleges, libraries, fire departments, etc. None of that is provided for on federal land, so there would be no property tax either way.

Payments in lieu of taxes

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, they've done a pretty good job with the more well known beautiful national parks.

Although I don't live in the West, over the years the occasional article that comes to my attention has indicated that there is more going in western federal lands than merely protecting it as they do with our better known national parks. IIRC, corporations, likely fueled by lobby money, have been allowed to build solar plants etc. Harry Reid seems to have been involved in some shenanigans with federal law where he, or his friends and family, have profited. So there is more to it than the feds holding on to it for national park purposes.

I think an objective study should be done and those lands that are truly deserving of national park status should be designated so (if not already) and retained by the US gov. The rest should be transferred to the states as promised. I have driven and camped all through those Western states and not all of it is national park material. I don't believe the federal gov has any business holding land that isn't suitable for national park status (or military bases etc.).

In an effort to grow the early nation we relied upon the 'territory' model and that was fine for its purpose. But somehow the Western states were not ceded their land, unlike the others who were not in the original 13 and that should be corrected.

(Yes, the US should keep the land out there for existing military installations etc too.)

Fern

You really know very little about western lands & how they came to be settled. The truth is that between 1812 & ~100 years later, the federal govt was in the business of giving away or selling at nominal prices all of the West. The land that people wanted for agricultural purposes & mining at the time was patented through a variety of mechanisms. What remained in federal hands was mostly very marginal, very remote, or both.

Their zeal led to attempts at farming that never should have been allowed, leading to the dust bowl and also to enormous degradation of grazing lands in general, leading to the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. Prior to that, ranchers used adjacent federal lands as their own, often overgrazing all of it. Part of that was honest issues of perception, change hard to appreciate over a single human lifetime. Part of it was remote corporate ownership beating the cash out of it from New York & London, as well. When the land was pushed so hard it wouldn't support cattle ranching very well, they brought in sheep. When sheep herding also became unprofitable, they left it to the wind. Much the same can be said for mining & timbering operations, as well. Rich people got richer from assets they never even saw.

All of that became obvious over time, leading to the necessity of better management. Some of it was obvious to people who actually gave a damn about it 100 years ago, reflecting the changing reality.

So we all know what's in it today for those same capitalist enterprises. This time it's about gas & oil. They're paying the politicians to make this effort on their behalf, make no mistake about that.

What's in it for the current owners, the rest of America? Some feel good libertopian victory for small gubmint? Some moralistic sense of satisfaction in satisfying the desires of the Job Creators? Some delusion that they actually stand to benefit?

 

[lozina]

You really know very little about western lands & how they came to be settled. The truth is that between 1812 & ~100 years later, the federal govt was in the business of giving away or selling at nominal prices all of the West. The land that people wanted for agricultural purposes & mining at the time was patented through a variety of mechanisms. What remained in federal hands was mostly very marginal, very remote, or both.

Their zeal led to attempts at farming that never should have been allowed, leading to the dust bowl and also to enormous degradation of grazing lands in general, leading to the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. Prior to that, ranchers used adjacent federal lands as their own, often overgrazing all of it. Part of that was honest issues of perception, change hard to appreciate over a single human lifetime. Part of it was remote corporate ownership beating the cash out of it from New York & London, as well. When the land was pushed so hard it wouldn't support cattle ranching very well, they brought in sheep. When sheep herding also became unprofitable, they left it to the wind. Much the same can be said for mining & timbering operations, as well. Rich people got richer from assets they never even saw.

All of that became obvious over time, leading to the necessity of better management. Some of it was obvious to people who actually gave a damn about it 100 years ago, reflecting the changing reality.

So we all know what's in it today for those same capitalist enterprises. This time it's about gas & oil. They're paying the politicians to make this effort on their behalf, make no mistake about that.

What's in it for the current owners, the rest of America? Some feel good libertopian victory for small gubmint? Some moralistic sense of satisfaction in satisfying the desires of the Job Creators? Some delusion that they actually stand to benefit?

Seriously? You're citing the Dust Bowl as a reason for keeping the lands in the West under the fed?

Did you yell out "Go go Gadget arms" before reaching for that one?

 

[Jhhnn]

Seriously? You're citing the Dust Bowl as a reason for keeping the lands in the West under the fed?

Did you yell out "Go go Gadget arms" before reaching for that one?

And you're seriously dodging the point that transferring those lands to private ownership, essentially what you propose, didn't cause the dustbowl? That vast western acreages overgrazed generations ago aren't still degraded today?

I mean, more of the same couldn't possibly lead to more of the same, could it?

Not in Libertopian Glenbeckistan, anyway.

 

[lozina]

And you're seriously dodging the point that transferring those lands to private ownership, essentially what you propose, didn't cause the dustbowl? That vast western acreages overgrazed generations ago aren't still degraded today?

I mean, more of the same couldn't possibly lead to more of the same, could it?

Not in Libertopian Glenbeckistan, anyway.

Yes, let's keep the lands under Federal control because in the 1930s there was a severe drought which combined with destructive farming practices caused severe dust storms...

How is this relevant to Federal vs state / public vs private ownership?

Are you arguing against yourself because as far as I know these same lands were under Federal "ownership" during this time, was it not? What's this have to do with the lands in the Rocky's and west ?

Maybe you thought you were posting in the "Should the Federal government confiscate all farmland" thread ?

 

[Darwin333]

I will drop this right here: Percentage of land ownership

Louisiana is 4.97% owned by the Federal Government, 2.67% state owned. So please stop spinning this as the states getting and controlling all the land. If not the feds it'll be the corporations. If you think Lake Meed is low now, just wait until private companies own all of the Colorado River watershed.

BTW: 63.12% of Utah is Federal, than leaves ~37% but the state only owns 7.27%. So again, I don't think Utah is going to hold all that land for the public good.

The difference is that the state of Louisiana collects, or has the ability to collect, property taxes from roughly 90% of the territory within its borders. The Feds don't pay property taxes or any other taxes. As a matter of fact the paying part is the only part of taxes that they aren't very involved in.

 

[Darwin333]

Property taxes pay for local schools, junior colleges, libraries, fire departments, etc. None of that is provided for on federal land, so there would be no property tax either way.

My use of services that my tax dollars are spent on has been completely irrelevant, in my experience at least, to the taxes I must pay. Nor have I or anyone else I know been given an option to "opt out". Just saying...

 

[IronWing]

The difference is that the state of Louisiana collects, or has the ability to collect, property taxes from roughly 90% of the territory within its borders. The Feds don't pay property taxes or any other taxes. As a matter of fact the paying part is the only part of taxes that they aren't very involved in.

One more time. In addition to these payments in lieu of taxes, the feds also share oil, gas, coal, sand, gravel, timber revenues derived from the public lands with local governments.