4 ms·
Yet the job of the government isn't to sell the land for cheap; it's for public enjoyment or economic investment that benefits the public, such as roads, railro
by turndown 10y ago
Yet the job of the government isn't to sell the land for cheap; it's for public enjoyment or economic investment that benefits the public, such as roads, railroads, the power grid, etc. It should not be sold so a wealthy few can get it for cheap, then reap the economic reward with little return for the public.
- maxerickson 10y agoThe government spent more than 100 years giving away land to those willing to work it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts A lot of National Forest land ends up being land that no one thought was worth homesteading. Compare the small, quite new national forest in warm, fertile Ohio to the vast national forests in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Which doesn't mean I think the government is beholden to past policy, I think maintaining large tracts of land is a valuable role for the Federal Government to take up, it's just that casting it as 'the job' is a bit of an overstatement.
- pzone 10y agoWho says they're not going to sell at transparent and fair prices? Land is sold in public markets, it's not hard to tell if there's any cronyism. The public owns land with a certain value, a lot of that land is not being used for much in particular, the public will benefit more by having the cash in hand than some claim to random acres out in North Dakota. The public is absolutely getting a return, nobody's "getting it for cheap."
- orasis 10y agoRandom fantastic pheasant hunting acres in North Dakota?