3 ms·
> The story itself is liberal sensationalism. No. I think this is the tip of the iceberg for giving publicly own lands to the private sector, at no gain to the
by TYPE_FASTER 10y ago
> The story itself is liberal sensationalism.
No. I think this is the tip of the iceberg for giving publicly own lands to the private sector, at no gain to the people and a large gain to the new landowners for oil and mineral rights.
If you look on the web, you can find that some of these pushes to transfer public land are driven by campaign donations.
If the complaint is overgrazing, then make a push to stop leasing it for grazing.
- lend000 10y ago> no gain to the people They're not giving it away for free as I understand it. When the government takes money, the people get better stuff, according to at least one political party. However the current cheap lease rates are doing no good to the taxpayer: http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm > you can find that some of these pushes to transfer public land are driven by campaign donations So? See my previous comments -- some of this land is very profitable, and some of the land is great for recreational purposes. Why not try to find land where these least intersect and drive land designations in that way?
- TYPE_FASTER 10y agoSo really what we should do is raise the lease rates for grazing. The government gets more money, and we can still use the land. Win win!
- lend000 10y agoThe land is still degraded, making it less suitable for many kinds of recreation. If they sell land that they would otherwise lease, they are still making money (more than the current lease rates in fact) just on property tax... plus the land is less poorly managed and other land gets a more exclusive designation for recreation!