4 ms·

Looking at the HN comments, I think the key problem here is in individual tastes. Whatever you do, the land has to be managed. "Managed" can mean a dozen thing

Looking at the HN comments, I think the key problem here is in individual tastes. Whatever you do, the land has to be managed. "Managed" can mean a dozen things to a dozen people. Some folks want it completely untouched. Some folks want to manage it as perhaps a farmer or rancher would. Some folks want a place to ride ATVs and raise hell. Political systems exist for political reasons. That is the only reason they exist. Lately, any political system in the States is going to gravitate towards one group throwing mud at another group. So, to address your first sentence, I do not believe there is any way for this not to be political. Perhaps the key question instead is this: at what level of politics should these decisions take place? Should everything happen at the national level? If so, why? Personally, I'd prefer a limit of thirds between national, state, and local governments. That way any one political group doesn't start monopolizing all the power. It shouldn't be possible for us to have a single election at any level of government and decide how to treat huge sections of public land. For that reason alone, I'm against the current trend of federalizing everything. It's not because I want the land to be commercialized. In fact, I want just the opposite. But those are my tastes. I understand others have their own views. Let's stay as far away as possible from more winner-take-all political structures.

ethbro 10y ago
Between the viable options, I'll say that at least lobbying for unfair largess from the federal government is more expensive and takes more finesse. Some of the giveaways from state legislatures boggle the mind.
- fittingin 10y ago
  They boggle your mind. But they represent the will of the people. I live in a small desert community that was largely agricultural in my youth. Today, most of the water rights have been sold away and most of the farm land has been developed for other uses. I think it is unfortunate. Sometimes I think the remaining farm land should be protected from development. But I do not own the land, and I did not do all the work to turn it into farm land. I believe the owners of the property have the right to do as they decide for themselves. So, if I really want the land to be preserved, I can try to raise millions of dollars and buy the land from the farmers. But I can't otherwise just block them from selling it to a developer. If you think state officials mismanage public lands and would prefer the feds to mismanage it, the feds should buy it from the state. This should not be a forced sale, either. If a state has willingly sold its land to the feds... well, I guess they can't complain. Can you tell me how the federal government came to own 80+% of Nevada? Ask the Sheahans [1] and the Bundys [2]. Edit: Corrected typo [1] http://origin-stage.reviewjournal.com/news/military/family-fighting-land-seizure-accuses-us-bullying-tactics http://origin-stage.reviewjournal.com/news/military/family-f... [2] http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/16/why-does-federal-government-own-84-of-nevada-and-what-can-reid-do-to-give-it-back-112757 http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/16/why-does-federal-gove...
  - ethbro 10y ago
    I was referring to something like this [1]. I imagine there's a lot of mining, oil, and forestry state contracts that look the same way. Private land is private land. If farmers want to sell it to condo developers they (albeit sadly) can. My problem is that state government is largely unprofessional. Say what you want about the revolving door in DC between public and private, but state governments make that look downright respectable: generally instead there's kickback + sneaking an agreement in at the last moment + underfunded local news not noticing = public gets screwed and someone gets a cushy private sector job next year. [1] http://www.myajc.com/news/opinion/opinion-lease-deal-leaves-taxpayers-with-far-too-little/uspIcxOnvyJgbYqA0jpijK/ http://www.myajc.com/news/opinion/opinion-lease-deal-leaves-...
  - s73ver 10y ago
    "They boggle your mind. But they represent the will of the people." How much can you actually say that. Were there polls done? Was it done by referendum?

ethbro 10y ago

Between the viable options, I'll say that at least lobbying for unfair largess from the federal government is more expensive and takes more finesse. Some of the giveaways from state legislatures boggle the mind.

fittingin 10y ago
They boggle your mind. But they represent the will of the people. I live in a small desert community that was largely agricultural in my youth. Today, most of the water rights have been sold away and most of the farm land has been developed for other uses. I think it is unfortunate. Sometimes I think the remaining farm land should be protected from development. But I do not own the land, and I did not do all the work to turn it into farm land. I believe the owners of the property have the right to do as they decide for themselves. So, if I really want the land to be preserved, I can try to raise millions of dollars and buy the land from the farmers. But I can't otherwise just block them from selling it to a developer. If you think state officials mismanage public lands and would prefer the feds to mismanage it, the feds should buy it from the state. This should not be a forced sale, either. If a state has willingly sold its land to the feds... well, I guess they can't complain. Can you tell me how the federal government came to own 80+% of Nevada? Ask the Sheahans [1] and the Bundys [2]. Edit: Corrected typo [1] http://origin-stage.reviewjournal.com/news/military/family-fighting-land-seizure-accuses-us-bullying-tactics http://origin-stage.reviewjournal.com/news/military/family-f... [2] http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/16/why-does-federal-government-own-84-of-nevada-and-what-can-reid-do-to-give-it-back-112757 http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/04/16/why-does-federal-gove...
- ethbro 10y ago
  I was referring to something like this [1]. I imagine there's a lot of mining, oil, and forestry state contracts that look the same way. Private land is private land. If farmers want to sell it to condo developers they (albeit sadly) can. My problem is that state government is largely unprofessional. Say what you want about the revolving door in DC between public and private, but state governments make that look downright respectable: generally instead there's kickback + sneaking an agreement in at the last moment + underfunded local news not noticing = public gets screwed and someone gets a cushy private sector job next year. [1] http://www.myajc.com/news/opinion/opinion-lease-deal-leaves-taxpayers-with-far-too-little/uspIcxOnvyJgbYqA0jpijK/ http://www.myajc.com/news/opinion/opinion-lease-deal-leaves-...
- s73ver 10y ago
  "They boggle your mind. But they represent the will of the people." How much can you actually say that. Were there polls done? Was it done by referendum?