3 ms·
It's totally not fun when the landowner gets to impose rules on the land they own. Whether the landowner (feds) in this case should own so much land west of th
by tomohawk 7y ago
It's totally not fun when the landowner gets to impose rules on the land they own.
Whether the landowner (feds) in this case should own so much land west of the Mississippi is a whole other thing. A strong argument can be made that the over ownership of land by the feds is completely unfair and likely unconstitutional.
- pseudolus 7y agoOwnership of significant portions of Western States (close to 85% in the case of Nevada [0]) has long been a complaint but is unequivocally constitutional inasmuch as many of the Western states were created from Federal land and the Constitution explicitly grants the Federal Government the right to regulate and dispose of the land as it sees fit. Also, a positive aspect to Federal land ownership is the creation of massive National Parks in many of the states where the Federal Government is a significant land owner. Such parks would have been unlikely if ownership of the land had been vested in the states themselves which traditionally have lobbied to have the land deployed more "productively" (agriculture, mining, etc). This is an ongoing issue in such places as Utah where local state officials have lobbied, and succeeded, in having the the size of Federal lands reduced. [0] https://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8046349/federal-government-lan.. https://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8046349/federal-government-lan....
- gshdg 7y agoDoes that change if you reframe federal ownership as collective ownership of the land by the people of the US, for the public good? Because that’s what it is.
- Fjolsvith 7y agoSo, work to change the rules through the legislative process.