3 ms·

For "tenants" who make money off federal lands, rent-seeking seems a-okay. For "tenants" who are enjoying the view, then subsidization is great. There are too

For "tenants" who make money off federal lands, rent-seeking seems a-okay. For "tenants" who are enjoying the view, then subsidization is great. There are too many business exploiting the federal government for the best of both worlds. They will "lease" land, usually at a step discount to market rate, then still stiff the government. This turns out to be so much cheaper than owning the land, because if they don't pay property taxes, the government will auction off their land to someone who will make sure they get paid. See: people like Ammon Bundy.

bpodgursky 5y ago
The Ammon Bundy example is a good one — the BLM-managed lands have * always * been open for grazing for almost nothing, because — like I said — the only point is avoiding the tragedy of the commons. The federal government never gave people the option of buying that land for themselves! Now, people see people using federal land the way it was intended, and complain that the BLM isn't being a cost-effective landlord. And that's true... because that's a terrible thing for the BLM to become.
- specialist 5y ago
  What's your Ammon Bundy takeaway? That federal lands should be a free-for-all? I don't know about cost-effectiveness, or what that even means. In the case of BLM, they're just expediting the plunder of our natural resources for the benefit of a select few. (To say nothing of betraying their charter.) I don't expect BLM to be revenue positive. But I do expect them to charge fair prices in the open market. Because fair is fair.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    My take-away is that the BLM should charge a nominal fee and prevent overgrazing. > To say nothing of betraying their charter Their charter is absolutely to enable the extraction of resources from federal lands. It's a wild reinterpretation of history to claim otherwise. > But I do expect them to charge fair prices in the open market There is no "open market" for land; the BLM owns, for example 65% of Nevada, and huge amounts of Utah, Montana etc. If the US government was a telecom company, everyone here would be up in arms about monopoly price gouging if they tried to charge "market" rates, because consumers have no alternative!

bpodgursky 5y ago

The Ammon Bundy example is a good one — the BLM-managed lands have * always * been open for grazing for almost nothing, because — like I said — the only point is avoiding the tragedy of the commons. The federal government never gave people the option of buying that land for themselves! Now, people see people using federal land the way it was intended, and complain that the BLM isn't being a cost-effective landlord. And that's true... because that's a terrible thing for the BLM to become.

specialist 5y ago
What's your Ammon Bundy takeaway? That federal lands should be a free-for-all? I don't know about cost-effectiveness, or what that even means. In the case of BLM, they're just expediting the plunder of our natural resources for the benefit of a select few. (To say nothing of betraying their charter.) I don't expect BLM to be revenue positive. But I do expect them to charge fair prices in the open market. Because fair is fair.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  My take-away is that the BLM should charge a nominal fee and prevent overgrazing. > To say nothing of betraying their charter Their charter is absolutely to enable the extraction of resources from federal lands. It's a wild reinterpretation of history to claim otherwise. > But I do expect them to charge fair prices in the open market There is no "open market" for land; the BLM owns, for example 65% of Nevada, and huge amounts of Utah, Montana etc. If the US government was a telecom company, everyone here would be up in arms about monopoly price gouging if they tried to charge "market" rates, because consumers have no alternative!