4 ms·

I hope that's not the plan. If you like to go outside, Texas is incredibly boring compared to Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, or even California. Everything

I hope that's not the plan. If you like to go outside, Texas is incredibly boring compared to Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, or even California. Everything is privately owned, so even though Texas is nearly entirely unpopulated land, there's nowhere to go.

janderson215 2y ago
Not exactly apples to apples. A small percentage of Texas is mountains and unique geographical relative to NV, AZ, and UT.
- ajross 2y ago
  I'd pay to see a well-conserved original plains ecosystem in park form. The fact that Texas is all boring farms is the bug, it's not like they were made farms simply by being "not mountains". Someone decided to make all the land farms, and therefore someone decided they didn't want any parks. And that sucks.
  - huang_chung 2y ago
    Practically speaking, what else can you do with such land? Turn it into the world's largest roller skating rink?
    - DarknessFalls 2y ago
      Why the urgency to "do" anything at all?
      - ty6853 2y ago
        Because as we've seen the 'public' land is actually materially controlled by a tiny minority, many of whom are in cahoots with corporate interests, which is now coming to a head. Since it generates next to no revenue as a public park it doesn't take much cash by exploiters to curry interest. If it isn't doing anything profitable nor in the private hands of say some rancher that will chase off ne'er do wells it is in jeopardy to whoever has greatest access to corruption.
        stickfigure 2y ago
        This is such a weird objection. I'm sure national forests and BLM lands could be better managed, sure. But I can still camp, bike, motorcycle, raft, canoe, swim, hike, climb, ski, etc etc etc. I'd rather have poorly managed land I can use than a bunch of no trespassing signs.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    It would be nice if it were more accessible, but for a cup of coffee a day you can get an annual hunting lease and more or less treat it as a personal park. There is a vast assortment of them available in Texas, some complete with cabins etc.
    - stickfigure 2y ago
      Sure, but how long is it going to take you to get bored of the same couple hundred acres? A large part of the joy of outdoor recreation is exploring new places. And meeting occasional people.
- stickfigure 2y ago
  The plains of Nevada are plenty interesting, and aren't so different from the plains of Texas.
skissane 2y ago
One source [0] says Texas is 4.2% public lands. Although that's near the bottom of the list, it is equal with Ohio, and ahead of Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Rhode Island. (These are 1991 figures though, so maybe things have changed in the last 30+ years.) You mention as comparators Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and California – those are all what are called "Western public land states" – the federal government acquired most of them by armed conquest or purchase of Mexican territory, and hence is the original landowner for the majority of the state (the US recognised some pre-conquest/purchase land ownership, so some land titles go back to Mexican or Spanish land grants, but that's a minority of their area). Congress then organized those areas into territories, and then admitted them as states – but the federal government remained a major landowner post-statehood. And many of these states still have significant federal public lands to this day. (There are also the Eastern public land states, whose lands were acquired by the federal government either through being ceded by the 13 original states, or by such events as the Louisiana and Florida purchases.) By contrast, other states are what are called "private land states", since the federal government was never a major landowner in them. This includes the original 13 colonies. It also includes Texas, because Texas declared independence from Mexico, and then after some years of independence, applied to enter the US as a state. Mexican public lands became public lands of the Republic of Texas, and their ownership was then inherited by the Texas state government (The Texas Lands Commissioner), not the federal government. All the federal lands in Texas have been acquired post-statehood, either by purchase or eminent domain. Similarly, although Hawaii has extensive public lands, they are mostly owned by the state not federal government, since the Kingdom of Hawaii's public lands passed to the State of Hawaii not the federal government, making it like Texas a private land state. Private land states tend to have significantly less public land than public land states, but it varies – both Nebraska and Nevada are Western public land states, but over 80% of Nevada is public land, Nebraska is near the bottom of the list. I believe that's because the federal government decided to sell or grant most of the federal lands in Nebraska into private ownership, but decided to retain most federal lands in Nevada. [0] https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentages-by-us-states/186111 https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentag...
- defrost 2y ago
  > Private land states tend to have significantly less public land than public land states How are they off for "peppercorn rents" as defacto public lands? Here, Western Australia, an initially British colony, there are several major urban parks the were deeded to the city in exchange for a peppercorn rent subject to usage constraints. These are in a murky area, many are currently listed as public owned, owned by the city (or specific city council), but have been "conditionally gazzetted" and might revert back to original owning families (after several intervening generations) should the land usage change (eg: building apartments on land conditionally gifted for public gardens). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(law)

janderson215 2y ago

Not exactly apples to apples. A small percentage of Texas is mountains and unique geographical relative to NV, AZ, and UT.

ajross 2y ago
I'd pay to see a well-conserved original plains ecosystem in park form. The fact that Texas is all boring farms is the bug, it's not like they were made farms simply by being "not mountains". Someone decided to make all the land farms, and therefore someone decided they didn't want any parks. And that sucks.
- huang_chung 2y ago
  Practically speaking, what else can you do with such land? Turn it into the world's largest roller skating rink?
  - DarknessFalls 2y ago
    Why the urgency to "do" anything at all?
    - ty6853 2y ago
      Because as we've seen the 'public' land is actually materially controlled by a tiny minority, many of whom are in cahoots with corporate interests, which is now coming to a head. Since it generates next to no revenue as a public park it doesn't take much cash by exploiters to curry interest. If it isn't doing anything profitable nor in the private hands of say some rancher that will chase off ne'er do wells it is in jeopardy to whoever has greatest access to corruption.
      - stickfigure 2y ago
        This is such a weird objection. I'm sure national forests and BLM lands could be better managed, sure. But I can still camp, bike, motorcycle, raft, canoe, swim, hike, climb, ski, etc etc etc. I'd rather have poorly managed land I can use than a bunch of no trespassing signs.
- ty6853 2y ago
  It would be nice if it were more accessible, but for a cup of coffee a day you can get an annual hunting lease and more or less treat it as a personal park. There is a vast assortment of them available in Texas, some complete with cabins etc.
  - stickfigure 2y ago
    Sure, but how long is it going to take you to get bored of the same couple hundred acres? A large part of the joy of outdoor recreation is exploring new places. And meeting occasional people.
stickfigure 2y ago
The plains of Nevada are plenty interesting, and aren't so different from the plains of Texas.

skissane 2y ago

One source [0] says Texas is 4.2% public lands. Although that's near the bottom of the list, it is equal with Ohio, and ahead of Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Rhode Island. (These are 1991 figures though, so maybe things have changed in the last 30+ years.) You mention as comparators Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and California – those are all what are called "Western public land states" – the federal government acquired most of them by armed conquest or purchase of Mexican territory, and hence is the original landowner for the majority of the state (the US recognised some pre-conquest/purchase land ownership, so some land titles go back to Mexican or Spanish land grants, but that's a minority of their area). Congress then organized those areas into territories, and then admitted them as states – but the federal government remained a major landowner post-statehood. And many of these states still have significant federal public lands to this day. (There are also the Eastern public land states, whose lands were acquired by the federal government either through being ceded by the 13 original states, or by such events as the Louisiana and Florida purchases.) By contrast, other states are what are called "private land states", since the federal government was never a major landowner in them. This includes the original 13 colonies. It also includes Texas, because Texas declared independence from Mexico, and then after some years of independence, applied to enter the US as a state. Mexican public lands became public lands of the Republic of Texas, and their ownership was then inherited by the Texas state government (The Texas Lands Commissioner), not the federal government. All the federal lands in Texas have been acquired post-statehood, either by purchase or eminent domain. Similarly, although Hawaii has extensive public lands, they are mostly owned by the state not federal government, since the Kingdom of Hawaii's public lands passed to the State of Hawaii not the federal government, making it like Texas a private land state. Private land states tend to have significantly less public land than public land states, but it varies – both Nebraska and Nevada are Western public land states, but over 80% of Nevada is public land, Nebraska is near the bottom of the list. I believe that's because the federal government decided to sell or grant most of the federal lands in Nebraska into private ownership, but decided to retain most federal lands in Nevada. [0] https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentages-by-us-states/186111 https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentag...

defrost 2y ago
> Private land states tend to have significantly less public land than public land states How are they off for "peppercorn rents" as defacto public lands? Here, Western Australia, an initially British colony, there are several major urban parks the were deeded to the city in exchange for a peppercorn rent subject to usage constraints. These are in a murky area, many are currently listed as public owned, owned by the city (or specific city council), but have been "conditionally gazzetted" and might revert back to original owning families (after several intervening generations) should the land usage change (eg: building apartments on land conditionally gifted for public gardens). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(law)