7 ms·

I’m sympathetic to the view that this is bad, then I recall the 80% of Nevada is owned by the federal government. 80% !!! Over 50% of Oregon, and over 60% for

I’m sympathetic to the view that this is bad, then I recall the 80% of Nevada is owned by the federal government. 80% !!! Over 50% of Oregon, and over 60% for Utah https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state

partiallypro 1y ago
The government is going to sell it to whoever is in office's buddies and they are going to strip mine and log it. Most of Nevada and Utah are uninhabitable, but perfect for corporations that don't want to abide by environmental laws. It's actually hilariously insulting that Mike Lee is saying this is to help solve the housing crisis as if someone is going to build a housing development with no water or road access. I even have libertarian diehard friends that are against this sale, if for nothing else than the fact you -can not- trust the government to sell it in a legitimate non-corrupt manner.
- klipt 1y ago
  I guess your libertarian die hard friends didn't read about Project 2025 before voting for Trump? July 2024 article: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/what_project_2025_means_for_public_lands_and_waters https://www.backcountryhunters.org/what_project_2025_means_f...
  - shwaj 1y ago
    So smug. Unless you’re replying to someone you know (and my apologies if so), how do you know their die hard libertarian friends voted for Trump?
    - klipt 1y ago
      Just an informed guess.
      - freedomben 1y ago
        I know a lot of staunch libertarians, and maybe 20% (if that) voted for Trump. And of that 20%, about 95% were voting for him because they accepted the false dichotomy of Kamala or Trump. There are plenty of valid criticisms of libertarians IMHO, but supporting Trump isn't really one of them.
        more_corn 1y ago
        Most of the libertarians I know voted for trump and pretend that they did so to vote against Harris. But that’s probably because they don’t want to take responsibility for what the voted into office.
  - partiallypro 1y ago
    They didn't vote for Trump, so now what? People that try to paint people into a political corner should really get out more. Not only is it annoying and off-putting, it's an intellectual dead end.
Glyptodon 1y ago
Keep in mind that federal ownership doesn't mean that the land can't be used productively or generate revenue. Mineral rights, range leases, and many more things don't require selling the land. Having large regions close to their natural state is also a priceless treasure, and checker-boarding them, or ruining the view at national parks, is a real net negative. (That said, I do think there probably are federal lands it could make sense to sell. But I have no confidence coming up with an arbitrary amount of land to sell to raise revenue is a good policy.) Also keep in mind, that transforming some of these areas to residential use might have complicated impacts on water use and wetlands, though presumably less than agriculture would.
plantwallshoe 1y ago
You say that like there is some inherent reason that it’s bad. Federal land belongs to you, to me, to all Americans. This land belongs our children. We’re selling it off to pay for tax cuts for the super wealthy.
- wingspar 1y ago
  Is it a travesty that 0.8% of New York is owned by the federal government? 80% is inherently too much.
  - plantwallshoe 1y ago
    Why?
  - tokai 1y ago
    You have stated that twice now, but not explained why you think so.
  - wwfn 1y ago
    .8% is a bit misleading. Public Land is 37% (as of 1991) [1] of the state. The ADK park is state owned/managed and huge. Catskill region also has lots of public land. They're both amazing places I'm happy don't look like the US side of Niagara falls [2] [1]: https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentages-by-us-states/186111#:~:text=62.5%25-,13,62.9%25,-14 https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentag... [2] https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/runte1/prologue.htm#:~:text=%22your%20niagara%20will%20have%20been%20spoiled%20for%20you.%20already%20the%20forest%20round%20about%20is%20being%20cleared...%20.%20i%20don't%20give%20the%20americans%20ten%20years%20to%20establish%20a%20saw%20or%20flour%20mill%20at%20the%20base%20of%20the%20cataract.%22 https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/runte1/prologue...
  - yongjik 1y ago
    New Amsterdam was founded on 1624, ~150 years before the federal government. You're comparing apples and oranges.
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
rurp 1y ago
Why would those numbers mitigate how bad this is? Public land is awesome and open to everyone. These areas are currently used by millions of hikers, hunters, ranchers, miners, researchers, campers, OHVers, and so many other groups. These sales will close the land to a few wealthy people/businesses, or be destroyed by extractive industries. Once these areas are sold they will be lost forever, after being open for generations. All so billionaires, who currently pay a lower effective tax rate than most HN posters, can pay even less.
- socalgal2 1y ago
  > These areas are currently used by millions of hikers, hunters, ranchers, miners, researchers, campers, OHVers, and so many other groups. Do you have evidence that "most" of Nevada's 80% "public lands" are used by "millions"?
  - esseph 1y ago
    5.5 million a year, ackshually, and that information looks dated from back in 2008. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/InterimCommittee/REL/Document/21166 https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/InterimCommittee/REL/Documen... Red Rock gets over 3 million visitors a year by itself. https://www.blm.gov/visit/red-rock-canyon-national-conservation-area-scenic-drive-timed-entry?hl=en-US-u-fw-mon-mu-fahrenhe https://www.blm.gov/visit/red-rock-canyon-national-conservat... Do you have evidence it is not?
    - socalgal2 1y ago
      We have a different definition of use 80% of public lands. afaict your links show 5.5 million people using 1% of public land.
      - esseph 1y ago
        It does say there are millions using BLM land in Nevada every year. Maybe that means something to you. Maybe it does not. I don't care either way.
tokai 1y ago
I don't get why recalling that change your mind. If anything its a reason for not selling any land to keep so much control on public hands.
abeppu 1y ago
Nevada became US territory through the treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, and the US paid per acre ceded. Who should it have gone to? Lots of people fought in the Mexican-American war, and the military was funded by taxpayers. Is it wrong for it to become public land in that context? And frankly Nevada is mostly land that no one wanted. Because it's mostly in the endorheic basin, and the soil is not great for agriculture. The BLM will let you graze animals without having to buy the land, and because it's so arid and pasture use will degrade the existing vegetation, IIUC it wouldn't make sense to purchase. I think federal ownership is kind of natural when the nation wants territorial control, but the land itself isn't capable of being productive.

partiallypro 1y ago

The government is going to sell it to whoever is in office's buddies and they are going to strip mine and log it. Most of Nevada and Utah are uninhabitable, but perfect for corporations that don't want to abide by environmental laws. It's actually hilariously insulting that Mike Lee is saying this is to help solve the housing crisis as if someone is going to build a housing development with no water or road access. I even have libertarian diehard friends that are against this sale, if for nothing else than the fact you -can not- trust the government to sell it in a legitimate non-corrupt manner.

klipt 1y ago
I guess your libertarian die hard friends didn't read about Project 2025 before voting for Trump? July 2024 article: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/what_project_2025_means_for_public_lands_and_waters https://www.backcountryhunters.org/what_project_2025_means_f...
- shwaj 1y ago
  So smug. Unless you’re replying to someone you know (and my apologies if so), how do you know their die hard libertarian friends voted for Trump?
  - klipt 1y ago
    Just an informed guess.
    - freedomben 1y ago
      I know a lot of staunch libertarians, and maybe 20% (if that) voted for Trump. And of that 20%, about 95% were voting for him because they accepted the false dichotomy of Kamala or Trump. There are plenty of valid criticisms of libertarians IMHO, but supporting Trump isn't really one of them.
      - more_corn 1y ago
        Most of the libertarians I know voted for trump and pretend that they did so to vote against Harris. But that’s probably because they don’t want to take responsibility for what the voted into office.
- partiallypro 1y ago
  They didn't vote for Trump, so now what? People that try to paint people into a political corner should really get out more. Not only is it annoying and off-putting, it's an intellectual dead end.

Glyptodon 1y ago

Keep in mind that federal ownership doesn't mean that the land can't be used productively or generate revenue. Mineral rights, range leases, and many more things don't require selling the land. Having large regions close to their natural state is also a priceless treasure, and checker-boarding them, or ruining the view at national parks, is a real net negative. (That said, I do think there probably are federal lands it could make sense to sell. But I have no confidence coming up with an arbitrary amount of land to sell to raise revenue is a good policy.) Also keep in mind, that transforming some of these areas to residential use might have complicated impacts on water use and wetlands, though presumably less than agriculture would.

plantwallshoe 1y ago

You say that like there is some inherent reason that it’s bad. Federal land belongs to you, to me, to all Americans. This land belongs our children. We’re selling it off to pay for tax cuts for the super wealthy.

wingspar 1y ago
Is it a travesty that 0.8% of New York is owned by the federal government? 80% is inherently too much.
- plantwallshoe 1y ago
  Why?
- tokai 1y ago
  You have stated that twice now, but not explained why you think so.
- wwfn 1y ago
  .8% is a bit misleading. Public Land is 37% (as of 1991) [1] of the state. The ADK park is state owned/managed and huge. Catskill region also has lots of public land. They're both amazing places I'm happy don't look like the US side of Niagara falls [2] [1]: https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentages-by-us-states/186111#:~:text=62.5%25-,13,62.9%25,-14 https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentag... [2] https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/runte1/prologue.htm#:~:text=%22your%20niagara%20will%20have%20been%20spoiled%20for%20you.%20already%20the%20forest%20round%20about%20is%20being%20cleared...%20.%20i%20don't%20give%20the%20americans%20ten%20years%20to%20establish%20a%20saw%20or%20flour%20mill%20at%20the%20base%20of%20the%20cataract.%22 https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/runte1/prologue...
- yongjik 1y ago
  New Amsterdam was founded on 1624, ~150 years before the federal government. You're comparing apples and oranges.
bigstrat2003 1y ago

rurp 1y ago

Why would those numbers mitigate how bad this is? Public land is awesome and open to everyone. These areas are currently used by millions of hikers, hunters, ranchers, miners, researchers, campers, OHVers, and so many other groups. These sales will close the land to a few wealthy people/businesses, or be destroyed by extractive industries. Once these areas are sold they will be lost forever, after being open for generations. All so billionaires, who currently pay a lower effective tax rate than most HN posters, can pay even less.

socalgal2 1y ago
> These areas are currently used by millions of hikers, hunters, ranchers, miners, researchers, campers, OHVers, and so many other groups. Do you have evidence that "most" of Nevada's 80% "public lands" are used by "millions"?
- esseph 1y ago
  5.5 million a year, ackshually, and that information looks dated from back in 2008. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/InterimCommittee/REL/Document/21166 https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/InterimCommittee/REL/Documen... Red Rock gets over 3 million visitors a year by itself. https://www.blm.gov/visit/red-rock-canyon-national-conservation-area-scenic-drive-timed-entry?hl=en-US-u-fw-mon-mu-fahrenhe https://www.blm.gov/visit/red-rock-canyon-national-conservat... Do you have evidence it is not?
  - socalgal2 1y ago
    We have a different definition of use 80% of public lands. afaict your links show 5.5 million people using 1% of public land.
    - esseph 1y ago
      It does say there are millions using BLM land in Nevada every year. Maybe that means something to you. Maybe it does not. I don't care either way.

tokai 1y ago

I don't get why recalling that change your mind. If anything its a reason for not selling any land to keep so much control on public hands.

abeppu 1y ago

Nevada became US territory through the treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, and the US paid per acre ceded. Who should it have gone to? Lots of people fought in the Mexican-American war, and the military was funded by taxpayers. Is it wrong for it to become public land in that context? And frankly Nevada is mostly land that no one wanted. Because it's mostly in the endorheic basin, and the soil is not great for agriculture. The BLM will let you graze animals without having to buy the land, and because it's so arid and pasture use will degrade the existing vegetation, IIUC it wouldn't make sense to purchase. I think federal ownership is kind of natural when the nation wants territorial control, but the land itself isn't capable of being productive.