Almost Every Republican Senator Just Voted To Sell Off Your National Forests

  • metta

    Posts: 38651

    Apr 10, 2015 7:57 PM GMT
    Almost Every Republican Senator Just Voted To Sell Off Your National Forests
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4360

    Apr 10, 2015 8:16 PM GMT
    Do the Republicans have no interest in anything constructive? All they do is posture. And pander. It's sickening.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2015 9:07 PM GMT
    The story is somewhere between extremely misleading and a flat out lie. Easterners don't even comprehend the situation, which is why these pressure groups get away with this kind of propaganda.

    The National Forests aren't going anywhere. The fact is, the federal government owns more than half of the land in the west. Almost all of some states. Random incompetent bureaucrats can and do throw whole regions into depression on the basis of urban legends and management fads. They don't pay taxes. They keep whole regions in poverty. That's behind the resentment in all western states. The federal holdings could easily shrink a bit - or even a lot - without making any difference to the nation's forests.

    All of the National Forests and other management units engage in real estate activity. Sometimes they are trying to consolidate their holdings. Sometimes they gain control over random bits of land through historical accidents, donations, and bits that "just come along with the deal." So-called "environmental groups" have been buying up ranches, farms, and private timber lands, splitting off a few "country estates" for the McMansion crowd, and reselling the rest to the National Forests at a guaranteed profit. But the National Forests have no business holding farms and ranches and lots in town. That land should be sold and returned to the tax base. That's what the current bill is about.

  • metta

    Posts: 38651

    Apr 10, 2015 9:09 PM GMT
    Thanks for the clarification.

    I enjoy living next to open spaces. Right now I live against a National Monument, which is exempt from the bill. But I eventually plan on moving to another area, hopefully next to open space. I would hate to move to a new place and find that they change the zoning on it for development.

    I'm thankful for that over 45% of the land in California not being up for development.

    What in the bill would stop the government from being able to sell off land in the actual forests? I would like to see some examples of where the National Forests are lots/farms in towns with explanations of how they got them and what the plans are for those properties. Could they have been done to protect endangered species, for parks, etc.?

    A National Forest/Monument runs against the city I live in and everyone, with the possible exception of developers, wants that land to remain open space. Some of the developments in areas next to the forests have had to donate land to conservancy's and the forestry service in order to get approval of getting their property developed. The development I live in, several hundred acres went to a conservancy. But to be honest, most of the land that has been donated would be too costly to build due to the steepness of the mountains.....many areas are as steep as 85 degrees up...going 500 to over 1,000 feet up. It gives us pretty dramatic views in the canyon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 10, 2015 10:32 PM GMT
    mindgarden saidmap-of-federal-land-in-the-us.jpg

    I was surprised to see just 8% Federal in Florida as I always thought quite a bit more was public land here, including much of the property where I've biked over many years, owned by our various water management districts.

    So I did a quick google and found this (which turns out to be the page with your map on it):
    In Florida the federal government owns 4,536,811 acres or 13.1% of the Sunshine State. This is an increase from 2004 when the federal government owned 8.2% of Florida. It is estimated that 33% of Florida is owned by the federal, state and local governments.

    One issue I have sounds the reverse of what you've described in that on our last ballot was an initiative which passed--I believe overwhelmingly--to buy up wetlands as they become available from private into public holdings.

    This was probably my very first time voting against what looked on the surface like an ecological bill. The reason I didn't vote for it is because I don't know all the facts and I was suspicious of what was being presented as facts.

    My point being is why would I vote to spend all that money to buy private wetlands which by their nature in Florida are low-lying and thereby likely the first to flood as oceans rise. So to me it looks like not a land grab for increasing public lands but a money grab for the sellers who have probably had those swaths of land in their families for generations, well, what a great time to bail, when there will be more water than can be bailed.