Hidden Valley used to be private land ... it was REA at one time and even considered for a dam decades ago. I can't remember all the details off the top of my woozy retiree head, but it was acquired by the San Juan NF with the help of NGOs in the 1990s. Ben Nighthorse Campbell played a big part in securing the federal funding. There should be several articles in the Herald archives.
My friend and coworker, Paul Beaber, SJNF Realty Specialist, also played a huge part in making it happen. I remember taking a photo of Paul at the new FS entrance sign marking the boundary. One would hope it will remain public land. Hope is about all we have right now.
I've been a loyal paying subscriber here for a long time. This is one of my three earliest Substacks. Never have I felt so despairing and exhausted than I have now. It seems we are fighting rearguard battles on all sides and the enemies of democracy are winning, the privatizers are winning. What a mess. But we just have to keep up the fight in hope of better days. We don't have any other options that our grandchildren wouldn't despise us for taking
Senator Lee is mistakem that public lands are not serving Americans who live here. We Utahns love our public lands as they are now. 82% of westerners want to build housing near existing communities and only 14% support selling public lands. Public lands have been a boon to local communities economically. “From the early 1970s to the 2010s, western rural counties with the highest share of federal lands on average had faster population, employment, and personal income growth than their peers with the lowest share of federal lands. Per capita incomes grew somewhat faster.” In recreation, Public lands in the west account for 1.9 million jobs and $41 billion in visitor expenditures a years. Our National Forests account for 33% of our water supply in the west. Additionally, public lands provide water, clean air and other services and reflect an appreciated quality of life in the west essential to local communities and businesses.
For Utah, Senator Lee’s new legislation is in conflict with our needs, fails to solve the problems he identified, and ignores existing proven remedies.
"Affordable" to whom (or who). - Reducing checkerboard patterns - inefficient to "manage"?
Sure!
This entire administration AND Congress AND Senate only care about power and what financial benefit THEY can get out of anything and of course, none of them have any concept of how important public lands are! Good grief - do none of them venture off a golf course?
This pisses me off so much.
And exactly why arent the Dems or ANYONE with a microphone (etc) talking about this - not only this issue, but so many others. And silence!
Thanks Jonathon - I will send it on to a few blogs.
Yeah, right "affordable" housing. Judging by recent trips to SW CO, whatever anyone says about affordable housing in spots like Hidden Valley, they would be far more likely to end up as exurban equestrian estates or country compounds or resort/retreat/retiree "ranchettes" or whatever.
At a time when aid to the poor is being cut, Lee’s bill would spend up to $10 million to promote disposal of public lands. The bill gives Interior and the FS sixty days to assemble a list of lands for sale based in “interested parties” and local or state governments. This process overturns decades of successful land use planning and public involvement in land management.
In 1976, Congress decided to retain public lands in federal ownership except where determined through planning, disposal would “serve the national interest.” Lee’s new legislation would overturn a very successful process within BLM to identify the value and importance of lands for retention and also lands deserving disposal. Through the public planning process BLM evaluates the importance of lands to wildlife, recreation, watersheds, cultural resources, and more. Land use plans must evaluate ten criteria for lands considered for disposal in order that BLM meets its objectives for natural resource management. Unlike this comprehensive public process, Lee’s legislation would dispose of lands using one criteria, their availability for housing.
In recent history in Utah, BLM’s land evaluation program using land use plans has produced some remarkable successes. Using public involvement and its planning process, lands suitable for disposal are identified and other lands for acquisition. Through an exchange lands of national importance are acquired and in exchange lands that meet important local needs, such as for new homes, that do not compromise other public land values offered. Use the St. George isolated sections offered for development in exchange with remarkable mountains lands in the Deep Creek Mountains
Senator Lee announced on the 11th of June a new legislative proposal to sell public lands. In Lee’s amendment to the 2025 Budget Reconciliation, Lee argues that most BLM and FS lands are underused federal lands. His bill offer up to three million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Forrest lands for sale claiming a need to provide for housing. The claim that public land sales will solve our housing crisis is ludicrous. Lee ignores the common sense economic reasons causing housing shortages and proposes a largely impractical idea. To build a home, the site requires road access, utilities such as water, electricity, and gas. Since most public lands lack these essential needs, they are impractical for residential homes.
The reason for the housing shortage in Utah and elsewhere in the West isn’t because of a lack of places to build but, rather, the high economic costs of construction and utilities. Over the past decade, income has grown modestly for new home owners and housing prices have nearly doubled making houses unaffordable to most. In 2016, 80% of Utahns earning an average wage could afford to buy a house. Due mostly to enormous increases in the price of houses and little improvement in income, now only 17% of Utahns can afford a house. If Senator Lee wants to address the housing crisis, he needs to fix the economic obstacles Utahns face and his bill ignores these problems.
Lately there seems to be much talk on the Land Desk’ about the U.S. Government’s move to sell off publicly owned land. Such talk has stimulated my interest since I have recently attempted to get information about the possibility of purchasing a couple of 40-acre parcels of BLM land. The local BLM’s (District 10 in California) real estate division has failed to provide even a modicum of useful information. When I hear about the current administration efforts to cut back on waste – I have to agree. My one brief conversation, many weeks ago, with the BLM re this land gave me the impression they didn’t even know that they possessed it – it took them 10 minutes, with me on the phone, to even locate it. In this regard Land Desk readers have helped me by responding to my earlier Land Desk letter by informing me of how the BLM’s treats the land it owns.
From my reading of the Land Desk, I get the impression that many of its readers agree that the BLM should continue to actively own (all??) the property that they are entrusted with. My impression is that the Land Desk readers would not consider the possibility that any land should be sold to the public. I will admit that this may be an inaccurate impression but I wish to be one voice advocating for the sale of such land to private citizens. As an example, I can only attest to my experience with the BLM bureaucracy.
The land I wish to ask the BLM about is far away from any large parcel of BLM land and has been empty for at least the 45 years that I have owned adjacent land. It was also recently totally burned in the 2020 Bobcat fire and is definitely a parcel of inhospitable and desolate land. In all the years I have been here I have only observed one time when the public expressed an interest in the land. That one time was when a couple of hunters expressed an interest in hunting quail. That was prior to the denuding caused by the recent fire. This part of the Mojave Desert does not get many visitors.
In my opinion, this is a good example that demonstrates that there should be a process where the BLM could make such parcels available to private individuals. Perhaps each BLM district office should make their “Land Use Planning Policy” document easily available to the public. In fact, this local district 10 BLM office gives me the impression that they have no such planning document.
I also happen to agree with Jonathan’s conclusion that the Government sale of the Hidden Valley land near Durango would be an extremely sad development. So, in conclusion, let’s not be so closed-minded to small land sales and actually encourage BLM to facilitate such sales while doing so in a well-informed manner.
Mr. Lee wants to put affordable houses on the western flank of Grand Mesa? I fail to see a market justification for this.
I believe it was The Central Utah Project justified another Utah senator’s land scheming up around Heber all those years ago. Orin Hatch and cronies benefited smartly indeed in that case, wrecking a beautiful river valley in the process.
I've followed Mike Lee for a long time. He is no friend of decency, truth, or the planet. As long as people like Lee have political power, nothing wholesome is safe.
Hidden Valley used to be private land ... it was REA at one time and even considered for a dam decades ago. I can't remember all the details off the top of my woozy retiree head, but it was acquired by the San Juan NF with the help of NGOs in the 1990s. Ben Nighthorse Campbell played a big part in securing the federal funding. There should be several articles in the Herald archives.
My friend and coworker, Paul Beaber, SJNF Realty Specialist, also played a huge part in making it happen. I remember taking a photo of Paul at the new FS entrance sign marking the boundary. One would hope it will remain public land. Hope is about all we have right now.
I've been a loyal paying subscriber here for a long time. This is one of my three earliest Substacks. Never have I felt so despairing and exhausted than I have now. It seems we are fighting rearguard battles on all sides and the enemies of democracy are winning, the privatizers are winning. What a mess. But we just have to keep up the fight in hope of better days. We don't have any other options that our grandchildren wouldn't despise us for taking
Yes
Senator Lee is mistakem that public lands are not serving Americans who live here. We Utahns love our public lands as they are now. 82% of westerners want to build housing near existing communities and only 14% support selling public lands. Public lands have been a boon to local communities economically. “From the early 1970s to the 2010s, western rural counties with the highest share of federal lands on average had faster population, employment, and personal income growth than their peers with the lowest share of federal lands. Per capita incomes grew somewhat faster.” In recreation, Public lands in the west account for 1.9 million jobs and $41 billion in visitor expenditures a years. Our National Forests account for 33% of our water supply in the west. Additionally, public lands provide water, clean air and other services and reflect an appreciated quality of life in the west essential to local communities and businesses.
For Utah, Senator Lee’s new legislation is in conflict with our needs, fails to solve the problems he identified, and ignores existing proven remedies.
"Affordable" to whom (or who). - Reducing checkerboard patterns - inefficient to "manage"?
Sure!
This entire administration AND Congress AND Senate only care about power and what financial benefit THEY can get out of anything and of course, none of them have any concept of how important public lands are! Good grief - do none of them venture off a golf course?
This pisses me off so much.
And exactly why arent the Dems or ANYONE with a microphone (etc) talking about this - not only this issue, but so many others. And silence!
Thanks Jonathon - I will send it on to a few blogs.
Heather Cox Richardson (Letters from an American) and John Tester had a zoom video on Utube - Just watched it.
Yeah, right "affordable" housing. Judging by recent trips to SW CO, whatever anyone says about affordable housing in spots like Hidden Valley, they would be far more likely to end up as exurban equestrian estates or country compounds or resort/retreat/retiree "ranchettes" or whatever.
At a time when aid to the poor is being cut, Lee’s bill would spend up to $10 million to promote disposal of public lands. The bill gives Interior and the FS sixty days to assemble a list of lands for sale based in “interested parties” and local or state governments. This process overturns decades of successful land use planning and public involvement in land management.
In 1976, Congress decided to retain public lands in federal ownership except where determined through planning, disposal would “serve the national interest.” Lee’s new legislation would overturn a very successful process within BLM to identify the value and importance of lands for retention and also lands deserving disposal. Through the public planning process BLM evaluates the importance of lands to wildlife, recreation, watersheds, cultural resources, and more. Land use plans must evaluate ten criteria for lands considered for disposal in order that BLM meets its objectives for natural resource management. Unlike this comprehensive public process, Lee’s legislation would dispose of lands using one criteria, their availability for housing.
In recent history in Utah, BLM’s land evaluation program using land use plans has produced some remarkable successes. Using public involvement and its planning process, lands suitable for disposal are identified and other lands for acquisition. Through an exchange lands of national importance are acquired and in exchange lands that meet important local needs, such as for new homes, that do not compromise other public land values offered. Use the St. George isolated sections offered for development in exchange with remarkable mountains lands in the Deep Creek Mountains
Senator Lee announced on the 11th of June a new legislative proposal to sell public lands. In Lee’s amendment to the 2025 Budget Reconciliation, Lee argues that most BLM and FS lands are underused federal lands. His bill offer up to three million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Forrest lands for sale claiming a need to provide for housing. The claim that public land sales will solve our housing crisis is ludicrous. Lee ignores the common sense economic reasons causing housing shortages and proposes a largely impractical idea. To build a home, the site requires road access, utilities such as water, electricity, and gas. Since most public lands lack these essential needs, they are impractical for residential homes.
The reason for the housing shortage in Utah and elsewhere in the West isn’t because of a lack of places to build but, rather, the high economic costs of construction and utilities. Over the past decade, income has grown modestly for new home owners and housing prices have nearly doubled making houses unaffordable to most. In 2016, 80% of Utahns earning an average wage could afford to buy a house. Due mostly to enormous increases in the price of houses and little improvement in income, now only 17% of Utahns can afford a house. If Senator Lee wants to address the housing crisis, he needs to fix the economic obstacles Utahns face and his bill ignores these problems.
I wouldn’t characterize Lee as MAGA
Lite. He is worse than Trump, but more controlled in temper at times due to his LDS background
No, not MAGA Lite! MAGA-ite! There's a difference!
I fear there are not enough republicans against this
I Want to Buy Some Publicly Owned (BLM) Land
Lately there seems to be much talk on the Land Desk’ about the U.S. Government’s move to sell off publicly owned land. Such talk has stimulated my interest since I have recently attempted to get information about the possibility of purchasing a couple of 40-acre parcels of BLM land. The local BLM’s (District 10 in California) real estate division has failed to provide even a modicum of useful information. When I hear about the current administration efforts to cut back on waste – I have to agree. My one brief conversation, many weeks ago, with the BLM re this land gave me the impression they didn’t even know that they possessed it – it took them 10 minutes, with me on the phone, to even locate it. In this regard Land Desk readers have helped me by responding to my earlier Land Desk letter by informing me of how the BLM’s treats the land it owns.
From my reading of the Land Desk, I get the impression that many of its readers agree that the BLM should continue to actively own (all??) the property that they are entrusted with. My impression is that the Land Desk readers would not consider the possibility that any land should be sold to the public. I will admit that this may be an inaccurate impression but I wish to be one voice advocating for the sale of such land to private citizens. As an example, I can only attest to my experience with the BLM bureaucracy.
The land I wish to ask the BLM about is far away from any large parcel of BLM land and has been empty for at least the 45 years that I have owned adjacent land. It was also recently totally burned in the 2020 Bobcat fire and is definitely a parcel of inhospitable and desolate land. In all the years I have been here I have only observed one time when the public expressed an interest in the land. That one time was when a couple of hunters expressed an interest in hunting quail. That was prior to the denuding caused by the recent fire. This part of the Mojave Desert does not get many visitors.
In my opinion, this is a good example that demonstrates that there should be a process where the BLM could make such parcels available to private individuals. Perhaps each BLM district office should make their “Land Use Planning Policy” document easily available to the public. In fact, this local district 10 BLM office gives me the impression that they have no such planning document.
I also happen to agree with Jonathan’s conclusion that the Government sale of the Hidden Valley land near Durango would be an extremely sad development. So, in conclusion, let’s not be so closed-minded to small land sales and actually encourage BLM to facilitate such sales while doing so in a well-informed manner.
Mr. Lee wants to put affordable houses on the western flank of Grand Mesa? I fail to see a market justification for this.
I believe it was The Central Utah Project justified another Utah senator’s land scheming up around Heber all those years ago. Orin Hatch and cronies benefited smartly indeed in that case, wrecking a beautiful river valley in the process.
I've followed Mike Lee for a long time. He is no friend of decency, truth, or the planet. As long as people like Lee have political power, nothing wholesome is safe.