I'm curious about a different part of the talk about the public lands sell-off. I've seen people claiming that the purpose is to give away land for logging, mining, and grazing. But it's already possible to do those things on BLM and Forest Service land. And my impression that it was cheaper to have the government own the land and pay for the rights to use it - grazing rights, certainly. And I think it's fairly cheap to file a mining claim, and it seems that it would be more cost-effective to file a claim than to buy property before being certain that it's economic to mine it. Other administrations might make it difficult to permit a mine or might impose environmental restrictions on grazing, but this administration isn't going to. (I also wondered if mining and ranching and oil & gas interests might oppose the bill, because it would take possible land away from their use. But maybe they figure they would be able to get their own space protected while selling off land that's mostly used for recreation.)
(Around Durango, there are some areas that I could easily imagine being sold for fancy houses. Hidden Valley, as you pointed out. But also parts of the area between Haviland Lake and Tamarron, or lots of other places on the map - I can't zoom in because it's loading really slowly right now.)
I would say that one of the reasons past efforts to sell off or transfer public lands failed is because some of the main ideological supporters -- ranchers, mining interests, etc -- realized that it didn't make practical sense to privatize or transfer the land to the states. After all, they are all getting a much better deal from the feds than they ever would from states or private interests. Public land livestock operations pay just $1.35 per AUM to graze a cow-calf pair on federal land for a month; they would pay ten to twenty times that to graze on state or private land. It's a similar deal with oil and gas drilling (federal land royalties are just 12.5% or less) and hardrock mining (where there is no federal royalty).
So I think you're right: This isn't about freeing up land for drilling, grazing, or mining. Rather, I believe it is, on the one hand, a sort of fetishization of privatization. These ideologues just don't like the federal government (even though some of them, like Mike Lee, are living off the federal dollar). Plus, there are some who just like to make the "libs" mad. And, on the other, it's about benefitting the real estate and housing industries and fueling the southwestern Growth Machine. Lee -- and I imagine his donors -- really wants to see St. George and Las Vegas and Salt Lake continue to grow and grow, and freeing up more land is one way to expedite that.
I can say with near certainty that Mike Lee doesn't care about *affordable* housing. And, it appears he doesn't really care about ranchers, either, since he's willing to sell the land right out from under them. And there's absolutely nothing in the legislation that would stop a real estate developer from buying Hidden Valley or the land near Tamarron/Glacier Club or just outside the boundary of Zion National park and build a mansion or luxury resort on it, so long as it relates to housing.
Wes made a mistake but understandable. You, dear friend equally made a mistake! The Alaska heat warning was issued for the first time ever simply because it was a NWS "product" made available for Alaskan forecasts just this year! Do I win a prize?
I'm curious about a different part of the talk about the public lands sell-off. I've seen people claiming that the purpose is to give away land for logging, mining, and grazing. But it's already possible to do those things on BLM and Forest Service land. And my impression that it was cheaper to have the government own the land and pay for the rights to use it - grazing rights, certainly. And I think it's fairly cheap to file a mining claim, and it seems that it would be more cost-effective to file a claim than to buy property before being certain that it's economic to mine it. Other administrations might make it difficult to permit a mine or might impose environmental restrictions on grazing, but this administration isn't going to. (I also wondered if mining and ranching and oil & gas interests might oppose the bill, because it would take possible land away from their use. But maybe they figure they would be able to get their own space protected while selling off land that's mostly used for recreation.)
(Around Durango, there are some areas that I could easily imagine being sold for fancy houses. Hidden Valley, as you pointed out. But also parts of the area between Haviland Lake and Tamarron, or lots of other places on the map - I can't zoom in because it's loading really slowly right now.)
Kim,
I would say that one of the reasons past efforts to sell off or transfer public lands failed is because some of the main ideological supporters -- ranchers, mining interests, etc -- realized that it didn't make practical sense to privatize or transfer the land to the states. After all, they are all getting a much better deal from the feds than they ever would from states or private interests. Public land livestock operations pay just $1.35 per AUM to graze a cow-calf pair on federal land for a month; they would pay ten to twenty times that to graze on state or private land. It's a similar deal with oil and gas drilling (federal land royalties are just 12.5% or less) and hardrock mining (where there is no federal royalty).
So I think you're right: This isn't about freeing up land for drilling, grazing, or mining. Rather, I believe it is, on the one hand, a sort of fetishization of privatization. These ideologues just don't like the federal government (even though some of them, like Mike Lee, are living off the federal dollar). Plus, there are some who just like to make the "libs" mad. And, on the other, it's about benefitting the real estate and housing industries and fueling the southwestern Growth Machine. Lee -- and I imagine his donors -- really wants to see St. George and Las Vegas and Salt Lake continue to grow and grow, and freeing up more land is one way to expedite that.
I can say with near certainty that Mike Lee doesn't care about *affordable* housing. And, it appears he doesn't really care about ranchers, either, since he's willing to sell the land right out from under them. And there's absolutely nothing in the legislation that would stop a real estate developer from buying Hidden Valley or the land near Tamarron/Glacier Club or just outside the boundary of Zion National park and build a mansion or luxury resort on it, so long as it relates to housing.
Jonathan
Jonathan
Wes made a mistake but understandable. You, dear friend equally made a mistake! The Alaska heat warning was issued for the first time ever simply because it was a NWS "product" made available for Alaskan forecasts just this year! Do I win a prize?
Thanks for this! I was suspecting that what I was reading last night was a dramatic response to something that is bad enough on its own merits
Thanks for this reporting and clearing up some messy details! Much appreciated.