This land is your land...is it for sale?
Bush Administration Details $1B Land Sales
As someone who has lived in an area where over 90% of land is owned by the government, I can say with some amount of personal knowledge that there are "undesirable" and "not so important" pieces of land that are held in the public trust. I would have liked to hear what Republican lawmakers in western states have said about this; this article only quotes western Democrats. If the money from these land sales really goes back directly to the states, then I think that's a good idea. If the money does not, and the states have to apply to get the money back, then it is not a viable idea for funding schools and roads.
Also, how can lawmakers vote on a plan like this when the Forest Service has this disclaimer:
Disclaimer: All parcels shown are subject to change without prior notification. Reported acreage for parcels are approximate and are subject to change. The Forest Service does not warrant the current condition of title for parcels listed. Outstanding rights and restrictions may encumber the title to any or all of the subject parcels.
You can't agree to sell something without knowing what it is that your selling.
The American people will have a chance to offer public comment on this; they will basically choose whether or not they want to pay for the management of these lands, or if local needs outweigh their environmental, altruistic desires. I know what western Democrats think. I would like to know what communities surrounding these areas think.
As someone who has lived in an area where over 90% of land is owned by the government, I can say with some amount of personal knowledge that there are "undesirable" and "not so important" pieces of land that are held in the public trust. I would have liked to hear what Republican lawmakers in western states have said about this; this article only quotes western Democrats. If the money from these land sales really goes back directly to the states, then I think that's a good idea. If the money does not, and the states have to apply to get the money back, then it is not a viable idea for funding schools and roads.
Also, how can lawmakers vote on a plan like this when the Forest Service has this disclaimer:
Disclaimer: All parcels shown are subject to change without prior notification. Reported acreage for parcels are approximate and are subject to change. The Forest Service does not warrant the current condition of title for parcels listed. Outstanding rights and restrictions may encumber the title to any or all of the subject parcels.
You can't agree to sell something without knowing what it is that your selling.
The American people will have a chance to offer public comment on this; they will basically choose whether or not they want to pay for the management of these lands, or if local needs outweigh their environmental, altruistic desires. I know what western Democrats think. I would like to know what communities surrounding these areas think.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home