- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Western (states) lawmakers strategize on taking control of Federal lands
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:24 am
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:24 am
LINK /
Outside of courthouses and military bases, why does FedGov need to keep all that land? It should be sold to the highest bidder, and if no one bids on it turn it over to the states so they can deal with it.
Outside of courthouses and military bases, why does FedGov need to keep all that land? It should be sold to the highest bidder, and if no one bids on it turn it over to the states so they can deal with it.
4
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:25 am to Quidam65
It's past time for states to assert their rights.....the federal government needs to be reigned in!!
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:32 am to Quidam65
THIS is why the Bundy stand was significant, for those who have been wrestling with which side is right or wrong.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:32 am to Jim Ignatowski
I think Bob Barham *asserted* Louisiana's right to handle our own fish, last week, JI. Nobody cares more about our fish than the rec fisherman.
Barham for Governor. I told him as much; and he got a 'no frickin way' look on his face.
Good man.
Barham for Governor. I told him as much; and he got a 'no frickin way' look on his face.
Good man.Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:33 am to Mohican
There really is not good reason for the Federal government to own any of the land that isn't needed for specific federal operations. Most of the states in question are larger than many COUNTRIES and it is damned presumptuous for the Fed to basically take the position that it can't trust the people of the states(a subset of American people for F sake) to manage their own shite.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:36 am to ShortyRob
quote:.....
There really is not good reason for the Federal government to own any of the land that isn't needed for specific federal operations. Most of the states in question are larger than many COUNTRIES and it is damned presumptuous for the Fed to basically take the position that it can't trust the people of the states(a subset of American people for F sake) to manage their own shite.
....this is the message that the Fed has been sending about ALL ASPECTS of American's lives.....It truly is time to put a stop to it!!
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:38 am to ShortyRob
quote:
There really is not good reason for the Federal government to own any of the land that isn't needed for specific federal operations.
Article I specifically states this.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:41 am to Quidam65
quote:
turn it over to the states so they can deal with it.
From my understanding, the states never wanted it and signed the land over to the Feds.
But I'm all for those lands to be managed using state tax dollars instead of fed tax dollars.
This post was edited on 4/19/14 at 9:42 am
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:41 am to Mohican
I'm no fan of FedGov, however realize that if in the future a new facility needed to be built (like say a defense or nuke installation) that required a significant amount of land it would probably be almost impossible to secure that land in today's climate.
Just a point to consider.
Just a point to consider.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:48 am to Quidam65
quote:
Quidam65
the gubment should not own land except for the specified example you have laid out. There may be a few outlier circumstances that fall under that, but not many.
You are absolutely right...the states need to stand up and grab their balls....put the feds back in their place.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:48 am to weagle99
quote:
I'm no fan of FedGov, however realize that if in the future a new facility needed to be built (like say a defense or nuke installation) that required a significant amount of land it would probably be almost impossible to secure that land in today's climate.
Just a point to consider.
What will be interesting to see is if the States are willing to pick up the tab for managing the lands or if they will want the Feds to still pick up the bill.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 9:50 am to weagle99
quote:
I'm no fan of FedGov, however realize that if in the future a new facility needed to be built (like say a defense or nuke installation) that required a significant amount of land it would probably be almost impossible to secure that land in today's climate. Just a point to consider.
.....I agree with this....BUT....it is the federal government who created this "climate"......by acting like "Big Brother".... If the fed was neutered....maybe the climate would change?
Posted on 4/19/14 at 10:37 am to Mohican
quote:
THIS is why the Bundy stand was significant, for those who have been wrestling with which side is right or wrong.
BINGO!
Posted on 4/19/14 at 10:46 am to Mohican
quote:
THIS is why the Bundy stand was significant, for those who have been wrestling with which side is right or wrong.
I disagree.
Solely because the state was not involved in any of this.
The Western States are only looking into the possibility of asking for land back. They don't even know yet if they want it back or not.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 10:55 am to theenemy
quote:
What will be interesting to see is if the States are willing to pick up the tab for managing the lands or if they will want the Feds to still pick up the bill.
It's never "all good." The Feds handle it because they have no limit on how much of our tax dollars they spend.
States should get the land and take responsibility for doing whatever ever needs to be done with it for each respective state.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 11:00 am to Paluka
Well I'm all for the states taking over the land.
But, shouldn't we at least wait for the states to actually ask for the land first?
But, shouldn't we at least wait for the states to actually ask for the land first?
Posted on 4/19/14 at 11:20 am to theenemy
Sure.
Several states have said in the past that they want the want the land. Let's see what happens.
Several states have said in the past that they want the want the land. Let's see what happens.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 11:21 am to theenemy
quote:
Solely because the state was not involved in any of this.
Maybe because the status quo takes time to change. I doubt this meeting happens without the Bundy stand, however.
The realization that it is their right to own it was the outcome. Now, we'll see if the wheels are set in motion.
Posted on 4/19/14 at 11:54 am to Mohican
quote:
Maybe because the status quo takes time to change. I doubt this meeting happens without the Bundy stand, however.
The western states have been talking about this for a while but just haven't acted on it.
First, they would lose PILT payments from the Feds.
Secondly, they aren't sure they could manage the lands more effectively.
The Bundy stand is just a publicity stunt for some.
Interesting timeline on Bundy case.
LINK
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News