- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
UPDATE : Big beautiful bill’ to include millions acres of public lands FOR SALE
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:32 am
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:32 am
No public input!
Updated to include link to bill. Go to page 30. Mandatory sell for lands within 30 days of bill passing. No public input .
For housing on national forest/ blm landscape to offset cost of taxes cuts.
Most land is remote. Not even suitable for housing. It’s a sham.
Senate energy committee bill
Trump’s bill includes up to 3 millions acres of YOUR land to private developers, the house removed this from the bill but Utah senator added it back in.
Teddy Roosevelt would not approve of this Madness! This land belongs to the American people !
LINK
LINK
LINK
This means China can come in and buy MORE land in United States. He’s putting PUBLIC land up for sale to China LINK
Updated to include link to bill. Go to page 30. Mandatory sell for lands within 30 days of bill passing. No public input .
For housing on national forest/ blm landscape to offset cost of taxes cuts.
Most land is remote. Not even suitable for housing. It’s a sham.
Senate energy committee bill
Trump’s bill includes up to 3 millions acres of YOUR land to private developers, the house removed this from the bill but Utah senator added it back in.
Teddy Roosevelt would not approve of this Madness! This land belongs to the American people !
LINK
LINK
LINK
This means China can come in and buy MORE land in United States. He’s putting PUBLIC land up for sale to China LINK
This post was edited on 6/16/25 at 10:41 pm
31
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:35 am to Bison
The fight begins between the Chinese and white F-250s piloted by PFG.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:38 am to Bison
You should link the bill that covers this. You read the bill didn’t you? You saw where the land would be sold by BLM to state or local governments right? And the land would have to be used for residential housing.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:43 am to Bison
I’m just glad I’m over 50 and headed down the mountain.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:46 am to idontyield
If you guys have never used Notebook LM before this is the perfect use case.
It’s an AI tool where you essentially link the document to it and you can ask it questions about what it contains about certain topics or really anything in as a high or deep a level you want
I use it for work for contacts i don’t want to read
It’s an AI tool where you essentially link the document to it and you can ask it questions about what it contains about certain topics or really anything in as a high or deep a level you want
I use it for work for contacts i don’t want to read
quote:
Based on the provided sources, there is no information detailing whether a foreign government can purchase the public land. The sources specify various domestic entities that can purchase or receive previously public land: * **City of Fernley, Nevada** [1]. * **Clark County, Nevada**, or any entity selected through a competitive bidding process, with provisions for sales at less than fair market value to Clark County for affordable housing [2-4]. * **Washoe County, Nevada**, or any entity selected through a competitive bidding process, with provisions for sales at less than fair market value to State or local governmental entities for affordable housing [5-18]. * **Pershing County, Nevada**, with the County jointly selecting parcels for sale or exchange. "Qualified entities" (owners of mining claims, millsites, or tunnel sites, or their successors) can purchase "encumbered land" [19-26]. * **Owners of private land adjacent to eligible land** in Pershing County, for land exchanges to consolidate Federal land ownership [27, 28]. * **Beaver County, Utah** [29]. * **City of St. George, Utah** [29]. * **Washington County, Utah** [29, 30]. * **Washington County Water Conservancy District** [30]. The sections on "prohibited foreign entities" within the sources relate to eligibility for **tax credits** for energy projects, not to the purchase or ownership of land [31-57]. These provisions restrict access to tax benefits for entities with specific foreign ties but do not address land sales. Therefore, the sources do not provide an answer to whether a foreign government can purchase public land.
This post was edited on 6/16/25 at 6:57 am
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:47 am to Bison
Can't wait to rent a condo adjacent to an outlet mall, Outback Steakhouse and a Cheesecake Factory in the parking lot at Old Faithful. The choreographed laser show with "Proud To Be An American" pumped in will be beyond spectacular. I get goose bumps imagining it....
Damn just thought....they might even sale time shares in the condos!!!! Imagine having one week a year to enjoy the Old Faithful Laser Show and Fudge Shoppe!!!! It does not get anymore American that.....
Damn just thought....they might even sale time shares in the condos!!!! Imagine having one week a year to enjoy the Old Faithful Laser Show and Fudge Shoppe!!!! It does not get anymore American that.....
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:50 am to idontyield
quote:
You should link the bill that covers this. You read the bill didn’t you? You saw where the land would be sold by BLM to state or local governments right? And the land would have to be used for residential housing.
Trial balloon to justify the planned strip mall and condo development at Yosemite....
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:51 am to idontyield
quote:
And the land would have to be used for residential housing.
So gov will be picking a private developer to make cash off of public land?
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:52 am to Bison
FedGov should own far less land than it does.
Why do they need to own 80% of Nevada, 46% of Wyoming, and 63% of Utah? Missile silos don't take up that much relative space, and even bombing ranges like White Sands (3,200 square miles) don't need that much out of the states.
BallotOPedia
Why do they need to own 80% of Nevada, 46% of Wyoming, and 63% of Utah? Missile silos don't take up that much relative space, and even bombing ranges like White Sands (3,200 square miles) don't need that much out of the states.
BallotOPedia
quote:
Missouri 3.8%
Montana 29.0%
Nebraska 1.1%
Nevada 80.1%
New Hampshire 14.0%
New Jersey 3.6%
New Mexico 31.7%
New York 230,992 0.8%
North Carolina 7.8%
North Dakota 3.9%
Ohio 1.2%
Oklahoma 1.5%
Oregon 52.3%
Pennsylvania 2.2%
Rhode Island 0.7%
South Carolina 4.5%
South Dakota 5.4%
Tennessee 4.8%
Texas 1.9%
United States 27.1%
Utah 63.1%
Vermont 7.8%
Virginia 9.3%
Washington 28.6%
West Virginia 7.4%
Wisconsin 5.3%
Wyoming 46.7%
Source: U.S. Congressional Research Service, "Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data"
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:53 am to idontyield
quote:
You should link the bill that covers this. You read the bill didn’t you? You saw where the land would be sold by BLM to state or local governments right? And the land would have to be used for residential housing.
That doesn’t make it any better.
We should be protecting that green space. Hell, the NPS actually MAKES money in this country when you consider economic impact in those areas overall.
This post was edited on 6/16/25 at 6:54 am
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:54 am to AlextheBodacious
Most of the OT rich could barely afford to scrape together a 20% downpayment on a 300k house, so who exactly do you expect to buy 10,000 acres in Oregon, for instance? Eeeeevil private developers. Exactly like who bought the land for the subdivision most of us probably currently live in.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:55 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
We should be protecting that green space.
Nobody better at protecting stuff than government.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:57 am to LemmyLives
quote:
Nobody better at protecting stuff than government.
The NPS is one of the handful of things they’ve gotten right.
I enjoy parks here that are visitor and donor funded (The Parklands). But they’re very purposeful in how they protect and cultivate that land. In the wrong hands it could’ve easily turned into more shitty development.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:57 am to TiptonInSC
Us baws will win that one
Posted on 6/16/25 at 6:59 am to Bison
I’m fully confident that every penny of every sale will be used in ways that will benefit all Americans and in no way will any of the money disappear into the pockets of government officials.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:00 am to AlextheBodacious
There is a provision in the BBB to sell 3.3 million acres of public land. That does not include national parks or forests. It's hard to comprehend the level of stupidity it would take to think that.
Might be good to remember that for most of our history, the sale of public lands was a very significant revenue source for this country.
For example, the federal government still owns about 1/3 of Colorado. The purpose of this proposal is to make available some land to address the housing shortage.
Might be good to remember that for most of our history, the sale of public lands was a very significant revenue source for this country.
For example, the federal government still owns about 1/3 of Colorado. The purpose of this proposal is to make available some land to address the housing shortage.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:00 am to idontyield
quote:
You should link the bill that covers this. You read the bill didn’t you? You saw where the land would be sold by BLM to state or local governments right? And the land would have to be used for residential housing.
Nothing in the new language saying it has to be used for residential housing, it requires purchasers to explain how they will it "will address local housing needs as well as any associated community needs” without any language as to what the parameters will be.
Its understandable that it is becoming very necessary in some parts of the country to allow some development on publicly owned land. Salt Lake City is BOOMING, as are areas of Idaho, and SLC in particular is more or less hemmed in from much further development by public land. That is not sustainable and its also not smart....because development will encroach on those lands located near private land anyway. What is galling is the money is planned to go to the treasury instead of securing land to replace that which is lost due to growing demand for housing in areas like SLC. If the bill contained language that defined what the buyer could do with it and it benefitted the nation overall, and more affordable housing in urban areas anywhere in the country is a benefit to the entire country, it'd be more acceptable. If the money was used to secure similar areas in unpopulated areas it would be more acceptable. Neither of these is true....it may be the plan but its not in writing at this point.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:06 am to SpotCheckBilly
You can actually learn about it here:
Addition to 'Big Beautiful Bill' could force the sale of public land in Colorado for housing development
Addition to 'Big Beautiful Bill' could force the sale of public land in Colorado for housing development
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:08 am to SpotCheckBilly
quote:
The purpose of this proposal is to make available some land to address the housing shortage.
This is the purpose and it is certainly a good idea. The problem is twofold...the language in the new version is ambiguous at best as to what the buyer is expected to do with the land which will allow for corruption to take over in some instances AND much of the land is not in an area that is in need of more housing....its in the middle of nowhere with no water....thats why much of it is owned by we the people to begin with because it is basically valuless. Where it does make sense, adjacent to already developed areas in need of more affordable housing it makes plenty of sense....if the revenue was going to used to increase the amount of public land in suitable areas or make improvements to enhance use of that land...but this is certainly not what is planned currently, the money will go to the treasury department and used for whatever needs money.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News