re: UPDATE : Big beautiful bill’ to include millions acres of public lands FOR SALE

The US government doesn’t need to own any more land in Utah even if some is sold. It doesn’t need replaced.

Besides, much of the land owned by the Feds in Utah is uninhabitable or impossible to build on.

You can tell who those are on this board that live in the city and have only been outdoors when its to hunt their nice high fence leases

Trump is so damned good he even found a way to make more real estate.

quote:

---

the taxpayers can’t use that land now

---

Federally owned land also doesn't generate tax revenue, it costs taxpayers for largely neglected maintenance.

Do better, Trump

Damn. Didn't know 20% of Mississippi is owned by Feds. We got the Natchez Trace Parkway and Bienville national forest. Trying to think of what else.

quote:

---

We have a shortage of locations that aren't in crime riddled shitholes of total fricking anarchy.

---

But if we sell off some land to DLSD, they can build some shitty homes that in 30years will be dumps which can then be offloaded to poor people who like drugs. Then we can sell off another lot of land to the 2055 version of DLSD and repeat the cycle.

quote:

---

The federal government has been selling land to citizens pretty much since day 1 and the money has always or almost always gone into the treasury. The federal government bought the land with taxpayer money (like the Louisiana Purchase and other treaties) and returns the proceeds to the Treasury.

If they wanted to add a provision that they had to use the proceeds from this to buy other land and preserve it, I would not at all be opposed to that, but to act like this is some sort of evil plan is just silly.

---

I think its a good idea with some caveats...first and foremost if the goal is to provide more land that can be developed into more housing then it should be land that is suitable for housing, it should have water on it or can be serviced by municipal water, it should perk or have a plan to get rid of sewage and most importantly it should be in an area that needs more housing. Again, if that is the plan. Do that and use the money to acquire more suitable land for wilderness areas or make improvements to existing wilderness areas.

If this is the plan I doubt seriously if there would be more than the typical opposition which hates everything. frick those people.

It should be a fairly simple calculation. I would bet that BLM or Land Reclamation Land or National Forest land in a reasonable commuting distance would be far more valuable to a developer than land that is in the middle of nowhere with out enough water to make it suitable for housing....therefore the number of acres in the portfolio of lands open for public use would be greater even if it was further from town. Again, I doubt there more than cursory push back on this...and most of it would be from current home owners in the area in question who have seen their homes value increase in value dramatically due to a shortage of housing in the area.