- 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
re: UPDATE : Big beautiful bill’ to include millions acres of public lands FOR SALE
Posted on 6/16/25 at 2:25 pm to AwgustaDawg
Posted on 6/16/25 at 2:25 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
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.
Have you been to SLC? It is very sparsely settled. There are no high rises. These public lands are not about getting land to build residences. I own land that is a 20 minute drive from the Salt Lake Valley. This is in the Heber Valley. There is a shite pile of land that could be developed for housing for that area. It is not being developed because we don’t want the development. I was talking to a neighbor two days ago about fighting the extension of sewerage from Heber City to Charleston. The reason? If we have no sewerage we can’t subdivide down to quarter acre lots. So no density. You can go farther away to government owned land, but if you put residences on that land they are far away from the action, plus there are water issues.
The best answer for Salt Lake City is to stop growing. The second best answer is to rezone areas near downtown SLC and Provo for dense residential. But no one wants either of these answers, which gives the government the opening to sell land as a pretense that it solves the lack of residential housing. What will it actually be used for? I don’t know.
This post was edited on 6/16/25 at 2:29 pm
0
Posted on 6/16/25 at 2:31 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
So there is tons of housing available near the entrances to Yellowstone?
That was not my point. My point is that no one wants to live there, at least not the sort of people who lack housing. The lack of housing we have is for the people who are currently, or very often, homeless. That’s what they mean when they talk about the housing crisis.
Anyone who wants to build an expensive house near Yellowstone has plenty of options already. Like the Mayflower development at Deer Valley.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 2:33 pm 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.
Blackrock in da house.....
Posted on 6/16/25 at 2:44 pm to Bison
Why were the last 5 CR's put on the table with all of the pork, all of the fraud, all of the waste, not under this much daily scrutiny?
Posted on 6/16/25 at 2:47 pm to Penrod
quote:
My point is that no one wants to live there, at least not the sort of people who lack housing. The lack of housing we have is for the people who are currently, or very often, homeless. That’s what they mean when they talk about the housing crisis.
I disagree.
That is a part of the issue.
However, unaffordable housing is also an issue (an even bigger one imho, as the homeless typically have a lot of options available to them…they would just rather sleep on the streets in order to do drugs).
These areas near the parks need workers, and they need places to live. If this helps with that, then I don’t see that aspect as being a bad thing.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 8:27 pm to Odysseus32
Let’s go drill baby drill on our land then and cut into the national debt
Posted on 6/16/25 at 8:34 pm to Bison
Selling off assets, usually the last step before bankruptcy.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 8:42 pm to SpotCheckBilly
quote:
The purpose of this proposal is to make available some land to address the housing shortage.
There’s not a single mention of “affordable housing” written in the provision. I’ve read it.
That’s their talking point to convince lemmings that this a good thing.
It will go to “outside entities”, nothing at all is specific about who can purchase the land. There’s nothing to stop a shell company owned by China to come in and buy up my Elk hunting spot.
There’s nothing that prevents said shell company owned by China from buying up a crucial migration corridor on winter range habitat, putting solar/wind/retail/ whatever the frick they wanna put on it.
This will do NOTHING to help with the deficit, absolutely NOTHING. These are OUR lands for all of us to enjoy.
It’s bullshite, and I fricking hate the hard on that the Republican Party has for this.
Seriously, what the frick does the average American have to gain from any of this? It’s for the rich and pockets of politicians. Yea let’s put “affordable”housing out on Pronghorn sage flats where you have to commute 2 hours for groceries and gas and school. GTFO
But oh it’s just gonna be the BLM and NF close to urban centers!! No it sets a precedent that will NEVER stop
This post was edited on 6/16/25 at 8:47 pm
Posted on 6/16/25 at 8:43 pm to Sterling Archer
quote:Reno 911 cats are making a comeback now that they will have somewhere affordable to live!
* **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].
Posted on 6/16/25 at 8:47 pm to Bison
quote:
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.
We’re broke. Everything starts there.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 8:50 pm to Bison
Finally.
The government owns too much land already.
As long as they sell it to american citizens nobody should be against this.
The government owns too much land already.
As long as they sell it to american citizens nobody should be against this.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 8:56 pm to CastleBravo
quote:at least some states don't have a blanket ban on motorized vehicles.
Finally.
The government owns too much land already.
As long as they sell it to american citizens nobody should be against this.
It seems the government was preserving the land for themselves, not the people.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 9:00 pm to I20goon
quote:
It seems the government was preserving the land for themselves, not the people.
They cater to certain environmental groups, who often get exclusive access.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 9:11 pm 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.
Has potential.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 10:36 pm to idontyield
Most of the land is not even suitable for housing. It’s beings sold to offset the cost of tax cut
LINK
Here’s the updated bill . Go to page 30
LINK
Update from 06 16 25
LINK
Here’s the updated bill . Go to page 30
LINK
Update from 06 16 25
quote:
The bill’s process for selling off lands runs at breakneck speed, demanding the nomination of tracts within 30 days, then every 60 days until the arbitrary multi-million-acre goal is met, all without hearings, debate or public input. The bill sets up relatively under-resourced state and local governments to lose open bidding wars to well-heeled commercial interests. It also fails to give sovereign Tribal Nations the right of first refusal to bid on lands, even for areas that are a part of their traditional homelands or contain sacred sites. National monument lands may also be at risk from this proposal. In a Department of Justice opinion released last week, the Trump Administration dubiously claimed the unprecedented legal authority to revoke national monument protections. If they were to attempt to follow through on this, another 13.5 million acres of our most cherished public lands could be threatened with sell-off. The public lands sell-off provision masquerades as a way to provide more housing, but it lacks safeguards to ensure land is used for that purpose, and it sets up a system where lands could be sold or resold for non-housing uses after just 10 years. Research suggests that very little of the land managed by the BLM and USFS is actually suitable for housing. Land agencies already have ways to identify public lands for uses like housing if it serves community needs. Jury-rigging a new way to force such “disposal” as part of the budget reconciliation process sets up a precedent to quickly liquidate huge chunks of America’s treasured lands in the future whenever politicians have a pet project to pay for.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 11:22 pm to Bison
quote:
The proposal exempts certain lands from sale, including national parks, national monuments, wilderness areas, national recreation areas, lands with grazing permits, oil and gas leases, mining claims, or rights of way. This aims to protect high-value recreational and ecological areas.
These diff groups are going to raise a stink over less than 1% of the land.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is why Rand doesn’t like the bill. He just can’t say out loud he wants to raise your taxes over this.
quote:
It also fails to give sovereign Tribal Nations the right of first refusal to bid on lands,
Don’t really care, but seems to be set up that way.
quote:
The bill requires the BLM and USFS to solicit nominations for land sales from states, local governments, and tribes, with priority given to parcels adjacent to developed areas with existing infrastructure. Lists of tracts for sale must be published every 60 days. States, local governments, and tribes have a “right of first refusal,” but if they decline, private buyers can purchase the land.
This post was edited on 6/16/25 at 11:32 pm
Posted on 6/16/25 at 11:29 pm to Bison
Freedom Cities here we come 
Posted on 6/17/25 at 12:13 am to SpotCheckBilly
quote:Lots of land owned by the fed govt that isn’t designated as national park but is still important for wildlife habitat and areas for public use. BLM and USFS land, wilderness areas, National Wildlife Refuges
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.
Everyone should be against this. Selling the land off is a one time payday for permanent loss of public lands. Much of those lands can be a long term revenue source from timber or oil / mineral royalties…while still maintaining federal ownership and public access for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, trail riding, etc
This post was edited on 6/17/25 at 12:17 am
Posted on 6/17/25 at 12:21 am to Bison
You want to fix housing? Incentivize brownfield redevelopment in the thousands of areas full of abandoned and dilapidated houses/buildings. Not continue to ruin vital greenspace and habitat.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News