• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Controversial senator trying to sell millions of acres near Yosemite, Tahoe

Bonnot

Your Politics Are Boring As F**k
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
2,184
Reaction score
4,289
Political Leaning
Other

Millions of acres of federal / public land might be up for sale to oil executives and rich scumbags that just wanna guard more for their own personal pleasure.

This won’t just be California, but every state across the west. This country is being destroyed by the right wing thanks to their hoarding greedy corrupt ****ed ideology that believes everything is for sale and everything can and should be bought.

If you actually love this country, you should want to protect the most beautiful parts of it and allow access to it, not give the rich more toys and land to destroy for personal gain or pleasure.

This is ridiculous.


Here’s more articles about the land these pieces of filth want to put up for sale.

These Colorado public lands could be eligible for sale under Republican budget bill

Federal public lands in Colorado eligible for sale under Republicans’ current budget bill include a popular mountain biking area outside of Grand Junction, a beloved hiking area in Durango&#8…
www.denverpost.com


A G.O.P. Plan to Sell Public Land Is Back. This Time, It’s Millions of Acres.

Senate Republicans want to sell the land to build more housing in the West, but the idea is contentious even within their own party.
www.nytimes.com


It’s around 250 million acres of land.

Congress is making more than 250 million acres of public lands available for sale.

The Senate reconciliation package is a disturbing giveaway that will mandate the “disposal” of public lands across the western United States.
www.wilderness.org
 
All FS and BLM land in 10 western states is for sale All of it.

I wouldn't worry. Developers have no interest in building on the vast majority of this land. Minerals reserves are mostly known, and they would have already been extracted if existing and viable. Housing is another story, and only growing areas will see a need for expansion. Modesto is a long way from bumping up against Yosemite. I doubt developers are eying the foothills east of the city. They'll build in the city. And all development must be permitted by local jurisdictions.

Virtually all private land in my area has been developed. We desperately need it. Two land bills were worked out but failed in Congress. That's a shame, but the parcels east of Sparks, which were included in Jacky Rosen's land bill, will be developed. As much as I hate Trump, this is a good thing for us. Peavine Peak is also for sale. It's one big recreational mountain. I don't see Washoe County allowing development.
 
Sell to who and what is that Senators connection to the buyer, either directly or indirectly, would be my first question.
 
KingLeo said:
Sell to who and what is that Senators connection to the buyer, either directly or indirectly, would be my first question.
Click to expand...
This is how China is buying Africa.
 
Here’s the scope of it.

West Coast Percentage of Land For Sale: 20%

OR Total Acres: 63,000,000 / OR For Sale: 21,745,380 (34.5)
WA Total Acres: WA Total Acres: 45,000,000 / WA For Sale: 5,371,690 (12%)
CA Total Acres 100,000,000 / CA For Sale: 16,682,607 (16.5%)

The GOP voters have done irreparable damage to this country.


Also this is land paid for by us for us, and they’re selling it off for personal profit they’ll no doubt get.

A lot of this will be bought up by that vile company Black Rock.


This literally puts up every area people use for recreation up for sale. Things in danger are now mountain biking, fishing, hunting, off roading, camping, hiking, swimming etc.

This will essentially turn the entire west into that shithole Texas. Where even if the land itself isn’t for sale the connecting areas to get to the land is for sale. Private land for the rich to extract value from and then discard after it’s been raped to death.

You know who will swoop in and buy up a lot of the land like the corrupt hoarding scum they are besides Black Rock? The Saudis.
 
Last edited:
Seems like a bad place for our new corporate owned, mass surveillance, AI-supercharged police states, but I guess they’ll take what they can get.
 
In my 30s I hung around a friend who visited many ghost towns in OR,NV,CA,ID and UT. This involved 4WD vehicles on dirt roads for hours and hours over BLM land. Its hard to image how wide and vast really America is. I can longer do what we did in the late 80s because much of the land is private and locked behind gates. Part of me is sad, another part of me is happy because the land is better utilized and more productive. That's progress.
 
Why would Black Rock buy desolate land?

Speaking for my state of Nevada, 85% of it is owned by the feds. When I first moved here in 1978, Washoe County had a population of 177,000. Reno was "The Biggest Little City." It now has 570,000. Not so little anymore, and outside of Tahoe, which really can't grow because of topography, the surrounding area has blossomed as well. We're out of land. See my sig. Jacky Rosen has been working on a land bill for years. All for naught. Her bill was far superior, as it set aside wilderness and more land was given to the tribes. This Trump "plan" doesn't seem to have any rhyme or reason; just sell, but we need the land.

Land bills were passed in Southern Nevada beginning in the late '90s. In 1978, Clark County had a population of 413,000. It now sits at 2,400,000. This insane growth could not have occurred without the feds disposing parcels. Vegas has the benefit of being flat compared to Reno. The topography of Northern Nevada is complex and rugged. Homes are already built into the foothills as far as practically and economically possible. Rosen's bill targeted land east of Sparks which, while not flat, is developable. This is actually a godsend to Sparks Mayor Ed Lawson.

RENO, Nev. (KOLO) - Since becoming the mayor of Sparks, Ed Lawson has been fighting to make the Truckee Meadows Public Management Lands Act a reality.

If it happens, it would free up tens of thousands of acres of land currently belonging to the federal government to be used for new developments east of Sparks.

“I have been working on it for six years,” Lawson said. “We have Congressman Amodei on board helping us out. I am hopeful.”


Black Rock has no use for this land. The City of Sparks does.

This is Washoe Valley which sits between Reno and Carson City. The valley is composed of a state park, a regional park, historical buildings, and a small suburban community on the northeast shore of Washoe Lake.



Parcels in the mountains in the distance, the Virginia Range, are for sale according to the map in the OP. No one is going to buy the mountains. They're not suitable for anything that can be marketed.

I've seen hiking trails and 4x4 areas gobbled up by housing developments. The Caughlin Ranch neighborhood was a working ranch when I moved here. Nothing but houses now. Same with Double Diamond and many other ranches that traded cattle for people.

We urgently need land. Black Rock has no interest in building homes east of Sparks, and it has no interest in buying undevelopable basin and range land throughout the state.

I understand that this move by Trump can seem devastating, but it's not. I support putting money into the US Treasury with land sales. Corrupt fingers are always near, but Northern Nevada really has no other choice.
 
Last edited:
I don't and I think it's a horrible idea and strips away more beauty of this land for money, destroying wilderness and displacing animals. **** funding the treasury like this quite honestly, it's not worth pushing funding to it by damaging untouched land and giving it away to the scum of the earth, the rich. Taking land away from people who the land is for and is paid for through our taxes so the rich can have some private playground or use it for personal financial gain is just not something that should be accepted.

This is more privitization of things we don't need to privitaize. That's all this is.

Trump shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt here with motives. Everything he does is to line his pockets and the pockets of those that support him that are rich.

It’s 250 million acres they wanna put up for sale. It’s a god awful thing to do and it’s not reversible if done. We shouldn’t be privatizing land and make the west of the country like Texas, mostly privately owned land that strips the land of its natural beauty and drains it up for profit.
 
Last edited:
You don't what?

The people of Northern Nevada are not scum of the earth, and the land is being sold, not given away.

Bonnot said:
This is more privitization of things we don't need to privitaize. That's all this is.
Click to expand...
Your post is hyperbolic.

You haven't addressed any of my points. No one is going to buy land that can't be developed. These "scum of the earth" people you speak of want profit. I showed a picture of a section of the Virginia Range. What do you see in those rugged mountains that can earn revenue? Why would Black Rock buy the land?

There is no profit to be made from buying undevelopable land. You seem to think developers are going to swoop in and buy up everything. That's false.

After describing in detail why we NEED the land, you come back with "things we don't need." That tells me you're not interested in rational debate.

You hate rich people. Yeah, that's what we NEED. More hatred. That'll put food on the table.
 
Last edited:
KingLeo said:
Sell to who and what is that Senators connection to the buyer, either directly or indirectly, would be my first question.
Click to expand...
If this follows Jacky Rosen's bill, the parcels will be offered at market rate. Her bill had a (small) carveout for affordable housing which was to be offered at a percentage of market rate.

Senators have no power over developers. Local officials have this power. If you're looking for corruption, it would be happening at that level.
 
Do you know what’s funny? It’s apparently being justified as an opportunity to build new housing. As if some rich guy’s ranch or casino would be considered housing .
 
lynnwinslow said:
Do you know what’s funny? It’s apparently being justified as an opportunity to build new housing. As if some rich guy’s ranch or casino would be considered housing .
Click to expand...
It will be used to build housing.

Grazing is already allowed on public land. Grazing fees are much cheaper than real estate. No one is going to buy federal land for a ranch.

Casino?
 
Michael Cole said:
It will be used to build housing.

Grazing is already allowed on public land. Grazing fees are much cheaper than real estate. No one is going to buy federal land for a ranch.

Casino?
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about a working ranch, I was talking about a rich person's get away. I should have put the word ranch in quotations.

There are conceivably millions of acres up for grabs across many states. Will some be used for housing? Maybe but I suspect most of it won't. For instance, I can see the Mormons in Utah snapping it up all of Utah's offerings for their portfolio.
 
Last edited:
lynnwinslow said:
There are conceivably millions of acres up for grabs across many states.
Click to expand...
Yes, and most of it is undevelopable. It's wilderness.

lynnwinslow said:
Will some be used for housing?
Click to expand...
What else would it be used for? Building a shopping center in the middle of nowhere without houses isn't going to happen.

lynnwinslow said:
Maybe but I suspect most of it won't. For instance, I can see the Mormons in Utah snapping it up all of Utah's offerings for their portfolio.
Click to expand...
You don't appear to be thinking this through. Nobody buys worthless land for a portfolio. And if the church buys developable land for housing, where's the harm?

If you read what I have linked in my sig, you'll come to understand the situation.

I'll get you started.

RENO, NV – Leaders across a wide range of sectors have praised Senator Jacky Rosen’s (D-NV) Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act. From local government officials to conservation advocates to business leaders, support is growing for her historic legislation to expand economic development and affordable housing opportunities in Washoe County, support local Tribal communities, and protect public lands.

If everyone involved here is happy with the plan, what exactly is the problem?

Knee-jerk reactions based on hatred for the rich is what I'm seeing. Do these hateful people get this angry when developments are built in their cities? Same rich people. The only difference is the ownership of the land.

Nevada is 85% federal land. The state is still growing, and there is no private land left. Without a lands bill, houses don't get built. High rises get built. Beside the fact that families prefer houses to high-rise condos, the condos cost much more to build. Anything higher than standard 4 over 1 construction requires steel instead of wood. Costs go up. Prices and rents go up. Why should my neighbors and I suffer because someone on the East Coast hates rich people?

Opening up the entire West is foolish. Jacky Rosen had a detailed bill that addressed our particular needs without affecting any other area. Las Vegas has benefitted from several land bills. There would not be 2.400,000 people in Clark County without them. The government has been selling land forever. This isn't anything new.

Everything isn't a plot by the rich. There is real need for land in Northern Nevada. The Trump plan may not be the brightest option, but it's better than the alternative.

This is a section of map from Rosen's (now defunct) land bill.



The parcels for disposal are the striped yellow. You'll notice Sparks to the west. Just off the east side of the map is the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center. It employs upwards of 30,000 people. As there is nothing between the two currently, workers must commute. Living closer to work is its own reward, but less miles driven is beneficial to the environment and easier on the wallet. As well, companies consider housing when deciding to locate. Without housing, the area's economy may suffer in this respect.

There's much more to this than rich people making money. It's a real need. A need felt by average Americans like you and me.
 
Last edited:
I will definitely defer to your knowledge about your local area but I don't think we should be trusting anything about the proposed land sales in that reconciliation Bill.
Also, research the Mormon land portfolio, I think you'll be surprised.
 
lynnwinslow said:
I will definitely defer to your knowledge about your local area but I don't think we should be trusting anything about the proposed land sales in that reconciliation Bill.
Click to expand...
I don't trust anything from this government, but I'm not hampered by fear or hatred of the rich, either.

If I have two parcels of 5 acres each, both offered at the same market price, I see no difference between buying one from a private party or the other from government. It's the exact same transaction. The difference is that proceeds from government sales go to the People, while proceeds from private sales go into (rich) people's pockets.

Trump is a fool, but federal land sales are necessary. To deny growing cities the land to expand is also foolish. Especially based on hatred of the rich.
 
Last edited:
Claw it back after fascism eventually falls.
 
When vast portions of land are federally owned, allowing more land for private homes and businesses makes a lot of sense. But the devil is in the details. If you don't have a sane economic system that ensures everybody enjoys some of this loot, and instead people sit sullenly and watch the very wealthiest turn it into private preserves for robots and air-conditioned doghouses, then there's no point to making things work. Just as if you don't have a sane system that allows ordinary people to actually visit the common lands and take game and renewable resources in a fair way, then they don't value keeping common lands.

In the West obviously the bigger problem is that these instant lands should carry the label "Just Add Water"! Any plan to have more land occupied runs into that. Until the United States can develop a national strategy to do things like subsidize desalination plants in California in exchange that water from the Colorado is diverted to other states (the cheapest way I can think of to make water run uphill), the economic benefits of the new land will be much smaller than imagined. It is true however that if you open up lands and change the cost of living from cost-to-rent to cost-to-run-water, the economic system will more accurately value the water and might conceivably invent interesting new ways to make it available, if allowed to do so.
 
lynnwinslow said:
Do you know what’s funny? It’s apparently being justified as an opportunity to build new housing. As if some rich guy’s ranch or casino would be considered housing .
Click to expand...


Likely what goes there are those neo feudalist tech cities the tech freaks want. But company towns.
 
The rich are why this country sucks like it does and are the only people repped by this admin besides the bigot.

The rich have bought off judges in the top court and other courts around the country as well as politicians and strip everything for spare parts while ****ing us all over and taking things from us to hoard it for themselves. Some of them are religious extremists and have had civil rights rolled back in the lgbtq community, immigrants, people of color and women. They also fund the police and surveillance state.


Also no fed land sales are not necessary, especially 250 million acres of it in areas people use for recreation. Also the difference is we see no profit from this land grab and sell off after we have paid for it through our taxes as opposed to private land and property sales between private citizens, and we clearly have no say in this even though we should be able to have a voice on if it is sold off or not. Rich scumbag freakshow politicians should not be able to just sell it off to their rich piece of shit friends.

These freaks in the GOP don’t care about the environment nor the destruction of it. And they have already deregulated shit into allowing people who will build upon the land to pollute the **** out of it and neighboring areas and poison it. This isn’t about the treasury either, it’s about personal financial gains they’ll get from it in kickbacks and campaign donations.

Stripping public / federal land away will only turn us into an even bigger piece of shit capitalist hellscape than we already are and destroy more wilderness for scumbag rich filth, and it’s beyond horrific.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…