• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Sell Federal Land

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/lamb100305.htm

Sell federal land
Henry Lamb
Monday, October 3, 2005


The only thing about which Democrats and Republicans can agree these days, is the astronomical cost of rebuilding the storm-ravaged Gulf coast. Estimates, on either side of the political aisle, reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars. How to pay these costs is a question fueling heated debate inside both parties.
Rep. Tom Tancredo has the best idea to date: sell excess federal land.

Why should the federal government own more than 700 million acres - more than 30% of the total land area?

Even after exempting all the military bases, and the lands that contain "other needful buildings," and all the national parks, the federal government still owns nearly 600 million acres, for no legitimate reason.

American taxpayers are shelling out money every year so the federal government can make "payments in lieu of taxes" to the state and local governments that have limited political jurisdiction over these lands. American taxpayers are shelling out money every year so armies of federal employees can make an effort to "manage" these lands.

Why?

If Congress would take seriously Rep. Tancredo’s idea, and release this land to the private sector, the revenue generated could rebuild the Gulf coast, and more, and it would relieve the federal budget of the annual maintenance expense, further relieving the tax burden on every American.

Why should the government own 30% of America? I was under the impression this land is suppose to belong to the people. I think it would be a good idea to sell the land back to the people to generate the revenue to pay for and help rebuild America where it is needed. How do you feel?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes, the government should absolutely sell off unused land, but I think the most profit to be had comes from our unused military bases abroad. Their collective value has been estimated between $10 and 30 TRILLION.

I'm not sure that they could get much money for a lot of the land in the country that they hold. In some areas of the country, some variation of the Homestead Act is still in effect, but no one will claim the land that's left because it's worthless and they'd have to pay property taxes on it.
 

TheBigC

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Location
Boston, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
The House Committee on Resources would disagree with some of your article's numbers.

National parks cover 83.6 million acres. Wildlife refuges cover 95 million acres.

The overall number, 700 million acres owned by the government, seems to be accurate. However, saying "the federal government still owns nearly 600 million acres, for no legitimate reason" is hyperbole.

I went and got the land use report from the GSA itself. Link and in it you'll see big statistics that explain this "no legitimate use" such as:

"Forest and Wildlife, 40%", "Grazing, 22%", "Parks and Historic Sites, 16%". That only leaves 32% for "Other uses", which includes military bases, waterways, flood control land, etc... only 0.78% is categorized as "vacant".

Don't believe me, go look at the report yourself. Whoever wrote that article had a point to make, and sadly mislead you. You have an article with someone else's data, or the original data itself. You choose who to believe.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,299
Reaction score
13,533
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
TheBigC said:
The House Committee on Resources would disagree with some of your article's numbers.

National parks cover 83.6 million acres. Wildlife refuges cover 95 million acres.

The overall number, 700 million acres owned by the government, seems to be accurate. However, saying "the federal government still owns nearly 600 million acres, for no legitimate reason" is hyperbole.

I went and got the land use report from the GSA itself. Link and in it you'll see big statistics that explain this "no legitimate use" such as:

"Forest and Wildlife, 40%", "Grazing, 22%", "Parks and Historic Sites, 16%". That only leaves 32% for "Other uses", which includes military bases, waterways, flood control land, etc... only 0.78% is categorized as "vacant".

Don't believe me, go look at the report yourself. Whoever wrote that article had a point to make, and sadly mislead you. You have an article with someone else's data, or the original data itself. You choose who to believe.
If I am not mistaken, the National Forest System is approximately 180 million acres. Then you have BLM Lands, some of that designated as federal wilderness.

All and all, majority of government land is either National Parks, National Forests and Grasslands, Federal Wilderness, and like you mentioned, waterways, corps of engineers lands, and military bases.

Most government land is really better termed as Public Land. We all own our National Forests, Federal Wilderness areas, and National Parks and Historic sites and we all have a legal say in how they are managed. So the government does not own almost a third of the nation, we the people own approximately a third of the nation. It is our national treasures. It is the legacy that we leave countless future generations and without it, what is the point of fighting for anything?
 

F41

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
341
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have come across this article that really disturbs me. I somewhat remember Gore pushing to return our land back to it`s natural state, and this is a large goal of the U.N. as well, but it also calls for taking the land away from their rightful owners. In the article it speaks of inholders, this is to say the people owned the land before the Federal Government owned the land around them.

Does the Federal Government have this ultimate right to take your land and turn it into Federal land?

Come to think about it, it would actually do no good for the American people to try to by the land from the Federal Government anyway, they will only kill you and take it back.

Federal land grabs transforming American society
Posted: July 5, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The Pilgrim family in Alaska is not the only instance of the federal government forcing people off their land. Donald Scott was awakened in the middle of the night by someone breaking through his front door. He grabbed his gun and started down the stairs, when he was shot dead by federal agents. Bob Learzaf was taking a bath, when the feds stormed through his front door. They handcuffed him, put him in leg-irons, and hauled him to jail.

The crime all these people have in common, is the ownership of land, coveted by the federal government. For every victim whose story reaches the national media, there are thousands of other victims who are harassed, coerced or regulated to the point that they have neither the funds, nor the will to fight.

In the examples above, the landowners were "inholders," which means that their land is surrounded by so-called public land. In each instance, the land was privately owned before the park was designated. The Clinton-Gore administration undertook an intensive program to rid the world of these pesky inholders, and consolidate all the land into the hands of the federal government.

The federal land grab is not limited to inholders. Ranchers are being systematically removed from federal lands throughout the west. Entire communities that arose to support logging in the Northwest are vanishing. In Florida, an entire community in Collier County is facing eviction, caused by impossible flood-insurance fees dictated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This is only the latest in a series of regulatory maneuvers to force the people out of an area the federal government wants to return to its natural wilderness condition.

We are witnessing the wrenching transformation of society that Al Gore said would be necessary to save the planet. The planet can only be saved, according to Mr. Gore and his crowd, if the government controls the use of all resources. Resources are the product of land, and therefore, control of land use results in the control of all resources. More
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom