Keep in mind that federal ownership doesn't mean that the land can't be used productively or generate revenue. Mineral rights, range leases, and many more things don't require selling the land. Having large regions close to their natural state is also a priceless treasure, and checker-boarding them, or ruining the view at national parks, is a real net negative. (That said, I do think there probably are federal lands it could make sense to sell. But I have no confidence coming up with an arbitrary amount of land to sell to raise revenue is a good policy.) Also keep in mind, that transforming some of these areas to residential use might have complicated impacts on water use and wetlands, though presumably less than agriculture would.
You say that like there is some inherent reason that it’s bad. Federal land belongs to you, to me, to all Americans. This land belongs our children. We’re selling it off to pay for tax cuts for the super wealthy.
I'm strongly against this change, but saying that federal land belongs to us is also wrong. The vast majority of it is closed off to public access, and what they do allow us to use is almost always full months in advance and packed with people. Some of my favorite spots are now closed for various reasons and they will jack you up for trespassing worse than a private owner could. I'm a huge advocate of zero impact (or leave no trace) use, and it's very true that many people will trash stuff, but it's definitely not my land whatsoever.
We should be expanding public access, not selling it off
.8% is a bit misleading. Public Land is 37% (as of 1991) [1] of the state. The ADK park is state owned/managed and huge. Catskill region also has lots of public land. They're both amazing places I'm happy don't look like the US side of Niagara falls [2]
> Federal land belongs to you, to me, to all Americans.
So if it belongs to me, can I build a house there? Plant crops? Go hiking or camping? Can I do these things whenever I please without asking anyone? Because I wouldn't say "that land belongs to me" in any meaningful sense. National parks aside, I don't see how citizens benefit from the government owning large tracts of land.
Planting and harvesting are managed activities to protect the local ecosystem but there are permits available for both activities. You are also free to go hiking and camping within the rules (distance requirements from roads and trails, wildfire management restrictions, stay limits to prevent lasting damage, etc) across the _vast_ majority of publicly owned lands. Even building structures can be done in specific circumstances with permits or leases.
This is all such easily accessed information direct from NFS, NPS, and BLM government websites, it's impossible to not view your comment as written in bad faith. Public lands are broadly your lands to enjoy and use as they exist in their natural state, so long as you're not depriving others of the same access.
Most national lands, you can in fact go hiking or camping there without asking anyone for permission. Some are permitted but only high-traffic areas. In the national forests for the most part you can literally pull over on the side of the road anywhere and camp.
In general you can do anything on the land that doesn't impede other people's ability to also do anything on general on the land. Permanent houses or crops would impede other members of the public who also own the land.
I'm curious why you exempted national parks and not national forest when the latter allows for even more use.
Personally, I use my public lands all the time, visiting several times a week and camping frequently. There's a 30K-acre chunk of national forest nearby we sold to a private corporation over a decade ago and now that's all cut off. They're just sitting on it. Used to be hunters and foragers and mountain bikers and motorcyclists and horses... Now all off limits. And what did we get in exchange?
I'm a big fan of camping in federal lands. No permits like stupid state parks, just a 2 week limit on location. I like to 4x4 on old trails, pick a wild spot that looks good for camp, then break out the axe to find firewood.
If you are not constrained by a vault toilet and pack your own water, it is a playground.
Nevada became US territory through the treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, and the US paid per acre ceded. Who should it have gone to? Lots of people fought in the Mexican-American war, and the military was funded by taxpayers. Is it wrong for it to become public land in that context?
And frankly Nevada is mostly land that no one wanted. Because it's mostly in the endorheic basin, and the soil is not great for agriculture. The BLM will let you graze animals without having to buy the land, and because it's so arid and pasture use will degrade the existing vegetation, IIUC it wouldn't make sense to purchase. I think federal ownership is kind of natural when the nation wants territorial control, but the land itself isn't capable of being productive.
The government is going to sell it to whoever is in office's buddies and they are going to strip mine and log it. Most of Nevada and Utah are uninhabitable, but perfect for corporations that don't want to abide by environmental laws. It's actually hilariously insulting that Mike Lee is saying this is to help solve the housing crisis as if someone is going to build a housing development with no water or road access.
I even have libertarian diehard friends that are against this sale, if for nothing else than the fact you -can not- trust the government to sell it in a legitimate non-corrupt manner.
They didn't vote for Trump, so now what? People that try to paint people into a political corner should really get out more. Not only is it annoying and off-putting, it's an intellectual dead end.
I know a lot of staunch libertarians, and maybe 20% (if that) voted for Trump. And of that 20%, about 95% were voting for him because they accepted the false dichotomy of Kamala or Trump.
There are plenty of valid criticisms of libertarians IMHO, but supporting Trump isn't really one of them.
Most of the libertarians I know voted for trump and pretend that they did so to vote against Harris. But that’s probably because they don’t want to take responsibility for what the voted into office.
Why would those numbers mitigate how bad this is? Public land is awesome and open to everyone. These areas are currently used by millions of hikers, hunters, ranchers, miners, researchers, campers, OHVers, and so many other groups.
These sales will close the land to a few wealthy people/businesses, or be destroyed by extractive industries. Once these areas are sold they will be lost forever, after being open for generations. All so billionaires, who currently pay a lower effective tax rate than most HN posters, can pay even less.
So… what? Sell the rest? These are clearly leading questions and statements. Why not simply have the courage to make your actual argument, instead of playing “google this for me” and stupid semantic games?