As I understand it, much of that land is ‘used’ to one extent or another; which means it has workers that must be on it, yet no taxes coming from it’s use (to the local area). There is a burden assumed from the land, but no local income.
Not necessarily. That 60% produces a lot of economic revenue – logging, mining, grazing, recreation, etc. When the feds shut off access to that land, for whatever reason, it hurts the state’s economy. Those actions also devastate local economies. Counties that have that much federal land in them find their economies at the whim of DC bureaucrats, which is a very uncomfortable feeling.
There is also a lot of private land within the federal land, and when the feds start shutting down right-of-ways to that land, that causes a lot of problems.
Also, if the land was in private ownership counties could receive more tax revenue. Sure, most of the time the federal land is not imposing any burden on the county, but that’s not the basis for taxation. Private forestland doens’t impose any burden on the county, and it still gets taxed.
I disagree with this action. While there are some areas which might be better left in private hands, I just plain like forests. If they are to be sold off, it needs to be to interests which will keep them as intact as possible; there are some mining concerns which will leave the land mostly undisturbed. Alternatively, things like tree farms would do.
It is my understanding that the land sale is to fund the Secure Rural School and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, not as previously assumed to go to the general fund or some other ominous government black hole.
According to the link above the act to be funded by a sale of land is to **stabilize payments to counties that help support roads and schools, provide projects that enhance forest ecosystem health and provide employment opportunities, and to improve cooperative relationships among Federal land management agencies and those who use and care about the lands the agencies manage. **
The sale that is mentioned in the OP is specifically described as such:
**The President’s FY 2007 Budget for the Forest Service includes a legislative proposal that would amend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 to allow payments under the Act to continue for an additional five years. This proposal underscores the President’s commitment to states and counties which have been impacted by the ongoing reduction in receipts primarily due to lower timber harvest levels on Federal lands.
To provide a funding basis for an extension of the Secure Rural Schools Act, the President’s proposal authorizes the sale of certain parcels of National Forest System Lands. Lands that are potentially eligible for this proposal have been identified. **
So this is not a one time sale to cover recurring annualy budget expenses. It is to fund a specific program that would expire in five years.
Here is a site that lists out the parcels and even provides some PDF maps to display the areas to be sold. I really have no opinion on this one. It seems that many of the parcels to be sold are a small as two acres and very few are more than one hundred acres.
Federal forests can already be logged, and I believe follow the same rules as public logging companies (if an area is zoned for logging, you must replant or selectively harvest). These areas are not ‘parks’ and left in a pristine state
I like forests, too. Just because you like forests does not mean the government should own them, however. There are millions of acres of forestland in the West owned by private individuals who do just as well, and arguably much better, than the government in managing them.
What do you mean, “intact”? Do you mean no logging, or no development of the land for houses and the like?
I think the “funding schools” issue is irrelavent. The decision to sell the land should be made based on whether or not it makes sense for the government to continue owning this land. The OP’s article states that the land in question represents about 0.5% of the National Forest land in the country. Do we suffer from a shortage of National Forest land or a surpluss? That’s the question that has to answered first, and then we can decide which of these parcels is worth keeping and which should be sold. I doubt that any of us here has the information nedded in order to make an informed decision on this subject.
Should the land be sold, my preference is that the States in which the land exists should have first right of refusal to purchase this land, then they can do what makes sense for that state.
Question of precedent. Even though National Forest land is supposedly working land, here in New England we do think of our national forests – particularly the White Mountains National Forest – as being part of our collective birthright, not as something that should be sold off in parcels to the highest bidder. And even if in the West suburbanization is less of an issue (though not a non-issue, as cited here), it certainly is a particularly acute question here in the East.
And maybe somebody can answer a question I’ve had for some time. There are a number of ski resorts in the White Mountains, which I’ve always thought operated on a lease basis. However, around the resorts, there is a ton of condo development, on what to me looks like virgin land (see an example here). Is this land somehow bought or leased from the national forest, or is it private land that was never part of the national forest?
In that case, how much tax revenue could privatizing it actually generate, after the initial sale?
Can they do that? As a general rule, title to land includes an implied easement of access. It’s called “easement by necessity.”
Property taxes are based on local governmental (and some state) regulations, which are always in flux; I’m not sure an actual number could be obtained (esp since we have no idea how the land would be used, and thus taxed)
It’s not an acute question for most of the West. There are millions of acres of forestland and other undeveloped land with a few pockets of population spread among them. If the government sold only the small fraction of the land Bush plans to do, it wouldn’t even be noticeable.
The East is not comparable to the West. The county I come from in Idaho is about the size of Rhode Island and only has around 37,000 people in it. And there are a few counties larger with less population in that state. Montana and Nevada have even more extreme examples. Alaska, of course, is even more unique.
It isn’t always granted
Really?
Forest Service: There are 155 national forests and 20 grasslands, ecompassing some 191 million acres.
“Congress established the Forest Service in 1905 to provide quality water and timber for the Nation’s benefit. Over the years, the public has expanded the list of what they want from national forests and grasslands. Congress responded by directing the Forest Service to manage national forests for additional multiple uses and benefits and for the sustained yield of renewable resources such as water, forage, wildlife, wood, and recreation. Multiple use means managing resources under the best combination of uses to benefit the American people while ensuring the productivity of the land and protecting the quality of the environment.”
Source: http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/meetfs.shtml
Bureau of Land Management: The BLM manages 264 million acres of surface acres.
“The BLM is an agency in the Department of Interior, in the US Government. The BLM manages 264 million acres of surface acres of public lands located primarily in the 12 Western States, including Alaska. The agency manages an additional 300 million acres of below ground mineral estate located throughout the country. Originally, these lands were valued principally for the commodities extracted from them; today, the public also prizes them for their recreational opportunities and their natural, historical, and cultural resources they contain.”
This is a point that cannot be emphasized enough. An extreme example: 87% of Nevada is owend by the federal government. I couldn’t find a numerical breakdown by state, but this is good visual aid. As far as this issue is concerned, east is east and west and west.
Well, right, but the policy presumably would be national. And I venture to say that land in the east would yield vastly more money than an equivalent amount in the west, increasing the temptation. The question really is, once started, where do you stop?
Look at the cites I provided. They show that the dispursement of the land for sale is all over the US, not just in the West.
You stop where the people have a vested intersed in retaining ownership of the lands. The people elect the congress and the president to make those decisions. I’m not really arguing one way or another on this issue, but it does seem that several posters are starting from the assumption that selling land = bad. I think it depends on the circumstances. There may well be some land in the east that it makes no sense fo the feds to own and some in the weast that it does. There are lots of military bases in the western states like NV that need to stay in federal hands But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of federal land is in the west. It’s not even close.
Why is Bush trying, deliberately trying, to destroy everything worthy & worthwhile in this country?
John, like you, I don’t have a terribly strong opinion on the subject. I accept that some land might usefully be sold off. But I’m a little worried that this is the thin end of the wedge, particularly with the Republicans in office. You begin small, establish a precedent, and then suddenly it’s, “Why shouldn’t we cut taxes? We have stuff we can sell!” And it’s unquestionably the case that a core Republican constituency – the well-heeled and the business interests – will be the beneficiaries. Before forest land is chopped up into subdivisions and strip malls, we should think about the environmental and policy implications.