Why is Mike Lee obsessed with selling off federal land

[Roundybout]

 

 

Im surprised this hasn’t been posted here, but Mike Lee is on a crusade to sell off thousands of acres of beautiful, unspoiled Federal land for development. 
 

It’s received universal backlash - no one wants our beautiful lands spoiled. They’re protected and open to anyone. 
 

It’s a horrible idea. Mike Lee is right up there with MTG and Boebert for the worst officials in the nation. 

[Roundybout]

 

 

 

Exactly!

[JaCrispy]

2 hours ago, Roundybout said:

 

 

Im surprised this hasn’t been posted here, but Mike Lee is on a crusade to sell off thousands of acres of beautiful, unspoiled Federal land for development. 
 

It’s received universal backlash - no one wants our beautiful lands spoiled. They’re protected and open to anyone. 
 

It’s a horrible idea. Mike Lee is right up there with MTG and Boebert for the worst officials in the nation. 

I don’t have a side, as I’m not really sure what your premise is…

 

Is it that private ownership is somehow Marxist?

[Roundybout]

4 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I don’t have a side, as I’m not really sure what your premise is…

 

Is it that private ownership is somehow Marxist?

My side is that it’s best for the federal government to own these lands and preserve them in their natural state for the enjoyment of all citizens, as opposed to selling it to random corporations or nameless entities for development and exploitation. 
 

Lee’s plan is stupid and is akin to Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of food.  

[T master]

4 hours ago, Roundybout said:

 

 

Im surprised this hasn’t been posted here, but Mike Lee is on a crusade to sell off thousands of acres of beautiful, unspoiled Federal land for development. 
 

It’s received universal backlash - no one wants our beautiful lands spoiled. They’re protected and open to anyone. 
 

It’s a horrible idea. Mike Lee is right up there with MTG and Boebert for the worst officials in the nation. 

This is probably as stupid a idea as selling American farm land with in the American borders to the Chinese but they do it every day ... 

 

This just goes to show there are stupid people on both sides of the isle !!! 

Edited Friday at 04:45 PM by T master

[Big Blitz]

 

 

There has been an awful lot of misinformation in recent days about a proposal by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) to instruct the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS), in conjunction with states, local governments, and Indian tribes, to identify certain federal lands for potential sale to address local housing and other community needs. 
 

Senator Lee’s bill lists eleven western states, including Wyoming (with 48% federal surface ownership), for implementation of this plan, with the other ten states being Alaska (61%), Arizona (39%), California (45%), Colorado (36%), Idaho (61%), Nevada (80%), New Mexico (31%), Oregon (52%), Utah (63%), and Washington (29%).

 

Land use issues are important in Wyoming, and I spent a considerable amount of my legal career devoted to addressing federal management and private property rights.

 

The subject is understandably more intense in our part of the country, no doubt due to federal ownership of nearly half the land in the western U.S. 

 

Western states are at a distinct disadvantage as compared to eastern states when it comes to having this outsized federal footprint within our borders. 
 

This is especially so when it comes to our municipalities and urban areas that are surrounded by BLM and USFS lands. 
 

This situation hinders our ability to meet increasing housing needs; restricts our ability to attract new businesses and foster economic development; and violates the “equal footing” doctrine which specified that, as our Country grew, new states that joined the union did so “on an equal footing” with the original states in all respects.

 

Senator Lee’s bill is narrowly-focused and targeted toward addressing a growing and pressing need in the western United States — how to provide affordable housing for our families, workers, and others who call our local communities home….

 

 

 

So in summary, over half of the land in the West is owned by the federal government.  
 

That puts it at a district disadvantage vs the East when it comes to needs like development, especially housing.   
 

 

Those needs are sky rocketing due to everyone fleeing the deep blue East and the deep blue left coast.   

 

 

[Roundybout]

7 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

There has been an awful lot of misinformation in recent days about a proposal by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) to instruct the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS), in conjunction with states, local governments, and Indian tribes, to identify certain federal lands for potential sale to address local housing and other community needs. 
 

Senator Lee’s bill lists eleven western states, including Wyoming (with 48% federal surface ownership), for implementation of this plan, with the other ten states being Alaska (61%), Arizona (39%), California (45%), Colorado (36%), Idaho (61%), Nevada (80%), New Mexico (31%), Oregon (52%), Utah (63%), and Washington (29%).

 

Land use issues are important in Wyoming, and I spent a considerable amount of my legal career devoted to addressing federal management and private property rights.

 

The subject is understandably more intense in our part of the country, no doubt due to federal ownership of nearly half the land in the western U.S. 

 

Western states are at a distinct disadvantage as compared to eastern states when it comes to having this outsized federal footprint within our borders. 
 

This is especially so when it comes to our municipalities and urban areas that are surrounded by BLM and USFS lands. 
 

This situation hinders our ability to meet increasing housing needs; restricts our ability to attract new businesses and foster economic development; and violates the “equal footing” doctrine which specified that, as our Country grew, new states that joined the union did so “on an equal footing” with the original states in all respects.

 

Senator Lee’s bill is narrowly-focused and targeted toward addressing a growing and pressing need in the western United States — how to provide affordable housing for our families, workers, and others who call our local communities home….

 

 

 

So in summary, over half of the land in the West is owned by the federal government.  
 

That puts it at a district disadvantage vs the East when it comes to needs like development, especially housing.   
 

 

Those needs are sky rocketing due to everyone fleeing the deep blue East and the deep blue left coast.   

 

 

The land the federal government owns in the west is pristine and also not developable. Leave it be. 

[JDHillFan]

4 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

The land the federal government owns in the west is pristine and also not developable. Leave it be. 

Do you have data to support the “not developable” claim?

[Roundybout]

2 hours ago, JDHillFan said:

Do you have data to support the “not developable” claim?

 

Yes. Here is a study from Headwaters Economics, a research firm in Montana. 

 

https://headwaterseconomics.org/public-lands/wildfire-public-land-housing/

 

"Less than 2% of the 181 million acres of Forest Service operational and Department of Interior land included this analysis are close enough to towns with housing needs to be practical for development—around 2.4 million acres. Most of this land is concentrated in a handful of western states—primarily Nevada, Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Utah—and the vast majority of the land is managed by DOI. Forest Service lands offer even fewer options, with only three states (Arizona, Utah, and Oregon) having more than 5,000 acres near towns."

 

Developing housing on public lands may offer benefits in a limited number of communities, but it is not a broad solution. While access to low-cost land can help, housing affordability depends on a complex set of factors—such as construction and labor costs, financing availability and interest rates, insurance access and affordability, and proximity to jobs. In addition, hyperlocal constraints like water supply and community opposition can further restrict feasibility.

 

Beyond this, I don't want our pristine and beautiful natural lands to be taken over for suburban sprawl. It's unsustainable development. Housing policy should be focused on upzoning existing municipal lands and reusing underdeveloped sites, instead of paving over new ones.  
 

[JDHillFan]

3 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

 

Yes. Here is a study from Headwaters Economics, a research firm in Montana. 

 

https://headwaterseconomics.org/public-lands/wildfire-public-land-housing/

 

"Less than 2% of the 181 million acres of Forest Service operational and Department of Interior land included this analysis are close enough to towns with housing needs to be practical for development—around 2.4 million acres. Most of this land is concentrated in a handful of western states—primarily Nevada, Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Utah—and the vast majority of the land is managed by DOI. Forest Service lands offer even fewer options, with only three states (Arizona, Utah, and Oregon) having more than 5,000 acres near towns."

 

Developing housing on public lands may offer benefits in a limited number of communities, but it is not a broad solution. While access to low-cost land can help, housing affordability depends on a complex set of factors—such as construction and labor costs, financing availability and interest rates, insurance access and affordability, and proximity to jobs. In addition, hyperlocal constraints like water supply and community opposition can further restrict feasibility.

 

Beyond this, I don't want our pristine and beautiful natural lands to be taken over for suburban sprawl. It's unsustainable development. Housing policy should be focused on upzoning existing municipal lands and reusing underdeveloped sites, instead of paving over new ones.  
 

I can’t work up any outrage over .5-.75% of government owned land being opened up for development. The remaining 99.25-99.5% seems like a lot of wilderness left to appreciate. To quote Frankish, “nobody cares”. 

[stinky finger]

How about we focus on the root cause? Blue states and Democratic run cities get their shiit together to prevent those from fleeing.

[njbuff]

2 minutes ago, stinky finger said:

How about we focus on the root cause? Blue states and Democratic run cities get their shiit together to prevent those from fleeing.

Only one finger is stinky??

 

You are doing something really wrong.

 

Who taught you?? 🤣😂😁🤣🤣😂

[B-Man]

 

 

- The federal government owns roughly 650 million acres in the U.S.

 

- Nearly 1 out of every 3 acres in the U.S. (29%) is owned and controlled by the federal government

 

- In the West, 1 out of every 2 acres is owned by the federal government.

 

- Over 90% of all federal land is located in the West.

 

https://westerncaucus.house.gov/sites/westerncaucus.house.gov/files/documents/issue 1- public lands, one pager.pdf

[The Frankish Reich]

2 hours ago, Roundybout said:

The land the federal government owns in the west is pristine and also not developable. Leave it be. 

A lot of it is far from "pristine."

Most of it is not "developable" because it is far, far away from anywhere where people or business are likely to locate.

 

I'm not against a sale of some of the land, but people have a legitimate concern that this is a foot in the door technique, and that somehow (I wonder how ...) big developer interests will wind up buying the land for far less than what they deem it to be worth after an intensive lobbying effort for water rights, road access, etc.

25 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

- The federal government owns roughly 650 million acres in the U.S.

 

- Nearly 1 out of every 3 acres in the U.S. (29%) is owned and controlled by the federal government

 

- In the West, 1 out of every 2 acres is owned by the federal government.

 

- Over 90% of all federal land is located in the West.

 

https://westerncaucus.house.gov/sites/westerncaucus.house.gov/files/documents/issue 1- public lands, one pager.pdf

No offense intended here, but sometimes I wonder exactly how much time these proponents of federal land sales have actually spent on western USFS and BLM lands ...

[Taro T]

16 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

A lot of it is far from "pristine."

Most of it is not "developable" because it is far, far away from anywhere where people or business are likely to locate.

 

I'm not against a sale of some of the land, but people have a legitimate concern that this is a foot in the door technique, and that somehow (I wonder how ...) big developer interests will wind up buying the land for far less than what they deem it to be worth after an intensive lobbying effort for water rights, road access, etc.

No offense intended here, but sometimes I wonder exactly how much time these proponents of federal land sales have actually spent on western USFS and BLM lands ...

 

The thing to watch for is in states that don't have eminent domain laws that somebody buys land with the only access roads to some adjacent lands and then they effectively buy a whole lot more land than they'd actually paid for.

 

Because without eminent domain, you can't force somebody to allow a road in on their property.   It's how folks like Ted Turner ended up getting some really great land.  Buy up everything surrounding what you REALLY want and then make a swap of some of what you have for what you actually want.

 

As long as the feds &/or the state can get roads built to what lies beyond what is being sold off, there isn't a whole lot to be worried about provided you aren't a competitor of clean coal (the real reason 42 converted large chunks of Utah to national parkland - to prevent low sulfur coal from being mined) or a rancher with a dirt cheap lease on federal lands for grazing purposes or someone else benefiting from that land not being private / exploitable.

[The Frankish Reich]

Fairly typical BLM land in Nevada. 

[Roundybout]

6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Fairly typical BLM land in Nevada. 

Let’s keep it that way. I’m opposed to sprawl. It’s bad development and bad urbanism. 

[The Frankish Reich]

7 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

Let’s keep it that way. I’m opposed to sprawl. It’s bad development and bad urbanism. 

Agreed.

And just because it's federal land doesn't mean it's undisturbed wilderness. The old joke is that BLM stands for Bureau of Livestock and Mining.

And here in Colorado all major ski resorts are located on leased Forest Service land.

 

Is the system rational? No. Is the taxpayer getting rents that reflect the true market value? No. Would it be better if we sold off the land to the highest bidder? In theory. But my experience with land use in the West is that the truth is there is no free/open market and that developer or mining interests always seem to win out and get a sweetheart deal. Add to that the scarcity of water and multiple claims for water rights and I don't think we're at a point where larger scale land sales would benefit the American people.

[Roundybout]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Agreed.

And just because it's federal land doesn't mean it's undisturbed wilderness. The old joke is that BLM stands for Bureau of Livestock and Mining.

And here in Colorado all major ski resorts are located on leased Forest Service land.

 

Is the system rational? No. Is the taxpayer getting rents that reflect the true market value? No. Would it be better if we sold off the land to the highest bidder? In theory. But my experience with land use in the West is that the truth is there is no free/open market and that developer or mining interests always seem to win out and get a sweetheart deal. Add to that the scarcity of water and multiple claims for water rights and I don't think we're at a point where larger scale land sales would benefit the American people.

Great post. And think that’s why this proposal is hated by both the left and right. 

[CoudyBills]

On 6/20/2025 at 11:02 AM, Roundybout said:

My side is that it’s best for the federal government to own these lands and preserve them in their natural state for the enjoyment of all citizens, as opposed to selling it to random corporations or nameless entities for development and exploitation. 
 

Lee’s plan is stupid and is akin to Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of food.  

My theory is that you live in the east and not anywhere affected by federal land management.  Is that correct?