Why is Mike Lee obsessed with selling off federal land

[Andy1]

I have been following this issue a bit. The proposed law would require the mandatory selling off of about 2-3 million acres of Federal land in the west. People in Montana are opposed to it so lands in Montana are exempt along with National Parks, historic sites, rivers corridors, etc. Most of the land sold would be from US National Forests or BLM land. This is a stupid proposal that will become a corporate favor.
 

There is currently an established process, that has been in place for many dacades, for the sale of Federal lands. This process incorporates public input and other factors, as should happen in a democracy, when the government sells land which belongs to all of us. Once the land is sold, it’s gone forever. They aren’t making any more of it.
 

This law would avoid that process. There is currently no list or map of the lands that would be sold, so no one can voice opposition to a specific chunk they want to privatize. This is just a concept that sounds good to MAGA that they want to push through in this Big Fugly Bill. There will be no public hearing on this law. This likely means that the sale of our lands would be behind closed doors to corporations who want specific blocks of our land. This leads to more corporate corruption and corporate favors at the expense of the public interest.
 

Our public lands where people can hunt, fish and hike are one of the things which makes America great. Europe has old cities, cathedrals and castles. In America we have our land for our public heritage which is passed on from one generation to the next. Once gone, it’s gone forever. Your Mountain podcast has a recent episode going in depth on this proposal. 

[LeviF]

14 hours ago, Andy1 said:

I have been following this issue a bit. The proposed law would require the mandatory selling off of about 2-3 million acres of Federal land in the west. People in Montana are opposed to it so lands in Montana are exempt along with National Parks, historic sites, rivers corridors, etc. Most of the land sold would be from US National Forests or BLM land. This is a stupid proposal that will become a corporate favor.
 

There is currently an established process, that has been in place for many dacades, for the sale of Federal lands. This process incorporates public input and other factors, as should happen in a democracy, when the government sells land which belongs to all of us. Once the land is sold, it’s gone forever. They aren’t making any more of it.
 

This law would avoid that process. There is currently no list or map of the lands that would be sold, so no one can voice opposition to a specific chunk they want to privatize. This is just a concept that sounds good to MAGA that they want to push through in this Big Fugly Bill. There will be no public hearing on this law. This likely means that the sale of our lands would be behind closed doors to corporations who want specific blocks of our land. This leads to more corporate corruption and corporate favors at the expense of the public interest.
 

Our public lands where people can hunt, fish and hike are one of the things which makes America great. Europe has old cities, cathedrals and castles. In America we have our land for our public heritage which is passed on from one generation to the next. Once gone, it’s gone forever. Your Mountain podcast has a recent episode going in depth on this proposal. 

 

Unless you've got in up to your neck in boomercon news media, no, this does not "sound good to MAGA."

 

Any so-called "conservative" with power backing this is so clearly up the ass of billionaire developers and pro-invasion traitors that they have to flush ***** out of their sinuses daily. And any so-called "conservative" without power signaling this as a good idea is either 1. stupid 2. willfully ignorant or 3. so brainwashed by high school level lolbertarianism they should probably be lobotomized.

[LeviF]

And to answer the initial question...gosh I just can't come up with any rea$$$on$ why Mike Lee may back selling off federal land

 

[The Frankish Reich]

How this works on a very local level:

 

We had a local golf course in Denver on kind of marginal land adjacent to I-70. The area started to gentrify. The people of Denver didn't want a big residential/commercial development there, so the City purchased a "perpetual conservation easement" from the owners for $2 million. The easement restricted the land to use as a public recreational amenity; basically, only a golf course fit the bill.

 

The owners then said it wasn't viable as a golf course. They shut it down and let it become an eyesore. Developers lobbied ($$$) the City Council for a ballot proposition to eliminate the "conservation easement" so the land could be developed. Voters shot it down. By now it was pretty clear that the people simply didn't want more development there.

 

The developers didn't give up. A developer bought the golf course (still subject to the conservation easement) for a bargain basement price of $24 million. If the easement was removed, it's easily worth 20 or more times that. And guess what? Another ballot proposition. This time they "greenwashed" it, claiming that an infill project would be good for the climate and for poorer Denverites who need more housing. The City Council ($$$) agreed. Get that zoning/easement changed and the developer has just made maybe $100 million through lobbying/rent-seeking behavior. 

 

It lost again. Finally the city gave up. You apparently can't bs your voters 3X. It'll now be some kind of public park.

 

That's how the developers work. We need to sell marginal BLM/USFS land to ease the housing crunch. But that land can't be used for housing because it's too far away from population centers and/or has no water rights. Never mind. We'll fix that later through more lobbying ($$$), then we'll make real money.

[Roundybout]

 

 

I hope this means he’s pulling the bill. He has to know what a universally hated idea it is.