120 million acres of public lands eligible for sale in SENR budget reconciliation package

[desertdog]

Let's all chip in, buy the Rockies, secede from the union. We could create a paradise.

Seriously, call your representatives. Vote in the mid terms.

[bdloftin77]

Wow, this is awful. Lots of my favorite parts of El Paso county are up for sale, too.

[Boggy B]

I hope this provision doesn't survive, and suspect it won't considering the well-organized, wealthy, and far less politically diverse interests that stand to lose as much as this and other outdoor-recreation-based communities from such a blow to public land ownership: Hunting, 2A recreation, off-roading, etc. and the tourism industries they support.

To those who just can't help themselves, partisan moralizing is a losing approach. Has no one told the hunters how stupid they are for voting R? I bet that will motivate them to write their representatives.

[k_fergie]

*cut*

• They'll sell land to private landowners who will charge users massively to use the land. Think Cielo Vista, with Culebra and a dozenish 13ers, but on a wider scale (I'd be curious to know if you pull the number of 13ers that could be sold, Kyle). How much will you pay to climb a 13er? How about a 12er? Who will go after these lists if it costs $25,000 to do instead of "merely" $1,000 (for the Cielo Vista 13ers). The landowners will then give a fraction of that to the government, perhaps in exchange for tax cuts or other forms of corruption. Someone mentioned Chicago's parking meters, which have a 99 year lease to some foreign company who recouped their initial investment in something like three years, and who have absolute control over pricing. Chicago's government cannot intervene. Now imagine that but for walking through the forest.

*cut*

I doubt that I will get around to it, unfortunately. From what I can tell, I need a pro/business subscription to ArcGIS to mesh/union/intersect layers (lands sold and peaks) to do the analysis automatically. There are too many peaks for me to do it manually, for better or for worse.

If the bill goes through, I will be purchasing "Bent Peak", which is eligible for sale, so that I can tell everyone that supports this bill to go ahead and "get f***in bent."

[cottonmountaineering]

I hope this provision doesn't survive, and suspect it won't considering the well-organized, wealthy, and far less politically diverse interests that stand to lose as much as this and other outdoor-recreation-based communities from such a blow to public land ownership: Hunting, 2A recreation, off-roading, etc. and the tourism industries they support.

To those who just can't help themselves, partisan moralizing is a losing approach. Has no one told the hunters how stupid they are for voting R? I bet that will motivate them to write their representatives.

I checked a hunting forum that i like and people seem shocked that the sale of public lands is even on the table. at the end of the day i know pointing fingers wont help, but i just dont understand why the average R voter thinks they didnt vote for this, it is exactly what was pitched.

[Boggy B]

I mean, obviously, in a 2-party system a vote doesn't mean you like or want every advertised or unadvertised position or initiative of the party. I don't recall hearing about R plans to auction off public lands prior to the last election, but regardless, it's fair to say the average R voter who enjoys public lands didn't vote for this specifically, and if it impacts them in a meaningful way it will hurt the party.

Consider for example all the Texans (and other R-state residents) who summer in CO and/or recreate on public lands threatened by this measure..

[cottonmountaineering]

I mean, obviously, in a 2-party system a vote doesn't mean you like or want every advertised or unadvertised position or initiative of the party. I don't recall hearing about R plans to auction off public lands prior to the last election, but regardless, it's fair to say the average R voter who enjoys public lands didn't vote for this specifically, and if it impacts them in a meaningful way it will hurt the party.

Consider for example all the Texans (and other R-state residents) who summer in CO and/or recreate on public lands threatened by this measure..

It was all listed in Project 2025, heres a relatively non partisan article with references
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/what ... and_waters

[Boggy B]

It was all listed in Project 2025, heres a relatively non partisan article with references
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/what ... and_waters

but Project 2025, regardless of similarities, wasn't the R platform in 2024. It's a rabbit-hole as far as this topic is concerned.

[cottonmountaineering]

It was all listed in Project 2025, heres a relatively non partisan article with references
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/what ... and_waters

but Project 2025, regardless of similarities, wasn't the R platform in 2024. It's a rabbit-hole as far as this topic is concerned.

project 2025 was tailor made for trumps second term? there is no rabbit hole here

[supranihilest]

It was all listed in Project 2025, heres a relatively non partisan article with references
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/what ... and_waters

but Project 2025, regardless of similarities, wasn't the R platform in 2024. It's a rabbit-hole as far as this topic is concerned.

Then why were Democrats warning about it, only to be constantly dismissed by Republicans? If it wasn't their platform, why is it being rapidly enacted now? Were Republicans lying about their platform, or were they telling you exactly what they were going to do and are now doing it?

https://www.project2025.observer/

[DiamondCutter]

I believe the highlighted areas in maps are selecting areas that would/could be subject to be put up for sale, however, they are asking state representatives (senators I believe?) to choose suitable lands that could be used for housing and to be collectively a total of 2-3 million acres. So I think any land that generally wouldn't be conceivable/reasonable as a livable community likely won't end up on the chopping block. I think it would be lands that are close to cities/towns that have developed communities and that are experiencing housing shortages might be at the greatest risk. The chosen few to select the lands have only 30 days I believe to recommend which lands that would go up for sale. At that point, I think they would total up the acreage to determine if it meets the minimum quota, and then proceed with choosing lands that are deemed most suitable for housing development. I have no idea if they would sell excess (say 10 million acres) if that's how much got chosen, and I doubt each state's representatives will want to volunteer more land than needed so will it be interesting to see how this plays out if it even gets included/passed in the Senate bill. Get your popcorn ready, cuz there is a lot to watch for!

[madbuck]

So here's how this is going to go down.
[Text]

I think you are spot-on with your assessment and scenarios. This (and many other impactful policies) are a heavy mix of politics, history, sociology, and psychology. Most people (being sympathetic to either "side") are simply either overwhelmed ("flood the zone") or in denial as we are boiling frogs in a pot. Regardless of whether all or part of this is implemented, it is sad to see a trajectory moving away from the public land tenets that have been among America's best ideas.

It was all listed in Project 2025, heres a relatively non partisan article with references
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/what ... and_waters

Exactly. I do think our best hope is alliances and putting us together rather than pulling us apart. Given the perception, and perhaps practical reality, that we have two binary political choices, people are going to be OK with some pretty awful things if they think they get other good things in return. Especially if they are ignorant/unaware, reactive, demonized, and/or vindictive. And pyschologically, some peoplefantasize that policies that are actually punishing them and all of their neighbors are actually justifiably attractive to a version of themselves they think they are or wish to be in the future.
I particularly like the backcountry hunters link because it's a different demographic than some on this site but we have so much in common.
We need to stand up for issues rather than personalities and group labels. We need alliances. Even if it means Texans!