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

[maff]

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!

Selection is done by the Secretary of the Interior (for BLM land) and Secretary of Agriculture (for USFS land). The Secretaries are supposed to solicit nominations from state and local governments and take input regarding the suitability of the nominated tracts for residential development from the governor of the state, applicable local governments, and applicable Indian tribes. But those are just nominations. Ultimately, the Secretaries are free to make selections however they choose. There are no requirements that the land ultimately selected for sale actually be suitable for housing.

You can read the bill text here; relevant portion starts on page 30: https://www.wilderness.org/sites/defaul ... 250617.pdf

[Boggy B]

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

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?

y'all seem to want to debate whether P2025 is being implemented and R voters should have known. All I've said is it's not what the voters were told in 2024, so to say "they voted for this" implies they believed the other party over their own and voted R anyway, which is of course LOL.

[supranihilest]

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

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?

y'all seem to want to debate whether P2025 is being implemented and R voters should have known. All I've said is it's not what the voters were told in 2024, so to say "they voted for this" implies they believed the other party over their own and voted R anyway, which is of course LOL.

Ok, let's come to the present then. This is happening now, regardless of what you heard or were told. What are you going to do about it?

[dwoodward13]

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!

Selection is done by the Secretary of the Interior (for BLM land) and Secretary of Agriculture (for USFS land). The Secretaries are supposed to solicit nominations from state and local governments and take input regarding the suitability of the nominated tracts for residential development from the governor of the state, applicable local governments, and applicable Indian tribes. But those are just nominations. Ultimately, the Secretaries are free to make selections however they choose. There are no requirements that the land ultimately selected for sale actually be suitable for housing.

You can read the bill text here; relevant portion starts on page 30: https://www.wilderness.org/sites/defaul ... 250617.pdf

Its much worse than that.

Nominations can also be given by "interested parties" which include, but are not limited to states or local governments (Page 34, Line 10). There is no limit to what constitutes an "interested party", so I think one can guess how that could play out. If an "interested party" nominates a tract of land the secretary has to "consult" the governor, tribal nation and local gov, but is under no obligation to listen to them should they object to the sale.

[jibler]

yes this reeks of dirty dirty business



i think there is likely an 'interested party' who wants to create the new Devilshead Steakhouse Bar & Grill Lookout.



if you're not shitting yourself - you're not paying attention

W once had a hairbrained land sale with forest service but that went thru comment process and rulemaking. i recall myself submitting comments for the one time in my life actually on that one.



but there is no such thing here. this is part of a budget reconciliation process?? meaning they can just staple any add-on bulls**t they want here??

[Boggy B]

Ok, let's come to the present then. This is happening now, regardless of what you heard or were told. What are you going to do about it?

not what I heard or was told, it's what the campaign actually did tell the voters.

I already wrote R senators from a bunch of states where I have connections or formerly lived, not that it matters coming from a CO resident. Thankfully most R state republicans who enjoy the outdoors won't need convincing, though telling them they got what they voted for sure can't help. I'd focus on raising awareness among family/friends/communities in R states since that's your best chance of reaching their representatives.

If as cotton said the hunting groups are onto this, they're probably starting to feel some pressure.

[Marmot72]

I hope the Senate addresses the serious defects with the bill. Besides other issues within it, I treasure our public lands and strongly feel they are worth protecting for not only our recreation but for their precious ecosystems.

[justiner]

This is definitely the US's English Commons moment. Insane profits for the rich and powerful at the expense of the "common" person. The voting of who gets what and why controlled by the very people who are in power to profit from it. Not to politicize, but the proponents of this bill will see those who fight against this as the "radicals".

Anyways, as often said, this is the exact thing punk rock warned you about



Our PUBLIC lands are as much a given right to ALL Americans (and all those who visit as far as I'm concerned) and that's the frame of mind that you should be in when you fight for them.

[seano]

Our PUBLIC lands are as much a given right to ALL Americans (and all those who visit as far as I'm concerned) and that's the frame of mind that you should be in when you fight for them.

It's hard to understand just how awesome this is until you visit other parts of the world. Europe doesn't really have "wilderness," though you can often wander unmolested. Latin American countries, which have lots of wild land, often charge foreigners much higher prices than locals to visit their parks, and a lot of the remaining wilderness is "estancias" (giant empty ranches) that are "public" only for lack of enforcement. Central Asia is a free-for-all with an historically nomadic culture, but feels precarious.

You can fly to the States with a tent, and either pay the same as locals to visit the Parks, or visit the Forests for free. Canada is similar with its Parcs ("hello-bounjour") and Crown Land, though the latter seems much more heavily logged. Regardless of other politics, most westerners especially understand that these public lands are a pearl beyond price.

I unfortunately can't dig it up now, but Timothy Egan's "The Big Burn" has a quote from one of the Robber Barons to the effect of "I'll take what I can; let future generations take care of themselves." We left that attitude behind a hundred years ago.

[cedica]

We left that attitude behind a hundred years ago.

Waking up and getting up has never been easy. Having an abusive relationship with the pimp makes it even harder.

[Scott P]

It's hard to understand just how awesome this is until you visit other parts of the world. Europe doesn't really have "wilderness," though you can often wander unmolested.

I'd respectfully disagree with the part about Europe not having wilderness (there are wilderness areas there more wild than anything Colorado has), but I do agree that you can wander unmolested.

Much of Europe has freedom to roam laws where anyone can access private land. If the US had this, private land wouldn't be so much of a problem), but it will likely never happen here (unfortunately).

[justiner]

I'd respectfully disagree with the part about Europe not having wilderness (there are wilderness areas there more wild than anything Colorado has),

Where?

but I do agree that you can wander unmolested.

Where?

Much of Europe has freedom to roam laws where anyone can access private land.

Where?

I ask Scott, because you may be treating "Europe" as a whole, which is very much a mistake. As is really considering comparing a State within a country with a collection of countries in a continent -- a continent that has a land mass 38x larger than Colorado.