Yeti

Mike Lee introduces legislation to sale and develop public lands

Oneye

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
650
Location
Utah

This man makes no secret why he wants public lands transferred. So he can discount, sale, and develop. Remember, this man has an election coming up with several alternative options. How any hunter, outdoorsman, or person who enjoys public lands can continue to endorse this guy, is really way beyond me. Let’s make sure we sale and develop ALL winter range for wildlife in our state. Develop, develop, develop. Water will certainly never run out.
 

ccc23454

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
2,365
Location
Wyoming
In my younger days i learned what made things more "affordable" was working harder and getting paid better! Barrasso must be working this as jackson issue. If this is allowed when and why would it ever stop other than we ran out of all public lands. I bet Sen Lee has room on his property for some affordable housing!
 

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
15,606
Location
Bozeman, MT
Looks like Mike Lee finds the "Richard Bryan-Harry Reid Land Disposal Plan" a/k/a SNPLMA is a good idea. Hopefully Lee will earmark the proceeds for use in acquiring other sensitive conservation lands, the bait used by Bryan, Reid, and Ensign to get the Nevada law passed. It was a bi-partisan bill, something I doubt Lee will be able to pull off in today's current environment.

Not that the BLM lands inside, or on the fringe, of the Vegas metro area has high wildlife value. There is no winter range and virtually all the surface water had been previously absconded by development in Clark County, making for little wildlife values. In 2020, the last sale I looked into, 665 acres sold for over $170 million. If the proceeds were used properly, I guess a case could be made that selling lands already compromised by their proximity to urban sprawl might be worthwhile sacrifices given the huge amounts of revenue generated. Not sure if the same would apply to any lands around SLC.

If you ever wondered who paid for the new digs at Red Rocks or Lake Mead outside of Vegas, well, you paid for it. You paid for it with proceeds from the sale of your public lands.

And in a perverse way, you also paid for the water infrastructure needed to accommodate all the new development allowed on these privatized lands. The local Clark County officials knew if they were able to secure more land for development under this legislation, they would need more water. So, Bryan and Reid made sure that water acquisition and infrastructure was an allowable use of the proceeds. I've not followed it close enough to know if Nevada got any of the proceeds actually used for critical conservation lands, as was the promise and premise that allowed this to pass.

I'd be interested if the Nevada folks think the trade off was worth it. I was opposed to it and many lobbied the MT delegation to not support it, for the precedence it could set. Maybe the NV members could give the Utah folks some insight about what to expect and what to watch out for, and if they feel it was a worthwhile trade off. I could have been too narrow-minded in my opposition at that time.

It is interesting that Mike Lee wants to use a model Harry Reid developed and used to repay some big favors with his Vegas friends. On the other hand, I guess it's not that peculiar, given how much money gets made by constituents in a process such as we've seen in Vegas.

There is some good history in the SNPLMA for those wanting to anticipate what could happen with what Mike Lee is proposing.
 

Oneye

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
650
Location
Utah
Looks like Mike Lee finds the "Richard Bryan-Harry Reid Land Disposal Plan" a/k/a SNPLMA is a good idea. Hopefully Lee will earmark the proceeds for use in acquiring other sensitive conservation lands, the bait used by Bryan, Reid, and Ensign to get the Nevada law passed. It was a bi-partisan bill, something I doubt Lee will be able to pull off in today's current environment.

Not that the BLM lands inside, or on the fringe, of the Vegas metro area has high wildlife value. There is no winter range and virtually all the surface water had been previously absconded by development in Clark County, making for little wildlife values. In 2020, the last sale I looked into, 665 acres sold for over $170 million. If the proceeds were used properly, I guess a case could be made that selling lands already compromised by their proximity to urban sprawl might be worthwhile sacrifices given the huge amounts of revenue generated. Not sure if the same would apply to any lands around SLC.

If you ever wondered who paid for the new digs at Red Rocks or Lake Mead outside of Vegas, well, you paid for it. You paid for it with proceeds from the sale of your public lands.

And in a perverse way, you also paid for the water infrastructure needed to accommodate all the new development allowed on these privatized lands. The local Clark County officials knew if they were able to secure more land for development under this legislation, they would need more water. So, Bryan and Reid made sure that water acquisition and infrastructure was an allowable use of the proceeds. I've not followed it close enough to know if Nevada got any of the proceeds actually used for critical conservation lands, as was the promise and premise that allowed this to pass.

I'd be interested if the Nevada folks think the trade off was worth it. I was opposed to it and many lobbied the MT delegation to not support it, for the precedence it could set. Maybe the NV members could give the Utah folks some insight about what to expect and what to watch out for, and if they feel it was a worthwhile trade off. I could have been too narrow-minded in my opposition at that time.

It is interesting that Mike Lee wants to use a model Harry Reid developed and used to repay some big favors with his Vegas friends. On the other hand, I guess it's not that peculiar, given how much money gets made by constituents in a process such as we've seen in Vegas.

There is some good history in the SNPLMA for those wanting to anticipate what could happen with what Mike Lee is proposing.
Judging by some of the other politicians named in this article, there’s some areas that are definitely wildlife winter range(some of the only areas left on the Wasatch front) that are being targeted here. Mentioning areas around Provo, and SLC, any undeveloped lower areas are pretty vital at this point. I will never consider something Mike Lee is doing in any way a good faith effort for public lands, wildlife, or the common hunter.
 

OriginalOscar

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2021
Messages
38
In Utah the ongoing drought and growth have created critical issues; yet people keep coming because we do have a good thing compared with many other states.

Without water, I'm in the NO growth camp.
 

Wildabeast

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2020
Messages
2,438
Location
NC / UT / WY
Land isn’t the problem in UT as it relates to affordable housing. It’s construction costs. Lee is simply being the slimy opportunist that he is and using the current inflation situation to disingenuously promote his decades old agenda to usurp and privatize, exploit and destroy Utah’s natural treasures. Thank God this bill has no hope of passing, but it should make us all even more aware that this guy is not gonna stop until he’s voted out of office!
 

Oneye

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
650
Location
Utah
Land isn’t the problem in UT as it relates to affordable housing. It’s construction costs. Lee is simply being the slimy opportunist that he is and using the current inflation situation to disingenuously promote his decades old agenda to usurp and privatize, exploit and destroy Utah’s natural treasures. Thank God this bill has no hope of passing, but it should make us all even more aware that this guy is not gonna stop until he’s voted out of office!
I’ll be doing all I can to push McMullin. He has some primary challengers, but he’ll likely get through the primary just fine. Democrats aren’t going to win, and frankly they need to just not run anyone and get behind McMullin this go round. No outdoorsman should be voting for Mike Lee when reasonable alternatives exist. McMullin is the only one with a viable path at beating him, and I hope sportsmen will put their weight behind a candidate that can get rid of him and remove quite literally the most anti-public land representative in congress.
 

Wildabeast

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2020
Messages
2,438
Location
NC / UT / WY
I’ll be doing all I can to push McMullin. He has some primary challengers, but he’ll likely get through the primary just fine. Democrats aren’t going to win, and frankly they need to just not run anyone and get behind McMullin this go round. No outdoorsman should be voting for Mike Lee when reasonable alternatives exist. McMullin is the only one with a viable path at beating him, and I hope sportsmen will put their weight behind a candidate that can get rid of him and remove quite literally the most anti-public land representative in congress.
Appreciate the efforts, but I’m not optimistic that Lee can bee defeated given the current UT mood and electorate. I think an equally important task would be to get Romney to quit signing onto to this BS. He seems more rational and open to opposing the party status quo on some issues.
 

Oneye

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
650
Location
Utah
Appreciate the efforts, but I’m not optimistic that Lee can bee defeated given the current UT mood and electorate. I think an equally important task would be to get Romney to quit signing onto to this BS. He seems more rational and open to opposing the party status quo on some issues.
It’s an uphill battle, but not totally impossible. A recent poll had Lee at 43%, McMullin at 19%, Weston(Democrat)11%, and 24% undecided. Granted Lee has the clear advantage, if Dems would not run anyone, and McMullin can ramp up his campaign after the primary, there’s a narrow opening. Again though, Dems would have to run no one and get behind McMullin, not on policy, but with the goal of getting rid of Lee. I wish they would.
 

wllm

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
14,652
Location
Boston
Looks like Mike Lee finds the "Richard Bryan-Harry Reid Land Disposal Plan" a/k/a SNPLMA is a good idea. Hopefully Lee will earmark the proceeds for use in acquiring other sensitive conservation lands, the bait used by Bryan, Reid, and Ensign to get the Nevada law passed. It was a bi-partisan bill, something I doubt Lee will be able to pull off in today's current environment.

Not that the BLM lands inside, or on the fringe, of the Vegas metro area has high wildlife value. There is no winter range and virtually all the surface water had been previously absconded by development in Clark County, making for little wildlife values. In 2020, the last sale I looked into, 665 acres sold for over $170 million. If the proceeds were used properly, I guess a case could be made that selling lands already compromised by their proximity to urban sprawl might be worthwhile sacrifices given the huge amounts of revenue generated. Not sure if the same would apply to any lands around SLC.

If you ever wondered who paid for the new digs at Red Rocks or Lake Mead outside of Vegas, well, you paid for it. You paid for it with proceeds from the sale of your public lands.

And in a perverse way, you also paid for the water infrastructure needed to accommodate all the new development allowed on these privatized lands. The local Clark County officials knew if they were able to secure more land for development under this legislation, they would need more water. So, Bryan and Reid made sure that water acquisition and infrastructure was an allowable use of the proceeds. I've not followed it close enough to know if Nevada got any of the proceeds actually used for critical conservation lands, as was the promise and premise that allowed this to pass.

I'd be interested if the Nevada folks think the trade off was worth it. I was opposed to it and many lobbied the MT delegation to not support it, for the precedence it could set. Maybe the NV members could give the Utah folks some insight about what to expect and what to watch out for, and if they feel it was a worthwhile trade off. I could have been too narrow-minded in my opposition at that time.

It is interesting that Mike Lee wants to use a model Harry Reid developed and used to repay some big favors with his Vegas friends. On the other hand, I guess it's not that peculiar, given how much money gets made by constituents in a process such as we've seen in Vegas.

There is some good history in the SNPLMA for those wanting to anticipate what could happen with what Mike Lee is proposing.

I'm sure there are some piece of federal lands that would make sense to sell, but I don't like the precedent of selling any lands, I don't like that as the solution to these issues, and I don't think doing so will be detrimental to the future of the west.

1. Water

As you noted western cities are already stealing water from anywhere they can get it. Cheap housing just allows the cities and population to expand unabated. If we are struggling with water now what happens when the population of SLC doubles?

2. Urban Planning

There is no planning in the west, all western cities are ridiculous. Denver/SLC/Vegas at the same time wildly oversized but also wildly wasteful with the land they have. If you compare western cities to Eastern or European cities, the commute times are far longer, air population much worse, yet people live in bigger houses.

Single family homes on .25 acre is horribly inefficient. I understand that it's all tied up in idealized western American mythology, but it's also stupid. That kind of spacing and planning makes it virtually impossible to develop effective public transit. Folks can't walk to stores/schools/hospitals etc. and therefore you drive. Because everyone drive's we blanket our landscape with massive roads, those roads takes away valuable real-estate that could be used for housing... or hell even green space. It also generates a ton of air pollution which is why LA/SLC/ Denver etc on many days rival Beijing for the worst air in the world. It also drives us to ever increase our fossil fuel consumption... global warming... yada yada yada.

I know this is going to be a unpopular opinion, but I think those cities need to be constrained, and need to get more expensive. They need to build up and in, not out. Adding miles and miles of tract homes is not in our best interest. We shouldn't subsidize waste and inefficiency in the west.

3. Slippery slope

I know I know logical fallacy, but as we all know the real pinch for buildable real-estate isn't just in SLC/Las Vegas/ Denver. It's really hitting hard in all the small mountain towns backed up, not by dusty dry BLM, but by key elk and deer habitat.

If there is the precedent of sacrificing lands to development does anyone seriously think it's not going to then immediately follow that Aspen, Vail, Park City, etc. wont want to do the same?


So a long winded way of saying, yes I think you could sell some lands here and there for a lot of money and put that into some great projects, but I don't think it's a good idea.
 

hossblur

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
737
The leadership, coincidentally I'm sure in Utah, are all developers, short of Cox.

Top notch guys too, like Mike Shultz, who took a truckload of PPP money, as his development/construction company enjoyed the building boom.

Utah has no water. They are paying people to rip out grass. Ag just got a 40% reduction.

Sad to see the cancer has metastisized to Wyoming though.
 

OriginalOscar

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2021
Messages
38
I'm sure there are some piece of federal lands that would make sense to sell, but I don't like the precedent of selling any lands, I don't like that as the solution to these issues, and I don't think doing so will be detrimental to the future of the west.

1. Water

As you noted western cities are already stealing water from anywhere they can get it. Cheap housing just allows the cities and population to expand unabated. If we are struggling with water now what happens when the population of SLC doubles?

2. Urban Planning

There is no planning in the west, all western cities are ridiculous. Denver/SLC/Vegas at the same time wildly oversized but also wildly wasteful with the land they have. If you compare western cities to Eastern or European cities, the commute times are far longer, air population much worse, yet people live in bigger houses.

Single family homes on .25 acre is horribly inefficient. I understand that it's all tied up in idealized western American mythology, but it's also stupid. That kind of spacing and planning makes it virtually impossible to develop effective public transit. Folks can't walk to stores/schools/hospitals etc. and therefore you drive. Because everyone drive's we blanket our landscape with massive roads, those roads takes away valuable real-estate that could be used for housing... or hell even green space. It also generates a ton of air pollution which is why LA/SLC/ Denver etc on many days rival Beijing for the worst air in the world. It also drives us to ever increase our fossil fuel consumption... global warming... yada yada yada.

I know this is going to be a unpopular opinion, but I think those cities need to be constrained, and need to get more expensive. They need to build up and in, not out. Adding miles and miles of tract homes is not in our best interest. We shouldn't subsidize waste and inefficiency in the west.

3. Slippery slope

I know I know logical fallacy, but as we all know the real pinch for buildable real-estate isn't just in SLC/Las Vegas/ Denver. It's really hitting hard in all the small mountain towns backed up, not by dusty dry BLM, but by key elk and deer habitat.

If there is the precedent of sacrificing lands to development does anyone seriously think it's not going to then immediately follow that Aspen, Vail, Park City, etc. wont want to do the same?


So a long winded way of saying, yes I think you could sell some lands here and there for a lot of money and put that into some great projects, but I don't think it's a good idea.
Outside views of the west? Don't judge people who dream to have .25 acre lot and home!

Denver and SLC are very well planned compared to most major metro areas. Big view plans coordinated with transit, recreation, housing all considered. The incredible growth we are seeing as people move for opportunity strains even well planned communities.

Resort communities drive a lot of jobs, taxes and it's outside money including international visitors and property owners. The trade imbalance money comes back to US.

We are due a good Sagebrush Rebellion after Tea Party II 2022. Let's start with removal of feral horses!
 

hossblur

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
737
I proposed an idea to Rob Bishop once.

Why not make a trade system?

Developers/O&G can trade acre for acre, useless BLM/School Trust land, for acres the public would benefit from(hunting, rec, etc).

He was getting back to me on that., Apparently via stagecoach or messenger pigeon
 

wllm

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
14,652
Location
Boston
Outside views of the west? Don't judge people who dream to have .25 acre lot and home!

Denver and SLC are very well planned compared to most major metro areas.
You’d be hard pressed to find worse IMHO, no forethought for expansion, and all current planning seems to have a 5-10 year outlook not 50-100.

Suburbia will kill the west.
 
Last edited:

CPAjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2017
Messages
531
Location
Beneath these Western Skies . . .
Plain and simple - I HATE any notion or idea of selling public lands. I also HATE the idea of landlocked public lands. A huge thank you goes out to those individuals who keep up the good fight of keeping public lands public.

As a fellow Utard, it's terrible to see what the future looks like for Utah. Diminishing GSL levels, record setting drought, and unbridled growth. Maybe it's time for me to move to Alaska, Wyoming, or Montana. ;)

I'll turn in my Utard kit upon departure!
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
17,060
Location
Cedar, MI
FLPMA sets the process to nominate and sell parcels fine. This bill seems like creep, personally.

LAs Vegas is surrounded by public land and while it makes sense to peel a little off there where wildlife isn't an issue, you still should be looking at replacement. No net loss should be the overriding principle of this effort. I can see where towns like Jackson Hole would benefit from this, as there is so little private left for any kind of housing, that the workers who service that community have a lower quality of life due to housing issues, increased communities or multiple families in one house, etc.

Housing is an issue, politicians will always use the latest craze to justify their bad, old ideas.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be selling public land if the benefit to the public outweighs the cost of sale or loss of land. Good land management means dynamic land management, and that includes making sure checkerboard gets blocked up, it means inholdings are purchases or swapped ala Land Banking, and it means better access to existing public lands. A blanket "hard no' on the sale of public lands just doesn't help with dynamic, effective management.
 
Top