Can we send her a quick Zillow link to show that there seem to be plenty of available private lands in the booming town of Kemmer that would support lots of houses. I’m sure lots of people are just super bummed they can’t find housing in a town of 2400 people
<
Congress is currently in the budget reconciliation process, which allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt limit legislation. The House recently passed its version of the bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which now awaits Senate consideration. Those Senate committees that received reconciliation instructions pursuant to H.Con.Res.14 have begun releasing legislative text for reconciliation consideration, but I want to note that such materials are not the final bill. These committee proposals must still be reviewed by the Senate parliamentarian for compliance with the Byrd rule and then pass the entire Senate to officially become part of the reconciliation bill. Such bill will then come back to the House for consideration in relation to what we passed earlier.
On June 11, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released legislative text to be considered as part of Senate Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill. As you have noted, Subtitle C of the bill instructs the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to identify not less than 0.50 percent and not more than 0.75 percent of the lands managed by these agencies for disposal pursuant to the specific conditions set forth in the statutory instructions. This would amount to between two and three million acres of the roughly 640 million acres owned by the federal government, with such lands to be made available solely for the purpose of housing and community development.
There is an extensive amount of downright flagrantly incorrect information being circulated as to the intent of this proposal, what lands would qualify for disposal should this become law, and how the process would proceed. Most notably, the Wilderness Society has produced a map for the purpose of ginning up opposition, despite the fact that such map has nothing to do with Subtitle C in any way whatsoever. It is thus necessary to clarify the situation, starting with the readily confirmable observation that there are no specific parcels or areas designated under the bill, and the details of the bill itself show that this is a commonsense proposal to identify and dispose of those BLM and USFS lands that are hindering local communities from meeting their housing and infrastructure needs, an issue with which Wyoming is all too familiar.
First, the bill does not propose selling off all federal lands. As I mentioned, it would only make available two to three million acres within the jurisdiction of the BLM and USFS in eleven states, including Wyoming. All such lands that are subject to valid existing rights (including grazing permits, ski areas, etc.), and those that are not located in the eleven eligible states are not subject to the bill. Those “Federally Protected Lands” (for example, National Parks, National Monuments, the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and more as defined in the bill) are not eligible for sale. All the lands sold pursuant to this proposal must be used “for the development of housing or to address associated community needs,” limiting not only the number of buyers, but likely making state and local governments the primary advocates and purchasers.
Second, this legislation does not directly offer any parcels for sale but instead provides for a robust public identification and nomination process to evaluate those unused lands that are close to existing infrastructure (such as surrounding Kemmerer, Wyoming), that are ideal for addressing the affordable housing crisis.
Both the BLM and USFS must consult with the governor, local governments, and Indian tribes regarding the suitability of the particular parcel of land for disposal before the proposed sale. Both agencies must also give priority to those lands that are nominated by state and local governments, are adjacent to existing developed areas, have access to existing infrastructure, are suitable for residential housing, reduce checkerboard land patterns, or which are isolated and inefficient to manage. All sales are to be held at fair market value, must provide state and local governments the first right of refusal, limit individual persons in how many acres they can acquire, and share revenue of the sales with the local government to assist with housing development.
This legislative proposal is now pending in the Senate and is thus not something I am currently being asked to vote on as your representative. This proposal was not included in the OBBBA that I voted for and which passed the House. However, I want to reiterate that much of the maps and information circulating about the bill are incorrect and that the proposal as drafted is a much more targeted approach to answer the needs of our local communities, who are hampered from further development due to the oversized footprint of the federal government in our states.
I encourage you to read the bill itself to understand what it does, and as importantly, what it does not do, when considering the benefits of this legislation. Thank you for reaching out to us.
Sincerely,
Rep. Harriet Hageman
Member of Congress
the response i got from hageman
Newest US Senate Land Sale Amendment
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Potsie
Well-known member
I look forward to financially supporting any citizen who runs opposed to Representative Hageman in the next primary cycle.
<
Congress is currently in the budget reconciliation process, which allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt limit legislation. The House recently passed its version of the bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which now awaits Senate consideration. Those Senate committees that received reconciliation instructions pursuant to H.Con.Res.14 have begun releasing legislative text for reconciliation consideration, but I want to note that such materials are not the final bill. These committee proposals must still be reviewed by the Senate parliamentarian for compliance with the Byrd rule and then pass the entire Senate to officially become part of the reconciliation bill. Such bill will then come back to the House for consideration in relation to what we passed earlier.
On June 11, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released legislative text to be considered as part of Senate Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill. As you have noted, Subtitle C of the bill instructs the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to identify not less than 0.50 percent and not more than 0.75 percent of the lands managed by these agencies for disposal pursuant to the specific conditions set forth in the statutory instructions. This would amount to between two and three million acres of the roughly 640 million acres owned by the federal government, with such lands to be made available solely for the purpose of housing and community development.
There is an extensive amount of downright flagrantly incorrect information being circulated as to the intent of this proposal, what lands would qualify for disposal should this become law, and how the process would proceed. Most notably, the Wilderness Society has produced a map for the purpose of ginning up opposition, despite the fact that such map has nothing to do with Subtitle C in any way whatsoever. It is thus necessary to clarify the situation, starting with the readily confirmable observation that there are no specific parcels or areas designated under the bill, and the details of the bill itself show that this is a commonsense proposal to identify and dispose of those BLM and USFS lands that are hindering local communities from meeting their housing and infrastructure needs, an issue with which Wyoming is all too familiar.
First, the bill does not propose selling off all federal lands. As I mentioned, it would only make available two to three million acres within the jurisdiction of the BLM and USFS in eleven states, including Wyoming. All such lands that are subject to valid existing rights (including grazing permits, ski areas, etc.), and those that are not located in the eleven eligible states are not subject to the bill. Those “Federally Protected Lands” (for example, National Parks, National Monuments, the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and more as defined in the bill) are not eligible for sale. All the lands sold pursuant to this proposal must be used “for the development of housing or to address associated community needs,” limiting not only the number of buyers, but likely making state and local governments the primary advocates and purchasers.
Second, this legislation does not directly offer any parcels for sale but instead provides for a robust public identification and nomination process to evaluate those unused lands that are close to existing infrastructure (such as surrounding Kemmerer, Wyoming), that are ideal for addressing the affordable housing crisis.
Both the BLM and USFS must consult with the governor, local governments, and Indian tribes regarding the suitability of the particular parcel of land for disposal before the proposed sale. Both agencies must also give priority to those lands that are nominated by state and local governments, are adjacent to existing developed areas, have access to existing infrastructure, are suitable for residential housing, reduce checkerboard land patterns, or which are isolated and inefficient to manage. All sales are to be held at fair market value, must provide state and local governments the first right of refusal, limit individual persons in how many acres they can acquire, and share revenue of the sales with the local government to assist with housing development.
This legislative proposal is now pending in the Senate and is thus not something I am currently being asked to vote on as your representative. This proposal was not included in the OBBBA that I voted for and which passed the House. However, I want to reiterate that much of the maps and information circulating about the bill are incorrect and that the proposal as drafted is a much more targeted approach to answer the needs of our local communities, who are hampered from further development due to the oversized footprint of the federal government in our states.
I encourage you to read the bill itself to understand what it does, and as importantly, what it does not do, when considering the benefits of this legislation. Thank you for reaching out to us.
Sincerely,
Rep. Harriet Hageman
Member of Congress
the response i got from hageman
I hope this backfires so hard that they have to start paying taxes.
seeth07
Well-known member
Ok Harriet, great and thanks for clarifying. You know what though, it still majorly sucks and so do you
<
Congress is currently in the budget reconciliation process, which allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt limit legislation. The House recently passed its version of the bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which now awaits Senate consideration. Those Senate committees that received reconciliation instructions pursuant to H.Con.Res.14 have begun releasing legislative text for reconciliation consideration, but I want to note that such materials are not the final bill. These committee proposals must still be reviewed by the Senate parliamentarian for compliance with the Byrd rule and then pass the entire Senate to officially become part of the reconciliation bill. Such bill will then come back to the House for consideration in relation to what we passed earlier.
On June 11, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released legislative text to be considered as part of Senate Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill. As you have noted, Subtitle C of the bill instructs the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to identify not less than 0.50 percent and not more than 0.75 percent of the lands managed by these agencies for disposal pursuant to the specific conditions set forth in the statutory instructions. This would amount to between two and three million acres of the roughly 640 million acres owned by the federal government, with such lands to be made available solely for the purpose of housing and community development.
There is an extensive amount of downright flagrantly incorrect information being circulated as to the intent of this proposal, what lands would qualify for disposal should this become law, and how the process would proceed. Most notably, the Wilderness Society has produced a map for the purpose of ginning up opposition, despite the fact that such map has nothing to do with Subtitle C in any way whatsoever. It is thus necessary to clarify the situation, starting with the readily confirmable observation that there are no specific parcels or areas designated under the bill, and the details of the bill itself show that this is a commonsense proposal to identify and dispose of those BLM and USFS lands that are hindering local communities from meeting their housing and infrastructure needs, an issue with which Wyoming is all too familiar.
First, the bill does not propose selling off all federal lands. As I mentioned, it would only make available two to three million acres within the jurisdiction of the BLM and USFS in eleven states, including Wyoming. All such lands that are subject to valid existing rights (including grazing permits, ski areas, etc.), and those that are not located in the eleven eligible states are not subject to the bill. Those “Federally Protected Lands” (for example, National Parks, National Monuments, the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and more as defined in the bill) are not eligible for sale. All the lands sold pursuant to this proposal must be used “for the development of housing or to address associated community needs,” limiting not only the number of buyers, but likely making state and local governments the primary advocates and purchasers.
Second, this legislation does not directly offer any parcels for sale but instead provides for a robust public identification and nomination process to evaluate those unused lands that are close to existing infrastructure (such as surrounding Kemmerer, Wyoming), that are ideal for addressing the affordable housing crisis.
Both the BLM and USFS must consult with the governor, local governments, and Indian tribes regarding the suitability of the particular parcel of land for disposal before the proposed sale. Both agencies must also give priority to those lands that are nominated by state and local governments, are adjacent to existing developed areas, have access to existing infrastructure, are suitable for residential housing, reduce checkerboard land patterns, or which are isolated and inefficient to manage. All sales are to be held at fair market value, must provide state and local governments the first right of refusal, limit individual persons in how many acres they can acquire, and share revenue of the sales with the local government to assist with housing development.
This legislative proposal is now pending in the Senate and is thus not something I am currently being asked to vote on as your representative. This proposal was not included in the OBBBA that I voted for and which passed the House. However, I want to reiterate that much of the maps and information circulating about the bill are incorrect and that the proposal as drafted is a much more targeted approach to answer the needs of our local communities, who are hampered from further development due to the oversized footprint of the federal government in our states.
I encourage you to read the bill itself to understand what it does, and as importantly, what it does not do, when considering the benefits of this legislation. Thank you for reaching out to us.
Sincerely,
Rep. Harriet Hageman
Member of Congress
the response i got from hageman
I fired off a couple former emails to Risch and Crapo this morning. Still polite and professional. Then saw Risch came out opposed. Called and left a message thanking him. Then called Crapo, and left a message asking him to join Senator Risch in opposing it. Went fishing enjoying some Federal public lands.
Now on this thread I see Senator Crapo is also opposed. My day just got a lot better. I plan to follow through with both of them.
Now on this thread I see Senator Crapo is also opposed. My day just got a lot better. I plan to follow through with both of them.
Good idea. Monday’s calls are thank yous to the senators.
Someone might want to let her know that Kemmerer BLM is way ahead of her and has identified lands for affordable housing and expansion in their 2010 RMP. My quick estimate is about 5,000 acres. I think you could put a few houses there.
Evanston should be good as well.
El Jason
Well-known member
I was going to ask you about this very thing. Thanks for chiming in.Someone might want to let her know that Kemmerer BLM is way ahead of her and has identified lands for affordable housing and expansion in their 2010 RMP. My quick estimate is about 5,000 acres. I think you could put a few houses there.
Evanston should be good as well.
View attachment 375523
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 4,526
Well - i dont live in utah - but ill be donating to mike lees opponent.
The GOP needs to take out the trash.
The GOP needs to take out the trash.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 4,526
Why is the gop hellbent on poltical suicide?
Being on the wromg side of A 70 percent+ issue is bad for electability.
Wildabeest
Well-known member
I’m not sure where they think all those new “affordable housing” residents around Kemmerer are going to work. TerraPower is only going to create about 250 permanent jobs. Not much else going on around here besides ag and a constant flow of tourists just passing thru.Someone might want to let her know that Kemmerer BLM is way ahead of her and has identified lands for affordable housing and expansion in their 2010 RMP. My quick estimate is about 5,000 acres. I think you could put a few houses there.
Evanston should be good as well.
View attachment 375523
ismith
Well-known member
Between this and the Iran bs they are bound and determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
USMC123456789
Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2022
- Messages
- 45
I agree, I'm not going to respond. The survey is worded like the question, 'Have you stopped beating your wife?', it's a loaded question. If you answer 'yes' it means you agree to the bill to sell 2-3 million acres of public land. If you answer 'no' it means you want to sell of National parks and monuments as well. She'll never get my vote.
USMC123456789
Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2022
- Messages
- 45
Someone might want to let her know that Kemmerer BLM is way ahead of her and has identified lands for affordable housing and expansion in their 2010 RMP. My quick estimate is about 5,000 acres. I think you could put a few houses there.
Evanston should be good as well.
View attachment 375523
Plus they can already get this land if needed (say, for affordable housing?) via the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976-
https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/sales-and-exchanges
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 4,526
Mike lees donations
What sort of free market is it when those private landowners around those towns are having to compete with the government on land development for housing? I’m really surprised some developers or real estate groups haven’t been making a similar argumentSomeone might want to let her know that Kemmerer BLM is way ahead of her and has identified lands for affordable housing and expansion in their 2010 RMP. My quick estimate is about 5,000 acres. I think you could put a few houses there.
Evanston should be good as well.
View attachment 375523
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Tell me it’s the Boomers without saying it’s the Boomers.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I would like to see Daines and Sheehy come out in opposition with the clarity Crapo and Risch have.
I saw Lee on the twitter yesterday saying that he likes the idea of all states having no more than 2% public land within their borders. I hope there’s no dealing going on with that scumbag to winnow down this proposal to something weaker. It needs to die - publicly and with a message.
I saw Lee on the twitter yesterday saying that he likes the idea of all states having no more than 2% public land within their borders. I hope there’s no dealing going on with that scumbag to winnow down this proposal to something weaker. It needs to die - publicly and with a message.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 4,526
Lol well i was eyeing items 3 and 4.Tell me it’s the Boomers without saying it’s the Boomers.
But yes. Feel free to blame boomers.
peterk1234
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
- Messages
- 827
My wife saw some news snippet that stated he is trying to revise it. It also stated that Daines told him he would not support it without a revision. I will try to find the article.
I'm with you. Daines and Sheehy have been quite passive. I still don't trust them.
Here is my compromise..... for every acre sold you need to replace it with a like type acre that improves access to another federally owned acre.
Similar threads
