Newest US Senate Land Sale Amendment

[cgasner1]

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 argument

My guess is the developers and real estate groups are also apart of the cult…..church I meant church

 

[Pilgrim]

I was disappointed to see The Wall Street Journal publish a house editorial today backing the land sale. They'll likely publish a letter to the editor if someone writes a good rebuttal, lots of people read those.

Article pasted below since there's a paywall.

What those Wall Street folks don’t - and can’t - understand is that many of us “99 percenters” place greater value on the “currency” of the experiences we gain in the outdoors through hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, biking, 4-wheeling, etc. on OUR public lands! I wonder what that editorial would have looked like if Lee decided to mess with their currency the way he’s messing with ours? (Rhetorical question, of course.)

 

[npaden]

Support is growing for the opposition of this. My YouTube feed this morning had a clip pop up from PeakRankings (a ski channel) that was encouraging viewers to call their congressional representatives since this could potentially jeopardize ski resorts.

 

[Mallardsx2]

 

[peterk1234]

From KSL need radio:

Lee said he is “working on changes” to the proposal that would limit eligible land to Forest Service land “within 2 miles of a population center” and Bureau of Land Management Land within 5 miles, and appeared to suggest an updated version could also limit that land be sold for development of single-family homes — “not high density housing of any kind.”


If housing is such a problem, then why have it be single family homes? It should be high density housing. I'm not supporting this, just trying to show that his statement is total BS.

 

[Nameless Range]

From KSL need radio:

Lee said he is “working on changes” to the proposal that would limit eligible land to Forest Service land “within 2 miles of a population center” and Bureau of Land Management Land within 5 miles, and appeared to suggest an updated version could also limit that land be sold for development of single-family homes — “not high density housing of any kind.”


If housing is such a problem, then why have it be single family homes? It should be high density housing. I'm not supporting this, just trying to show that his statement is total BS.

Public land adjacent to population centers is just as critical as public land further out. Think of mule deer winter range, pronghorn, habitat, etc. We don’t need sprawl for Christ sake .

It’s not about housing and never was to him. This is just a ruse. There’s a process for strategically selling public lands that involves public input and not ramming it through a reconciliation bill, and that needs to be the line.

 

[KMO385]

What those Wall Street folks don’t - and can’t - understand is that many of us “99 percenters” place greater value on the “currency” of the experiences we gain in the outdoors through hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, biking, 4-wheeling, etc. on OUR public lands! I wonder what that editorial would have looked like if Lee decided to mess with their currency the way he’s messing with ours? (Rhetorical question, of course.)

The world they live in in essentially manufactured, concert streets and buildings. The only natural elements are placed there by man. Their work is virtual and can be erased by a stroke of a key or unplugging from a wall. The most of 1% are disconnected from any semblance of real life and live in trends that they don't decide or create. They don't have or know the natural world and are lost souls because it.

 

[quarterhorse]

I'm a no on any public land sales. All Lee is trying to do is save face and negotiate back to something more "reasonable". May have been his strategy all along.

Make sure our messaging is no to any land sales.

 

[BAKPAKR]

From KSL need radio:

Lee said he is “working on changes” to the proposal that would limit eligible land to Forest Service land “within 2 miles of a population center” and Bureau of Land Management Land within 5 miles, and appeared to suggest an updated version could also limit that land be sold for development of single-family homes — “not high density housing of any kind.”


If housing is such a problem, then why have it be single family homes? It should be high density housing. I'm not supporting this, just trying to show that his statement is total BS.

Here is some BLM land within 5 miles of a population center that I am betting some developers are hoping hits the market for “single family homes.”

 

[npaden]

Just showed up on my Facebook feed.

 

[peterk1234]

Here is some BLM land within 5 miles of a population center that I am betting some developers are hoping hits the market for “single family homes.”

View attachment 375548

Can you imagine the value of that to a developer? Holy cow!

I bet that is a special spot and enjoyed by many people today. Just think; used by 100s if not thousands, of people today vs owned and used by a dozen tomorrow. Which scenario would you consider under utilized?

 

[wyoelkfan15]

From KSL need radio:

Lee said he is “working on changes” to the proposal that would limit eligible land to Forest Service land “within 2 miles of a population center” and Bureau of Land Management Land within 5 miles, and appeared to suggest an updated version could also limit that land be sold for development of single-family homes — “not high density housing of any kind.”


If housing is such a problem, then why have it be single family homes? It should be high density housing. I'm not supporting this, just trying to show that his statement is total BS.

It's an absolute farce. One only needs to look at the state land sales Utah is already practicing to see its a load of b.s. There was a tract right outside of Moab that they sold three years ago for housing development, it's nothing but million dollar vacation homes.

 

[peterk1234]

It's an absolute farce. One only needs to look at the state land sales Utah is already practicing to see its a load of b.s. There was a tract right outside of Moab that they sold three years ago for housing development, it's nothing but million dollar vacation homes.

That the one near the entrance of the Sands Flats?

 

[Treeshark]

Classic Congressional virtual signaling going on here from both sides.

I don’t see this as having a chance in hell of passing in its current form, but the performative statements by being put out by reps are attempting to stack political capital like cordwood.

 

[SAJ-99]

The world they live in in essentially manufactured, concert streets and buildings. The only natural elements are placed there by man. Their work is virtual and can be erased by a stroke of a key or unplugging from a wall. The most of 1% are disconnected from any semblance of real life and live in trends that they don't decide or create. They don't have or know the natural world and are lost souls because it.

I think you are creating a biased image of an "enemy" that misses the point. Many people, and certainly those on the Editorial Board as the WSJ, make a very good living. I suspect many may even have vacation homes much closer to the "natural world" you envision and go there often to find their "lost souls".

To Mike Lee, this is about an ideology on reducing the Fed Govt, but in the end it is about taxes. A better argument can be made that these "Concrete jungle" people are struggling to buy their next vacation home and want to see more supply. The lack of supply comes from a Federal Estate tax exemption limit that is now $14m. Grandparents die and there is no reason to sell. We have decided to "lock up" wealth in RE for generations to follow unless someone "wants out". This leads to the issue in the West of slowing changing from traditional ranching to hobby ranching. Everything is linked. The easiest and laziest thing for a politician to do is scream "housing shortage" because solutions need to be narrow and varied for specific areas.

I'm not a "zero acres" person. This argument is too simple and fails to address real problems. If the best spot for a Nuclear reactor is a section of BLM, then there needs to be a mechanism to allow that to happen while taking that money and buying other acreage somewhere else, maybe consolidate the checkerboard. We will see what changes Lee comes up with. Unfortunately, I am almost certain I am not going to like it. But they say elections have consequences.

 

[elkduds]

 

[BuzzH]

I think you are creating a biased image of an "enemy" that misses the point. Many people, and certainly those on the Editorial Board as the WSJ, make a very good living. I suspect many may even have vacation homes much closer to the "natural world" you envision and go there often to find their "lost souls".

To Mike Lee, this is about an ideology on reducing the Fed Govt, but in the end it is about taxes. A better argument can be made that these "Concrete jungle" people are struggling to buy their next vacation home and want to see more supply. The lack of supply comes from a Federal Estate tax exemption limit that is now $14m. Grandparents die and there is no reason to sell. We have decided to "lock up" wealth in RE for generations to follow unless someone "wants out". This leads to the issue in the West of slowing changing from traditional ranching to hobby ranching. Everything is linked. The easiest and laziest thing for a politician to do is scream "housing shortage" because solutions need to be narrow and varied for specific areas.

I'm not a "zero acres" person. This argument is too simple and fails to address real problems. If the best spot for a Nuclear reactor is a section of BLM, then there needs to be a mechanism to allow that to happen while taking that money and buying other acreage somewhere else, maybe consolidate the checkerboard. We will see what changes Lee comes up with. Unfortunately, I am almost certain I am not going to like it. But they say elections have consequences.

There's no shortage of places to build in the West and "affordable" housing anywhere is a goddamn joke, in particular the places being referenced by Mike Lee. In places where housing is "affordable", nobody wants to live there or the jobs pay about $10/hour. Either way, talking affordable anything housing related is a non-starter.

I am a zero acre person, find private to build on and stay off my public land lawn.

 

[KMO385]

I think you are creating a biased image of an "enemy" that misses the point. Many people, and certainly those on the Editorial Board as the WSJ, make a very good living. I suspect many may even have vacation homes much closer to the "natural world" you envision and go there often to find their "lost souls".

To Mike Lee, this is about an ideology on reducing the Fed Govt, but in the end it is about taxes. A better argument can be made that these "Concrete jungle" people are struggling to buy their next vacation home and want to see more supply. The lack of supply comes from a Federal Estate tax exemption limit that is now $14m. Grandparents die and there is no reason to sell. We have decided to "lock up" wealth in RE for generations to follow unless someone "wants out". This leads to the issue in the West of slowing changing from traditional ranching to hobby ranching. Everything is linked. The easiest and laziest thing for a politician to do is scream "housing shortage" because solutions need to be narrow and varied for specific areas.

I'm not a "zero acres" person. This argument is too simple and fails to address real problems. If the best spot for a Nuclear reactor is a section of BLM, then there needs to be a mechanism to allow that to happen while taking that money and buying other acreage somewhere else, maybe consolidate the checkerboard. We will see what changes Lee comes up with. Unfortunately, I am almost certain I am not going to like it. But they say elections have consequences.

By no means did I intend to create bias. We do have housing issue partially created from the second and third home market along with air b&b and vrbo investments. I also don't believe if your second home borders a national forest means that your life involves the natural world. My point is that there are people that see the world through the view of investments, industry and so on. They seem to lack the ability to see our lands for there beauty, recreation and wildness. I have many family members from big cities on east coast that fall in this category. When I tell them Im taken my family camping, fishing or hunting on public lands they comeback with a why? Or don't do that take them to Disney world. Unfortunately, I feel that they're a lot more then some wall street types that think like that. I feel there's a problem in our society where to many people lost that connection to nature or the natural world and can't compute the value we put on public lands for all of us.

 

[Wild Bill]

We do have housing issue partially created from the second and third home market along with air b&b and vrbo investments.

These are real issues that need to be addressed by local governments and city councils. Not the federal government carving off my unborn grandkid's inheritance to build mansions for a buncha pricks.
Not trying to pick a fight with you KMO, just a thought.

 

[Wild Bill]

Saw this floating around the interwebs.

Sign the Petition

Expel Senator Mike Lee (please read important note at start of petition)

www.change.org