Newest US Senate Land Sale Amendment

Treeshark said:
Which specific parts do you think she was wrong about?
Click to expand...
1. That PLT ever was an actual solution to the 'housing crisis," PLT has been a mainstay of GOP platforms since Reagan. They just dressed it up with the politics du jour.
2. That when NV wanted federal lands for more Vegas housing, they got them without the need for M.Lee's pet peeve. So this is inevitable with GOP administrations.

Many so called public land supporters here and elsewhere keep electing "leaders" whose chief instinct is to follow the party. It took a mighty effort from @Big Fin, a few key GOP Senators, many conservation and wildlife orgs, and a sustained chorus of angry constituents to beat this POS back, this time. What about next time?
 
TheTone said:
My county is one of those solid red ones. Tons of new housing being built around me on private land. How does Lee plan to help someone like me out? Is he planning to somehow drive down the value of private land? Wouldn’t doing that piss off real estate developers and private land owners?
Click to expand...

He would have to be sure that the most politically connected of those two groups would be best positioned to benefit from land sales.
 
Treeshark said:
Which specific parts do you think she was wrong about?
Click to expand...
Was just about to post the exact same letter. She gas lights her constituents into thinking that everything is misinformation and the democrats fault; meanwhile doing nothing to help conservation or our public land resources. I'll take a swing at what I had wrong with it.

1) She claims that there was massive mis-information about the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) brought on by environmentalist groups and that was the reason for massive public outcry. No Harriet, maybe your constituents value the public lands, wildlife, open lands, multiple use and access to all those lands in this state, regardless of their political affiliations. Maybe the fact this state has sold off 25% of our state owned lands at this point has us concerned you and your friend Mike Lee do not have affordable housing in mind, rather, make your donors richer. Her previous emails have always tried to make this a partisan issue. It's flat out not.

2) She claims the BLM and USFS "cannot and will not manage our public lands." Well hell, Congress continually cuts the budgets for these agencies, and then when they cannot provide the same level of service then they claim they are inefficient and need further cuts. I have been around the USFS my entire life, the same story has played out for three decades, there are not enough resources or monies for the people on the actual ground doing the agency's work. There is definitely bloat once you get to the administrative level. Again, completely gaslighting any person who can see the actual troops on the ground are trying their hardest to do what's best for the resource. Even before the BBB, and all the public land sales that happened early summer I had emailed her on this exact topic. That our agencies need more support, need more funding for the personnel on the ground. Her response? "Democrats in Congress have passed legislation stockpiling more and more power in these agencies who have then in turn implemented extensive rules, regulations, and guidance documents designed to expand their authority, control and footprint. Meanwhile, Democrat administrations have consistently worked with radical environmental groups to weaponize land use and permitting restrictions to enforce policies that cause severe harm to our country." Again, gaslighting her constituents and never taking responsibility for the fact she has been in congress for two terms and done nothing to correct the "mis-management" issues she likes to claim.

3) Her last comment, on the bill for no net federal land gain. One of Trump's greatest achievements, in my opinion, during his first term was getting the Great American Outdoors Act passed through congress. A portion of that bill requires permanent funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, with a portion of that funding required to be spent on acquiring new lands for public access. A massive achievement and popular with almost any sportsmen I know. Harriet would rather continue to steal funds from the LWCF to pay for bombs that go overseas, than to fulfill the requirements of that piece of legislation.

Just three thoughts on her inept response....
 
This is untruthful:

"he specifically proposed the disposal of only 0.25% to 0.50% of BLM lands located within five miles of existing population centers and only for the purpose of housing development."

I wonder if she ever looks at a real estate brochure, there's plenty of private land in Wyoming for sale to build housing developments.

FFS, I have 2 empty lots that border my place, just sayin'.
 
Jbotto said:
I got this pile of crap sent to me today from Harriet Hagemans office:


On July 4th, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). This is the completion of the budget reconciliation process, which allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt limit legislation, and delivers on the agenda the American people voted for in November. When the OBBBA was before the Senate, Senator Mike Lee from Utah submitted a proposal to allow for limited, targeted public land sales to assist with housing and community development. This draft provision was ultimately removed from the bill, did not become law, and was something I was never asked to vote on in the House.

While this proposal was never before the House, I did receive countless messages of concern regarding what it meant. Unfortunately, much of this concern was manufactured via misinformation issued by environmental groups who want to “rewild” the West and who do not have our state or our communities’ best interests in mind.

The federal government owns over 640 million acres of our surface estate, with the vast majority being located in the interior west and Alaska. I believe that much of those lands should remain in the public domain. Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Devils Tower, our national forests, wild and scenic rivers, and our abundance of wildlife and fisheries habitat are just some of the amenities that we enjoy and must protect now and into the long distant future.

There is also a reality, however, that the federal government, through agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service (USFS), currently own land that they cannot or will not manage, and many of these lands are now contiguous to our cities and towns and hinder our ability for these communities to grow. By way of example, there is no reason for the BLM to own urban lots in downtown Las Vegas and Reno, yet it does. We have communities in Wyoming that are landlocked by the BLM, such as Kemmerer, who are unable to meet the housing demand of young families and workers who seek to make those places home. I am often asked about how we keep our children and grandchildren in Wyoming rather than watching them move away. In short, the only way to do so is if we have jobs and housing, and that is the exact issue that Senator Lee was attempting to address. It was his effort to begin the consideration of a narrow and targeted fix to address the housing and development challenges that plague the West.

Contrary to some of the misinformation circulated about Senator Lee’s bill (e.g., that it would sell off 15 million acres, that Bill Gates would be buying the National Parks, etc.), he specifically proposed the disposal of only 0.25% to 0.50% of BLM lands located within five miles of existing population centers and only for the purpose of housing development. “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 text) would not be eligible for sale. Lands with existing rights (i.e. grazing and energy development) and lands utilized for recreation were further excluded from the proposed sales. In order to be sold, lands would need to be nominated by a buyer, who would be limited in acres acquired under any single purchase, which would then trigger a consultation process with the state and local government. If approved, a portion of the revenue generated from the sale would be returned to the community to assist with community development needs.

The fact is that the Senate started a discussion centered around finding a sensible solution to the housing crisis in our communities, an issue that is exacerbated by the large federal footprint in states like Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming. Unfortunately, there were several groups that saw this as an opportunity to raise money through fearmongering and misinformation.

I want to reiterate that this proposal was never introduced in the House, and I never voted on it. Senator Lee withdrew it shortly after he introduced it. I was encouraged to see this issue finally receiving some attention at the national level. While we in the western United States deal with the challenges of a large federal footprint on a daily basis, our counterparts in the East do not. As your member in the U.S. House of Representatives, I have introduced the No Net Gain in Federal Lands Act, which would restrict further expansion of the federal estate, which I think is an even more crucial policy as we assess how we address this issue.

Thank you again for your willingness to reach out to me directly with your inquiry. Please understand that much of what you have heard about this proposal is likely inaccurate and that Senator Lee was merely attempting 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.


Sincerely,


Rep. Harriet Hageman
Member of Congress
Click to expand...
I got the same BS response. In a nutshell, she's all for Lee's public land sell-off. Once they start selling it, there will be no end to it. I already sent a reply that she is going to piss-off a lot of Wyoming public land users with her Pro Lee stance, and she should ask the voters what they think at her planned appearances around the state this month.
 
Big Fin said:
I am headed to DC this weekend to do more lobbying on public land issues next week. I just finished some calls/texts with folks who are "in the know" about the proposal Senator Lee (R-UT) promised would be coming this week as part of the Senate budget version.

Details as I understand will become known in the next couple days, likely at the last minute so as to avoid the ability to mount much resistance:
  • 2-3 Million acres to be sold for "affordable housing."
  • Will include a lot of USFS lands, not just Dept of Interior lands as in the House amendment and FLTFA.
  • Proceeds used to offset budget gaps, not replacement lands as per FLTFA.
  • Lee's language has Montana exempted from any land sales in hopes he can gain the votes of Daines & Sheehy, votes needed to move it forward.

I hope my source is not correct, but this source has never been wrong before. This person has been in a position for decades to know what goes on in that committee.

Lee has been holding back his amendment until he knew he had the votes to get it passed through his committee and not have his land sale amendment kill the "Big Beautiful Bill.'

Fuggin' idgits.

Contact your Senator here. And do is now - https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
Click to expand...
That’s concerning. Selling off millions of acres—especially without replacing them—would be a huge loss for public land access and habitat. Appreciate you sharing the heads-up, and I hope your lobbying efforts in DC can help push back against this
 
UT chipping away... This transfer makes sense from a consolidation standpoint, but I would have preferred it be a swap vs. outright transfer of fed to state. Straight transfer sets a bad precedent.

www.blm.gov

BLM transfers over 600 public acres to Utah Division of State Parks | Bureau of Land Management

BLM transferred 618 acres to Utah State Parks, consolidating lands at Antelope Island and Wasatch Mountain state parks to streamline management and enhance visitor experiences.
www.blm.gov www.blm.gov
 
Last edited:
Pucky Freak said:
Anyone that could give a rundown on creating a PAC? Can I name it “Enemies of Mike Lee”?
www.fec.gov

FRIENDS OF MIKE LEE INC - committee overview - FEC.gov

Explore current and historic federal campaign finance data on the new fec.gov. Look at totals and trends, and see how candidates and committees raise and spend money. When you find what you need, export results and save custom links.
www.fec.gov www.fec.gov
Click to expand...
If there isn’t an organized effort by sportsman and all outdoor enthusiasts to find and fund a candidate to beat Lee in the Primaries there should be. I sent money to Colorado to help defeat the Cat hunting ban, I would certainly send some to an effort to teach politicians to leave our public lands alone. Even if he wasn’t defeated causing him to loose sleep and spend his reelection money on a contested primary may send the point. I Would love to get Big Finn’s take.
 
Shiningmoon said:
If there isn’t an organized effort by sportsman and all outdoor enthusiasts to find and fund a candidate to beat Lee in the Primaries there should be. I sent money to Colorado to help defeat the Cat hunting ban, I would certainly send some to an effort to teach politicians to leave our public lands alone. Even if he wasn’t defeated causing him to loose sleep and spend his reelection money on a contested primary may send the point. I Would love to get Big Finn’s take.
Click to expand...
Are you a billionaire?
Ignoring the sad fact that we have accepted that money buys politicians in America, we have to remember that politicians attract money from people/groups not because they are "liked", but because they are viewed as useful.
 
Shiningmoon said:
If there isn’t an organized effort by sportsman and all outdoor enthusiasts to find and fund a candidate to beat Lee in the Primaries there should be. I sent money to Colorado to help defeat the Cat hunting ban, I would certainly send some to an effort to teach politicians to leave our public lands alone. Even if he wasn’t defeated causing him to loose sleep and spend his reelection money on a contested primary may send the point. I Would love to get Big Finn’s take.
Click to expand...
Have a look @ the history of PLT. The party pushing for it is always the GOP, and members opposing that are targeted by the party. In the budget fight this year, review how MT's legislators did the 2-step, trying to juggle their constituents' opposition to their party's position. Same deal in ID, WY and western CO. That is why getting PLT out of the budget was such a momentous, if temporary, victory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Ryan Semerad (corner crossing attorney) on public land sell-off
Replies
14
Views
2K
GTwolfer
G
P
NRA response the US Public Land Sale
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Hawk Tuah
Hawk Tuah
Forkyfinder
Primary mike lee?
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
5K
SAJ-99
S
jwatts
Lee's land grab was removed, so who are we thanking?
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Solopolo
S
J
Montana Senate Bill 381 - Bill Proposes Sale of State Trust Lands to Montanans for Homesteading
Replies
3
Views
782
Rack Daniels
Rack Daniels

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
117,363
Messages
2,154,961
Members
38,198
Latest member
tfreilin

Share this page

Back
Top