New version of the bill since the first one didn't meet requirements to be on the budget bill.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/scaled-back-version-sen-mike-215030820.html

Certainly a more thoughtful approach, but there’s still vague language in that bill to be proposing 1.2 million acres become available. Again, these agencies are already making decisions like this, albeit at a slower pace and smaller scale because it’s run through a NEPA decision.

I bet foreign governments/companies own more than 1.2 million acres that meet those criteria. Why give up public land so they can continue to exist here?

“You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists” - George W

I never did like JR much

Population growth.

Would you have been against the land give away in 1889? It was for the same purpose, expansion.

Do you think it’s even remotely reasonable to compare 1889 to 2025?

Yes,
More people is more people, gotta live somewhere.

It didn't in 1880's, ya know...try 1980s.

Selling off a bunch of public lands (while setting the precedent for all to be sold) is the one and only solution?

No opportunities for going vertical? No way to redo abandoned buildings? Remove foreign ownership? Nothing else?

With both private or public lands, access can/is restricted. The only difference is you still have to pay for public ground, regardless of restrictions.

https://sportsmensalliance.org/news/senator-lee-no-means-no-on-public-land-sell-off/

Sportsman’s Alliance is well known for having our backs. If they are against selling public lands, it carries a lot of weight with me.

All the western land that had water available to irrigate to grow crops and feed livestock and for human use was homesteaded. These lands were also the best winter range for big game. What was left became BLM and Forest land. Every housing development squeezes out the game. The federal lands they want to sell for housing will further erode critical deer and elk wintering areas and eliminate public access for recreation. The people that will likely benefit the most are big developers (CAMPAIGN DONARS!) and politicians. I am opposed to the sale of even one acre and told my Representative and Senators today

Selling federal lands in the name of affordable housing sounds an awful lot like the Affordable Care Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (which were both the exact opposite but sounded good).

Let me know where I can get some of the free private ground you’re talking about!

Can always do this to the last pieces of farm ground around here. Talk about losing rights..

https://www.agweb.com/news/business...minent-domain-replace-affordable-housing

No surprise its New Jersey

I live in a county that is made up mostly of national forest. One of the poorest counties in Arkansas. Funny thing is I don't trap it, only trap private ground. Didn't cost me nothing to obtain access other than permission from the owner. Although I don't use the public land available for access, I still pay for its maintenance with taxes. With the private land that I can't access, I pay nothing for its maintenance.

We could force ranchers or whoever owns what little private ground there is out there to sell a couple lots.

We’re ALL paying for that same public ground. We pay for maintenance on over half a billion acres and I’ll guarantee we wouldn’t pay any less taxes if they sold a bunch of it.

IMO, the Federal government should only own the land that comprises Washington DC, military bases, infrastructure(highways/interstates), and the lots on which federal buildings occupy. All the rest should be owned by the state or the people.