PDA

View Full Version : How much land should the Federal



PROFILE
05-17-2005, 02:53
How much land should the Federal Govt own?

Found some intresting stats.
TOTAL ACRES
2,263,221.9

TOTAL OWNED BY GOVT
900,270.2

% OF TOTAL LAND
%39.8

% OWNED BY STATES ALONE
%8.7

% OWNED BY FED
%31.1

www.nwi.org/Maps/LandChart.html

shades of blue
05-17-2005, 07:27
If at least some of that land wasn't owned by the gov't (people as a group) there wouldn't be a protected Appalachian Trail, We wouldn't have national forests, or wilderness areas. We also wouldn't have military bases, schools, some health facilities...the list goes on.
The idea of public ownership also deals with public stewardship. There are plenty of places that if were privately owned, we'd never be able to hike, it would be posted for private use. I think 70 % privately owned is still pretty good, but that's my .02 worth. What gets me about gov't ownership is when cities take private land, force the owner to sell at a low price, and then turn around and sells it or loans it for big business to use at a much higher rate of return. The gov't should only be able to aquire land willingly from the owner, or, at a very decent price. The private owner should be compensated.

MOWGLI
05-17-2005, 08:26
How much land should the Federal Govt own?



I won't be satisfied until they own this cute little log cabin up in Dahlonega, Georgia. There's a great view off the back deck, and if we can just get it into government hands, we can build a side trail directly to the AT! :D

weary
05-17-2005, 10:22
If at least some of that land wasn't owned by the gov't (people as a group) there wouldn't be a protected Appalachian Trail, We wouldn't have national forests, or wilderness areas. We also wouldn't have military bases, schools, some health facilities...the list goes on.
The idea of public ownership also deals with public stewardship. There are plenty of places that if were privately owned, we'd never be able to hike, it would be posted for private use. I think 70 % privately owned is still pretty good, but that's my .02 worth. What gets me about gov't ownership is when cities take private land, force the owner to sell at a low price, and then turn around and sells it or loans it for big business to use at a much higher rate of return. The gov't should only be able to aquire land willingly from the owner, or, at a very decent price. The private owner should be compensated.
Much of the government land is stuff that over the century that this nation sold and gave away vast acres no one wanted. It's desert and mountain ridges too steep for anything but hiking. Much of it also is encumbered by grazing and other leases and is public in name only.

Government land is also poorly distributed. The west has a great deal. The northeast very little. Maine for instance has only tiny Acadia National Park, the narrow AT corridor, and a small corner of the White Mountain National Forest.

The federal government owns less than 100,000 of Maine's 20 million acres.

The state also owns relatively little public land -- less than a million acres -- and that mostly through the efforts of two people Gov. Baxter and a guy who lived in a one-room tarpaper shack, who told me about 400,000 acres of public land the state had preserved a century earlier and then forgot it owned.

To the consternation of my editors I piddled around writing the story of the latter for a decade before the Maine Supreme Court to the surprise of everyone ruled that indeed Maine still owned it's neglected acres.

I'm now piddling around trying to raise money to preserve the summit ridge of Abraham and its AT side trail, along with the southeast slopes of Saddleback. This time, however, I have no Supreme Court to help. Only you folks.

Maine faces a once in a century opportunity to provide meaningful buffers to the Appalachain Trail. For information and a donation form open:

www.matlt.org

Weary

Tha Wookie
05-17-2005, 18:08
Considering that we are the federal government, I think that we shold have a lot more public land, so it will be protected for a common interest instead of falling into the grinding cogs of the capitalist machine. It's public land!

Hence, the AT!

hillsidedigger
02-09-2007, 21:12
I am in favor of considerable additional federal acquisitions of wildland, particularly properties adjoining or being inholdings within current federal properties, although I think at this point the only real hope for the eastern states is with the states themselves to perform most of the purchasing.

4eyedbuzzard
02-09-2007, 21:29
How much land should the Federal Govt own?

They(government) own all of it. Individuals just lease it. Try not paying your property taxes and you'll see what I mean.

Jim Adams
02-09-2007, 21:38
As long as they continue to lease the land at a loss in revenue such as grazing which destroys the environment then they should own none.
geek

Rain Man
02-09-2007, 22:15
Might be a good idea if "the government" bought up coastal land and prohibited all the stupid development,-- and periodic and increasing deaths and property destruction, not to mention horrible environmental damage.

Rain:sunMan

.

smokymtnsteve
02-09-2007, 22:16
They(government) own all of it. Individuals just lease it. Try not paying your property taxes and you'll see what I mean.

here in Denali borough, Alaska we don't have property taxes. or state income tax...the state even sends you money every year.

in city of Fairbanks the citizens just voted to do away with city property taxes...come join the revolution!

4eyedbuzzard
02-09-2007, 22:59
here in Denali borough, Alaska we don't have property taxes. or state income tax...the state even sends you money every year.

in city of Fairbanks the citizens just voted to do away with city property taxes...come join the revolution!
Forgot about all those "oil/pipeline welfare" areas;) I shouldn't really beyotch, NH has no income or sales tax and the local hydro plants and power lines pay 60% of our town's taxes.:)

hillsidedigger
02-10-2007, 09:22
Here in McDowell County, NC, home of about 25 miles of the Blue Ridge Parkway and about 80,000 acres of Pisgah National Forest (4 designated roadless areas) the price of large tracts (10 to 100 acres) of upland near the public lands has skyrocketed the last 10 years from about $2k to $20k per acre, although, I suspect the prices may soon drop drastically. Where are all these people coming from to purchase these rocky hillsides for those prices, with single acres in subdivisions now bring $30k to $150k out in the middle of nowhere.

The price of floodzone land along the rivers is still low and so as someone suggested earlier about the hurricane zones along the coasts, I feel the inland flood hazard areas might well be acquired for public ownership. These areas can serve as wildlife habitat and grow trees real well.

The last few years, only a small percent of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund monies have been used for their intended purpose. By all means, the use of that fund should be encouraged.

weary
02-10-2007, 09:43
Here in McDowell County, NC, home of about 25 miles of the Blue Ridge Parkway and about 80,000 acres of Pisgah National Forest (4 designated roadless areas) the price of large tracts (10 to 100 acres) of upland near the public lands has skyrocketed the last 10 years from about $2k to $20k per acre, although, I suspect the prices may soon drop drastically. Where are all these people coming from to purchase these rocky hillsides for those prices, with single acres in subdivisions now bring $30k to $150k out in the middle of nowhere.

The price of floodzone land along the rivers is still low and so as someone suggested earlier about the hurricane zones along the coasts, I feel the inland flood hazard areas might well be acquired for public ownership. These areas can serve as wildlife habitat and grow trees real well.

The last few years, only a small percent of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund monies have been used for their intended purpose. By all means, the use of that fund should be encouraged.
The last time i checked, God had stopped making new land, so as population increases land will become more valuable. My house and two acres is now worth 100 times more than it was when I bought it in 1962 -- or so the tax assessors say. (I have fixed it up a bit and the cove along the shore has gotten a lot cleaner as a result of clean water laws.)

If the climate scientists are correct, dry land will be even scarcer in a few years. I won't benefit, however, my cellar floor is only about two feet above sea level.

buckowens
02-10-2007, 10:57
If you ever go to one of those beautiful places that are privately owned, the amount of development and commercialization is sickening. They are trying to get every revenue dollar out of the space, combined with providing food and other items to all the throngs.

By example I will use Deep Creek Lake Maryland, where there are now some summer homes that are 10,000++ square feet, a McDonalds is within a stones throw of the lake, and the amount of condominiums is growing rapidly. By contrast, I have been to some lakes in Kentucky that are government owned, and the "wildness" is still there. Of course, they are catering to people that cannot go a day without a New York Times or a shower...

DavidNH
02-10-2007, 11:23
Answer here is simple. Provided the government owns the land for preservation purposes the answer is as much as we can possibly give them!

I I were the governement, I would triple the budget of the park service and the dept of the interior. I would at least double the acreage of wilderness in the country and I would let the pentagon for once have to justify every dollar it gets instead of them having a blank check! Oh.. and while we are at it.. let's make ANWR totally protected wilderness. In fact.. lets make the whole darn state north of Fairbanks wilderness. We could protect a good portion of the state south of Fairbanks as well!

If there is one great thing about being an American it is being a citizen of a country that historically took the lead in preservation and to this day has some of the most magnificent wild lands anywhere in the world! Frankly folks, that to me is a source of some pride!!!

DavidNH

rafe
02-10-2007, 11:44
If there is one great thing about being an American it is being a citizen of a country that historically took the lead in preservation and to this day has some of the most magnificent wild lands anywhere in the world! Frankly folks, that to me is a source of some pride!!!

I'm with you on that one. :)

smokymtnsteve
02-10-2007, 22:31
Answer here is simple. Provided the government owns the land for preservation purposes the answer is as much as we can possibly give them!

I I were the governement, I would triple the budget of the park service and the dept of the interior. I would at least double the acreage of wilderness in the country and I would let the pentagon for once have to justify every dollar it gets instead of them having a blank check! Oh.. and while we are at it.. let's make ANWR totally protected wilderness. In fact.. lets make the whole darn state north of Fairbanks wilderness. We could protect a good portion of the state south of Fairbanks as well!

If there is one great thing about being an American it is being a citizen of a country that historically took the lead in preservation and to this day has some of the most magnificent wild lands anywhere in the world! Frankly folks, that to me is a source of some pride!!!

DavidNH

why would U want ot make the whole state north of FBKS wilderness??

my son works with a resort north of Fbks..they use low temp geothermal for power...even have a grenhouse and produce thier own produce 12 months out of the year and that a a latitude of over 65 N.

make everything north of FBKS wilderness they'd be out of business.

U ever been up this way????

DavidNH
02-10-2007, 23:04
why would U want ot make the whole state north of FBKS wilderness??

my son works with a resort north of Fbks..they use low temp geothermal for power...even have a grenhouse and produce thier own produce 12 months out of the year and that a a latitude of over 65 N.

make everything north of FBKS wilderness they'd be out of business.

U ever been up this way????


No never been up there..would love to some day. I said that sort of in gets. I mean isn't most of that land wilderness now? let's keep it that way.
There aren't other Alaskas.. we have to protect what we have!

smokymtnsteve
02-10-2007, 23:42
folks living there...vacation cabins,

dalton highway haul road...goes from Fbks to deadhore and prudhoe bay...

good bit of gold-mining goes on north of fairbanks.

Hilltop truck stop has one of the biggest and best selections of homemade pies in the world ...north of Fbks:sun

the alaska oil pipeline comes thru Fbks from north slope

course thar is a LOT of open land north of fairbanks

but there are whole towns north of fairbanks/


I'm looking to move north of fbks this summer

hillsidedigger
03-05-2007, 08:11
I couldn't disagree more:

By Henry Lamb

March 03, 2007 "Government - at every level - is addicted to land acquisition. Local, state, and the federal governments are buying up land as if the last acre had already been created.
In a nation that was founded on the belief that private property is sacred, and which limited its federal government to own only ten square miles of land, and that which could be purchased from the states with the approval of the state legislature, and then only for "...needful buildings" - why have governments gone on a land buying binge in recent years?
The answer, invariably, will take some form of the misguided notion, "...to protect it for future generations." Every acre of land acquired by government, beyond that necessary for public buildings, highways, utilities, military bases, and the like, is actually stealing from future generations. When government owns the land, future generations cannot own it. Future generations cannot build a home on it. Future generations cannot farm or ranch or log, or mine, or do anything with it. Future generations can only walk on it, if the government permits it, after paying a fee for the privilege."

http://freedom.org/news/200703/03/lamb.phtml

Thats right, Henry, so there will be signifigant areas where there will be no houses or farming.

While at this point in time there is little chance of vast new public acquisitions in the Lower 48 states (except Maine), there still are numerous small areas that might well be acquired to consolidate the otherwise patchwoks of wild areas.