Sounds like it could use some access so that people can recreate on it- if all the adjacent areas are developed there needs to be some greenspace. Or if it truly has no value for anything but development, it sounds like a perfect candidate for an exchange.
Don’t want to get myself too involved in this pissing match but just for context, that land is doing something regardless of whether or not there’s deer, elk, insert your favorite animal to hunt here on it. Every piece of land is habitat for something whether that be ground squirrels, owls, lizards, snakes, bugs, plants, etc. Just because it appears to be “doing nothing” does not mean that it is not providing habitat. Regardless of whether you value the animals/plants that you don’t hunt, each piece of undeveloped land is habitat for something living. Now, whether or not you are okay with getting rid of that is a values based choice.
It's "affordable housing" so this isn't going to be rich people relocating there, this is for your locals who already live there and got priced out of their lives by the rich people moving in and driving up prices of everything.
Look at population growth trends in western states. This will 100% result in an influx of even more people.
You think it's growing fast out there don't look at the stats for Texas and Florida.
That's not true, lol. For the record, I don't want to get involved either, lol
OK, I completely agree with you and yes it is values plants and animals over humans. There is a spectrum of values too.
Seems like you place the greatest value on plants and animals welfare than us humans? Which is your prerogative and you are intitled to that.
You just do not want ANY Federal, Public land to be developed for anything that benefits humans to the detriments of plants and animals. Why don't you just say that, why are you virtu-signalling, so much?
Until “affordable” is spelled out in black and white with actual numbers, it’s way more likely to end up as McMansions or giant ranches. At this point, “affordable” is just a buzz word to try and make this pass the sniff test.
That's why they're working with your local municipalities and states to identify potential usage, if it goes South you can blame your locals.
So if the program is a complete cluster you’re happy giving the blame to locals? You don’t think the feds should have any accountability?
If they work with your locals and your locals lead them astray then it's your locals' fault, yes. If the Feds push and go against recommendations from the locals then it's the Feds' fault. There's a reason they're reaching to the locals to identify "potential" properties that would be useful. They want to do it right and the locals will know best.
I disagree. I believe lower staff levels, especially much lower levels of senior bureaucrates, will help streamline these bureacracies and make them more efficient. Less regulation will be easier to achieve with less bureaucrates, which is a secondary reason for the cuts. Who are the people you are fighting with? People like me who want to slash our bloated, corrupt, incompetent, federal government agencies? I am also a passionate hunter who has enjoyed decades of hunting and fishing on our great Federal Public Lands! Am I supposed to be against anything and everything that possibility threatens my future Federal Public land hunting and fishing possibilities? I don't think so!
What are your goals? What do those empty words mean? Why don't you state what you mean if you are right and noble? Why be so vague?
Ah yes. Making things efficient by giving one guy three jobs. Surely the level of service will not deteriorate…
I think we passed that point in the late 70s. "Those" millions and millions and millions of recent immigrants need a place to live with resources which will HEAVILY tax our already overused public lands! Our Federal Public Lands will GREATLY constrict and quaility will diminish with the influx of all these new immigrants. There is not much anyone can do, except stem the flow of new immigrants. I dont like any of it one bit either, however, I'm very practical and pragmatic.
I read his post to mean it's making things efficient by eliminating meaningless jobs that slow things down and make basic tasks harder. I think we've all been in those meetings that could be emails and worked for a project manager somewhere that created all sorts of red tape and speed bumps for things, people trying to justify their jobs with mundane irrelevant busy work, etc.
The level of service does not need to deteriorate. The scope of his services will deteriorate, that's the point. You either like the bloated Federal Government the way it is or you don't. Like everything there is a spectrum, I applaud the administration slashing the Federal Government, some may think this is too extreme, so may think the government should be bigger.
Yes, to eliminate worthless bureaucrates, mostly senior and management that don't do anything, and make it difficult to get anything done.
