"DOI will work with HUD to identify lands to offload for the development of affordable homes"

[elkhunter505]

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?

I want Federal Public Land to be conserved for plants and animals (prioritizing the largests mammals, with less priority for the smaller animals and finally not caring a bit about ants and cockroaches, there are plenty in the world) AND utilized for the benefit of humans (Recreation, off roading, fishing, hunting, development of oil and gas, etc.) . I am on the opposite side of the spectrum than you, but I am not at the extreme end of development, I am a much more on the moderate development, utilization than you are a Protectionist, No Development at all.
Bill

I wish I could stop development in its tracks but I know that I can’t. Our nation is growing whether we like it or not, but we can slow/stop the growth in some ways over time. I won’t get into that specifically because it does revolve around a lot of politics and issues that aren’t relevant to this discussion.

I do put a lot of value on animals and plants and at the same time have seen humans do the most heinous shit out there. I am not sure where I land on that value spectrum as I haven’t thought about it in depth. I would say they’re close to equal in my mind just taking a quick inventory.

I would love to see every ounce of that land protected from oil drilling but that is not feasible. I think we can work towards that slowly with solar on houses and building, not solar on large tracts of land. I think we should be working towards that rather than dragging our feet because of some corporation. We can make training programs to take people from the oilfield and show them how to do solar and other things. We should be finding ways to develop energy infrastructure as close to our towns as possible rather than putting transmission lines everywhere. That’s kinda tangential to this discussion so I digress.

Long story short, I want to see the data behind public lands being the sole option before I agree to sell them. If they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no other option, I’ll back down. I don’t think they can prove it. There are places to develop within municipalities in every single area that is having these issues. It’s a social problem with the NIMBY people that stops those things from happening.

 

[Billinsd]

My goals are to develop as little public land as possible. I think we can all agree on that. I believe there is a way to do it without developing any public land, you don’t. It’s just a disagreement on things that there is really no factual data on.

Well, you idea of developing as little public lands is wildly different than mine! I won't agree on your idea of "as little public lands" and you won't agree on mine and most people are probably in the middle somewhere. The disagreement is on how much public land can, shoudl be developed based on our opinion and facts on both sides.

elkhunter505 "Why isn’t the administration doing an analysis to see where and how much property within municipalities can be done at the same time as this effort? . There is context when you think about the push from Utah’s lawsuit to think that they want more than just the pieces to make housing."

I can guess with much certainty that "if" the current administration is not doing what you are questioning is probably because it's low on their priorities list. I don't know what is driving the Utah lawsuit, I don't live there and am not looking very deeply into it. Of course it is possible there is more than housing involved.

 

[elkhunter505]

Well, you idea of developing as little public lands is wildly different than mine! I won't agree on your idea of "as little public lands" and you won't agree on mine and most people are probably in the middle somewhere. The disagreement is on how much public land can, shoudl be developed based on our opinion and facts on both sides.

I guess when I say developed I mean any type of project that sells the land away from the public. If they develop trails, roads, etc. for recreational access, I’m more supportive of that. I’d love for it all to be wilderness cause it would be great hunting but that’s just not possible.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

I guess when I say developed I mean any type of project that sells the land away from the public. If they develop trails, roads, etc. for recreational access, I’m more supportive of that. I’d love for it all to be wilderness cause it would be great hunting but that’s just not possible.

If we have options I'd much prefer land swaps, and I'll also add that the Feds should always be looking to pickup more public land that's worth us owning. Here locally the state has been buying chunks of land right by my house, they just added another 800+ acres from a private owner recently. They're up to close to 10k acres now for that property and I think it's a good use of tax dollars as it's a gorgeous place to go hike and bike. There's no doubt in my mind there's properties out there that the Feds don't need to own though, which cost the taxpayers needlessly. I think the hard stance of never letting public land go is not the right way, things like this need to be looked at and assessed.

 

[jmez]

Define affordable. What is the target demographic? What are the numbers of the target demographic in the areas being looked at? If the people are already there then how will it further tax resources? How does selling the land to states equate to the president giving oligharch's hand outs? Why is the Federal gvmnt even contemplating selling land to provide "affordable" housing? Why is the Fed trying to provide affordable housing in the first place?

Jesus the hyperbole on both sides is off the hook. Shocking. Whole lot of conjecture and no answers but facts abound!

 

[HairyScandinavian]

Jesus the hyperbole on both sides is off the hook. Shocking. Whole lot of conjecture and no answers but facts abound!

It's because we're arguing over principles without anything really ready to argue about, that's what I said in the beginning. All we know is "we're gonna talk to the states and see if maybe there's some property to help with affordable housing." There's no proposals yet, nothing identified yet, it's just a basic idea. Arguing over it right now is premature, so we get what we got in this thread.

 

[elkhunter505]

If we have options I'd much prefer land swaps, and I'll also add that the Feds should always be looking to pickup more public land that's worth us owning. Here locally the state has been buying chunks of land right by my house, they just added another 800+ acres from a private owner recently. They're up to close to 10k acres now for that property and I think it's a good use of tax dollars as it's a gorgeous place to go hike and bike. There's no doubt in my mind there's properties out there that the Feds don't need to own though, which cost the taxpayers needlessly. I think the hard stance of never letting public land go is not the right way, things like this need to be looked at and assessed.

I would love to see that as being the mechanism. If they’re out here talking about land swaps and we get equal or better land out of it, I can live with it. I’m just concerned that they’re in it for the corporate money/hobby ranches not for the principle of making more affordable housing.

 

[Billinsd]

I wish I could stop development in its tracks but I know that I can’t. Our nation is growing whether we like it or not, but we can slow/stop the growth in some ways over time. I won’t get into that specifically because it does revolve around a lot of politics and issues that aren’t relevant to this discussion.

I have a love/hate relationship with development. It was my dad's bread and butter and mine too. I remember driving the I-15 in Utah in the 70s and really had a lot of great times in Utah, Idaho, and Colorado!! The issue is that the population has trippled in Utah, Idaho, and Colorado in the last 50 years, most of it in the last 30! The core issue is our spirling population. There are 30 people in your liferaft designed for 20 and giving everyone an oar, using a solar powered engine, or wind sail won't stop you from sinking.

I would love to see every ounce of that land protected from oil drilling but that is not feasible. I think we can work towards that slowly with solar on houses and building, not solar on large tracts of land. I think we should be working towards that rather than dragging our feet because of some corporation. We can make training programs to take people from the oilfield and show them how to do solar and other things. We should be finding ways to develop energy infrastructure as close to our towns as possible rather than putting transmission lines everywhere. That’s kinda tangential to this discussion so I digress.

I agree that protecting land from oil, gas, and mineral exploration is not feasible. I believe if we did not have such an enormous new population much less of it would be needed. I am not a big fan of solar on houses, because it is expensive as well as the maintenance, otherwise why not? This provides some engergy, just a tiny amount needed. We have oil and gas reserves to last hundreds of years, depending on the price of oil that gives us engergy independence, which is critical in my opinion. Unfortunalty, most of the energy generating plants, coal, oil, have too many regulatotions, people fight against it, to be built close to urban centers. It makes perfect sence to build them close to urban centers, though.

Nuclear is the answer, you just need a lot of water, build them on the coast.

 

[Billinsd]

I guess when I say developed I mean any type of project that sells the land away from the public. If they develop trails, roads, etc. for recreational access, I’m more supportive of that. I’d love for it all to be wilderness cause it would be great hunting but that’s just not possible.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. You sound like a really good man and have your heart in the right place, for sure!

 

[elkhunter505]

Nuclear is the answer, you just need a lot of water, build them on the coast.

Agreed. Fission is way safer than people make it sound, it’s the waste that is an issue. Hopefully we will see more investment into that in the future along with population stagnation or even decline. Imagine all the hunting we could all do with less people!

I saw that this last year they were finally able to go net positive with fusion. Just a matter of time until that is the energy of the future. Whether or not we’ll see it in our lifetimes is another question.

 

[Coldtrail]

I view this as nothing more than a foot in the door, I've been extremely fortunate to live in places flush with public lands my entire life, in at least the past 30yrs my observation has been that nobody is moving into those areas seeking "affordable housing" and more importantly, to find work. It's a sad reality.

A couple years ago one of our lumber companies offered to sell a very large tract of land to the state including miles of undeveloped river frontage. The state has a fund designated for such purchases and has done this many times however one side of the isle was against it using the same argument "we need it to go into private hands because of the housing shortage". That argument was unsuccessful so the next fight was to try to end the fund used to purchase lands for public use, "get rid of the waste and fraud and add some checks and balances." Fortunately the fund had been around for years and was very well protected & no good argument could be made to end it so the land was bought and it's turning into a great hunting and fishing spot, and will remain undeveloped. I've seen this playbook once too often.

 

[Customweld]

I view this as nothing more than a foot in the door, I've been extremely fortunate to live in places flush with public lands my entire life, in at least the past 30yrs my observation has been that nobody is moving into those areas seeking "affordable housing" and more importantly, to find work. It's a sad reality.

A couple years ago one of our lumber companies offered to sell a very large tract of land to the state including miles of undeveloped river frontage. The state has a fund designated for such purchases and has done this many times however one side of the isle was against it using the same argument "we need it to go into private hands because of the housing shortage". That argument was unsuccessful so the next fight was to try to end the fund used to purchase lands for public use, "get rid of the waste and fraud and add some checks and balances." Fortunately the fund had been around for years and was very well protected & no good argument could be made to end it so the land was bought and it's turning into a great hunting and fishing spot, and will remain undeveloped. I've seen this playbook once too often.

Idaho missed this same exact thing when Wilks Brothers bought the old Boise Cascade holdings. It was a terrible misstep by Idaho.

 

[wyosam]

It's a noble idea that will always fail and fail spectacularly when the government is involved. The clear answer is to build MORE housing. Supply and demand is far from perfect, however giving people "free stuff" always creates bigger problems.

Grow mountain towns to the point where they’re no longer a desirable place to live and people realize they might as well just live in the city. Sounds like a great solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

Grow mountain towns to the point where they’re no longer a desirable place to live and people realize they might as well just live in the city. Sounds like a great idea.

Supply and demand is much more than an idea, it is a proven and successful economic model in our country!! However, some people hate it so much they move out of the country!

 

[Blowdowner]

I'm not going to say it can someone else say it for me?

 

[wyosam]

Supply and demand is much more than an idea, it is a proven and successful economic model in our country!! However, some people hate it so much they move out of the country!

There are many examples of towns that just continue to grow into the surrounding countryside because it was once a cool place to live. Now they are sprawling shitholes that don’t have the infrastructure to support the growth, that long ago lost what made them interesting places to live/visit in the first place. It happens plenty with growth on privately owned land, I don’t think being in a big rush to screw up places that are running out of private land to develop makes any sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[2buffalo]

Estimates are there are between 11 million and 22 million illegals in the US. Estimates are the US is short 4-7 million housing units. Half the people arguing about this voted for it.

 

[Ozarkansas]

Estimates are there are between 11 million and 22 million illegals in the US. Estimates are the US is short 4-7 million housing units. Half the people arguing about this voted for it.
View attachment 858711

So you’re saying if we deport all the illegal immigrants there will be no housing crisis, right? And This administration is cracking down hard on illegal immigration. Sounds like our housing crisis solution is well underway.

So why should we support selling off public lands?

 

[2buffalo]

So you’re saying if we deport all the illegal immigrants there will be no housing crisis, right? And This administration is cracking down hard on illegal immigration. Sounds like our housing crisis solution is well underway.

So why should we support selling off public lands?

That's exactly what I am saying. Again you voted for it then whine about the consequences. Kinda funny isn't it?

 

[Billinsd]

That's exactly what I am saying. Again you voted for it then whine about the consequences. Kinda funny isn't it?

Adios America!! That's the CORE ISSUE, however the numbers since the 50s are probably approaching 100 million. And if you consider Ted Kennedy opening up the floodgates to legal immigration in 1965, it's WELL OVER 100 MILLION. I believe we are FAR PAST critical mass!!