Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
See my above post.His latest proposal actually makes sense, as long as there's a reasonable definition of population center.
Source?I'm seeing reporting that this proposal was ruled by the senate parliamentarian as not complying with the Byrd Rule. It's (supposedly) one of the Byrd ruling that are being released tonight.
Well at the time it was a tweet from a PunchBowlNews reporter but now it's been released officially.Source?
Step in the right direction. Still got to keep up the fight.
View attachment 897649
See my above post.
What is the definition of a population center?
A community of 50 people, 10k, 50k?
I just don’t believe there’s gonna be any truly affordable housing built.
This is pretty good and a huge step in the right direction. Eliminating FS addresses most of the concerns. I would like to see language that allows for the sale of landlocked pieces up to a certain acreage, regardless of location. Portions of lots bordering private on three sides, up to a certain acreage, should also be included. I am concerned with item #2 on the list. It sounds good, but it should only be applicable to landlocked parcels and portions of lots that protrude into private. If there is a clear and simple boundary that separates a large swath of BLM from encroaching development, it shouldn't be chipped off and sold even if it is within 5 miles of a population center. The 5 mile boundary would just keep creeping along with development.Step in the right direction. Still got to keep up the fight.
View attachment 897649
In your opinion, would you say checkerboard should be sold off even with corner crossing appearing to be coming down the pipe? Or are we talking locked fully within private where crossing cannot occur?This is pretty good and a huge step in the right direction. Eliminating FS addresses most of the concerns. I would like to see language that allows for the sale of landlocked pieces up to a certain acreage, regardless of location. Portions of lots bordering private on three sides, up to a certain acreage, should also be included. I am concerned with item #2 on the list. It sounds good, but it should only be applicable to landlocked parcels and portions of lots that protrude into private. If there is a clear and simple boundary that separates a large swath of BLM from encroaching development, it shouldn't be chipped off and sold even if it is within 5 miles of a population center. The 5 mile boundary would just keep creeping along with development.
I was thinking lots where access is impossible short of a helicopter. Checkerboarding is whole sections (square mile) and it's too vast, but that's a good catch. It would be a good idea to include language to prevent the sale of these parcels in my opinion.In your opinion, would you say checkerboard should be sold off even with corner crossing appearing to be coming down the pipe? Or are we talking locked fully within private where crossing cannot occur?
Ideally, cattle ranchers would own the private and allow hunting, and the cattle would also graze the BLM the same as the private. Both parties are happy, and the complexity prevents the land from being developed, but we don't live in a perfect world.I’d be much more supportive of any aspect of the checkerboard BLM approach if it provided for acquisition of accessible lands.
I spend some time around affordable housing advocates. None of them want this or think that it will make a difference in housing prices.What is the definition of a population center?
A community of 50 people, 10k, 50k?
I just don’t believe there’s gonna be any truly affordable housing built.
Step in the right direction. Still got to keep up the fight.
View attachment 897649