Senate vote public lands sale

I’d assume BLM lands that are within 5 miles of a population center, whatever that is, get some of the highest recreation use of any blm land. He’s a pure and simple con man. Let’s start by developing existing empty lands inside cities and then move on to farmland reserve inc properties. How many houses could be built on Deseret Land and Livestock?
 
I still stand by no land for sale and have told the senators I’ve talked to as much.
 
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.

Increased supply usually helps prices, problem is still local planning departments and entitlement issues that will drive the prices through the roof and take years to process in many cases.

Not to mention the dumfuk local groups. We just finished up zoning a 20 acre piece between Redmond and bend Oregon. It abuts the major highway and has the same use adjacent. Oregon land watch waited until the last 30 minutes of comment period to protest it. We’ll still get it, but there’s another 100k in costs allocated to the dirt to get through Luba.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Step in the right direction. Still got to keep up the fight.
View attachment 897649
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.
 
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.
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?
 
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?
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.
 
I’d be much more supportive of any aspect of the checkerboard BLM approach if it provided for acquisition of accessible lands.
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.
 
Back
Top