Utah- what the hell?

OP
mtwarden

mtwarden

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
10,455
Location
Montana
What I’ve noticed about rokslide in the 10 plus years here. No matter how asinine an argument and no matter how obvious an answer, there’s always that one guy that will be on the side of stupid.

I’ve noticed the same thing. If this was a land developer forum I would get it :D
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
2,728
Allot of it currently is homeless camps. Reno, slc, and other western cities are out of land to build on because of blm in holdings etc. it makes sense to sell those and purchase land that can be used by all.
We are not out of land. Do you know how many privately owned parcels in the Foothills I drive by every single day that are for sale and will definitely be gobbled up by developers? We absolutely are not out of land, what we are out of is water. There is not enough water to support the continual growth that western towns and cities are seeing.

So why should we sell off public lands for more housing when all of that land would be developed into subdivisions or other similar housing that would require sprinklers etc. that use more water and land than high density housing? What is needed is for the states to realize that the answer is high density housing and to also cap new housing based on available water.
 

WRO

WKR
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,387
Location
Idaho
We are not out of land. Do you know how many privately owned parcels in the Foothills I drive by every single day that are for sale and will definitely be gobbled up by developers? We absolutely are not out of land, what we are out of is water. There is not enough water to support the continual growth that western towns and cities are seeing.

So why should we sell off public lands for more housing when all of that land would be developed into subdivisions or other similar housing that would require sprinklers etc. that use more water and land than high density housing? What is needed is for the states to realize that the answer is high density housing and to also cap new housing based on available water.
So we should all live in apartments and condos? That does fit right into the globalist agenda.
 

NCTrees

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Oct 24, 2022
Messages
134
IMO pretty naive to assume any designation of critical habitat is valid. Critical to who, and critical to/for what? If I want to go chase sharptails on “barren” land, is that land not “critical” to a sharptail hunter? Such a designation also assumes stasis. That’s not the way natural systems work, they’re dynamic. However, subdivisions with homes and pavement tend to be permanent. Once that open space is gone it tends to stay gone. While I’m dubious of governmental managment aptitude in the moment that’s fairly irrelevant.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
8,733
Location
Central Oregon
Pretty sure the only State land Oregon has left are State Parks.

Every available scrap on Timber Ground has been sold to Private Timber companies.

Ohh wait there is one state forest. But guess what they are constantly trying to do.
Sell it to private timber.
 

Pacific_Fork

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
1,260
Location
North Idaho
Progressive? Haha, the progressives agree with you. Allowing land to be owned by a centralized government without giving up another acre to private ownership is a left wing position.

The way Bernie Sanders convinced millions of young people to foolishly support terrible big gov policies is very similar to the way Backcountry Hunters and Anglers brainwashed millions of hunters into not giving an inch on federally owned land.

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

Then call me left wing I really don’t give a shit.

You bringing BHA into this discussion like they’re the only ones who push our “narrative” around the sale of public lands is childish. Your argument is so weak dude it’s almost laughable if it wasn’t dangerous. Comparing anything around this subject to Bernie Sanders? Whats next? Keep grasping for air instead of admitting your flat out wrong.
 

IdahoBeav

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
809
Then call me left wing I really don’t give a shit.

You bringing BHA into this discussion like they’re the only ones who push our “narrative” around the sale of public lands is childish. Your argument is so weak dude it’s almost laughable if it wasn’t dangerous. Comparing anything around this subject to Bernie Sanders? Whats next? Keep grasping for air instead of admitting your flat out wrong.
The senseless argument that if one piece of federal land winds up in private hands then it'll all be gone? Yeah, BHA pretty much hammered that idea home, enough that you can call it theirs, enough that hunters foolishly jump on board with progressive policies all in the name of keeping all federal lands in the hands of Washington.

It's not an all or nothing situation. Most public land is critical to wildlife and it would best remain federally owned, but there is a significant amount that is locked up without good reason and would better serve to be developed and sold to American citizens.



Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
8,733
Location
Central Oregon
The senseless argument that if one piece of federal land winds up in private hands then it'll all be gone? Yeah, BHA pretty much hammered that idea home, enough that you can call it theirs, enough that hunters foolishly jump on board with progressive policies all in the name of keeping all federal lands in the hands of Washington.

It's not an all or nothing situation. Most public land is critical to wildlife and it would best remain federally owned, but there is a significant amount that is locked up without good reason and would better serve to be developed and sold to American citizens.



Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
You do understand this is your OPINION and while you are entitled to it it in fact may not be correct?

Just because you strongly believe it does not make it so.
 

KenLee

WKR
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
2,513
Location
South Carolina
Since you are an economist what do you think will happen in 30 years when all the baby boomers are pushing up daisy’s and the US goes into a long period of population decline. We may need housing in the short term but probably not in the long term. If people want to stay in UT they should just make more money, we print more everyday. People also could have extended families living in single houses. Parents could finish basements / split houses for kids. Just throwing in the towel and saying I’m priced out so I’m moving sounds like someone needs more motivation.

My suggestion is they drain that stupid lake and build house there. lol
I would bet that at least 2/3 of the actual folks clamoring for "affordable" housing are actually seeking "subsidized" housing.
They aren't looking for practical solutions on their own dime.
 

NCTrees

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Oct 24, 2022
Messages
134
So we should all live in apartments and condos? That does fit right into the globalist agenda.
I’m sure not a “globalist” but I for one am sure glad when I see apartments and condos going up in urban areas. I’m glad folks want to or at least tolerate living in high rise apartments. That means less potential for a stepford style subdivision to crop up across the road from me. Whether it’s land, water or other resources IMO we’ve gotta get ahold of our appetites. Average home size has about tripled in the last century. Institutional funds own over a million residences in the US, held for ROI rather than to raise children. All this is going to get worse with better technology and more prosperity. Taking land out of the public domain is not the answer.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
2,728
So we should all live in apartments and condos? That does fit right into the globalist agenda.
No I didn't say that. However, there are plenty of people willing to live in them and the new construction should be focused on that. That is what will provide affordable housing and allow housing availability needs to be met without turning SLC into the next LA. I could not live in an apartment or condo if I had the choice, although I have before. I would be homeless before buying one of those new construction townhomes or subdivision houses that took away some open space. I'd rather over pay for an older single family home.
 

Yoder

WKR
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Messages
1,670
Illegals need housing and we're going to build it for them and pay for it too!
And pay for their healthcare, food, gas and forget their phone cards. We keep voting for these people. We get what we deserve at this point. I can't remember the preacher, but he said if God doesn't strike down the United States, he owes Sodom and Gomorrah a big apology.
 

Blowdowner

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jun 21, 2022
Messages
217
How do you want to solve the housing crisis? Every government solution is a disaster. Why not let the free market do it? I'm fortunate enough that I can afford to live in a highly desirable location in the Mountain West. It doesn't seem right that a yuppie like me can move into a booming area while working class (and I don't mean burger flippers. I'm talking tradesmen) native Idahoans are priced out and have to move to GA, Upstate NY, SC, etc. where they can afford to live. Meanwhile, the feds have millions of acres of snake & rabbit land locked up, land that could be developed to increase the housing supply, in turn lowering the demand and cost.
lol housing crisis
 
Top