Utah- what the hell?

[Szwampdonkey]

That doesn’t reduce demand, and when real estate has high value largely due to location, it’s not going to be developed for less profit without government subsidies, which are always a disaster.

Build coffin apartments like they do in China. Those are cheap and affordable and work for them.

The answer isn’t to spread urban problems out to the surrounding countryside. Transplanting urbanites and illegals to the country most definitely isn’t the answer to urban overcrowding. Build those coffin apartments a mile high.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Build coffin apartments like they do in China. Those are cheap and affordable and work for them.

The answer isn’t to spread urban problems out to the surrounding countryside. Transplanting urbanites and illegals to the country most definitely isn’t the answer to urban overcrowding. Build those coffin apartments a mile high.

It’s not an urban problem, and barren ground along a freeway, and especially adjacent to Boise/Vegas/SLC/etc. city limits, is not exactly “the countryside”.

I often wonder how many of these anti-development comments on Rokslide come from people living in rural residential subdivisions.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

It’s not an urban problem, and barren ground along a freeway, and especially adjacent to Boise/Vegas/SLC/etc. city limits, is not exactly “the countryside”.

I often wonder how many of these anti-development comments on Rokslide come from people living in rural residential subdivisions.

So you’re saying overcrowding is a rural problem?????

 

[IdahoBeav]

Once again, why is the answer sell the land and then overhaul things? Why not try overhauling things, and not selling the land? Why not cut the places that are actually contributing the largest to the deficit?

Do you replace the sink because it doesnt turn out hot water when you turn it to hot or do you replace the water heater?

Every time this topic gets brought up, it’s always about the deficit and how we can’t afford it anymore. When the reality is selling the ground won’t solve the problem. It’s putting a bandaid on it.

I would concede we should sell ground, if it was the ground causing the problem but it’s not.

In the context of this thread, we aren’t talking about a few acres. Along with, if you were to cut DoD spending drastically, my stock portfolio would take a hit, so cutting that is not something I “don’t like.”

There’s not a singular “answer”, and it’s not so much that selling land solves a deficit problem. It’s that the fed isn’t the answer to anything. The fed is a complete disaster, and claiming that barren, non-wildlife-critical land is better to remain in federal hands than private is delusional.

As for the extent and manner of potential land transfers/sales,

I won't speak to this particular bill or Lee's agenda, but allowing federal land to be sold and developed is not a bad idea as long as it is done with careful selection and honest consideration of critical wildlife habitat.

 

[IdahoBeav]

So you’re saying overcrowding is a rural problem?????

Overcrowding isn’t the best definition, but there is a shortage, i.e. high demand, of rural residential and outskirts housing across the west.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

Overcrowding isn’t the best definition, but there is a shortage, i.e. high demand, of rural residential and outskirts housing across the west.

So whose moving to these rural outskirts areas, rural people?

 

[Billinsd]

-Why do we pay taxes?

-Is that federal service necessary and producing the intended result?

-The Fed should never under any circumstance operate on a deficit.

We pay taxes because of the law created by Woodrow Wilson a hundred years ago.
Is what federal service necessary? Depends who you talk to.
If we are at war and our survival depends on operating on a deficit it’s ok by me, but nothing else.

However, people only care about the deficit when they are speaking on federal services and operations that they don’t care about. No one ever concedes that things they like should be cut. They just respond with whataboutism on what other programs and services should be cut.Forget about your recreation for a minute and ask yourself the question, “Why should an entity that is $36 trillion dollars in debt be able to own and manage 650 million acres?” Does the logical answer involve not selling a single acre of land?

Most people are self consumed idiots and don’t have the slightest idea how much in deficit we are and couldn’t care less if they knew. Only a tiny percentage of people understand and a tiny percentage of Republicans.
Why should a corrupt, incompetent, unelected, unaccountable, and indifferent entity be allowed to mismanage 650 million acres? Because most Americans are idiots and live in tiny self gratifying bubbles, oblivious to the world around them. Yes, the main logical answer does not include selling land. The answer to me is very complicated. Yes, the Feds should sell of land to pay down the debt. However, I don’t trust the Fed. It’s far better and appropriate for the Fed to transfer the land to the states to do what they see fit.

 

[Billinsd]

Build more cheap apartments UPWARD in scum cities run by Libs. Pack em in like roaches they all vote Lib so i say let em live like Libs in the big cities.

No one wants to live in dense urban centers of scum cities run by liberals, like LA, or Detroit. No one wants to invest in these types of ventures. My dad’s buddy bought a huge apartment complex in Compton in the 70s and lost his ass because the residents were tearing out the toilets and plumbing to sell and then accusing my dad’s buddy of being a slum lord because there were no toilets. My dad’s friend couldn’t keep up replacing everything and finally donated the mess to a charity. My grandad told me stories of apartments in Chicago in the 50s throwing their trash out the windows.

We are building EXPENSIVE apartments and condos in San Diego, that recently turned blue up towards the sky! People are packing in. The roaches are complaining about the cost, not being packed in, even though they can move back to where they came from or somewhere else if they are native.

 

[jmez]

Does anyone really think the Fed would use proceeds from land sales to actually pay down debt? Did I miss something in Utopia?

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2024 using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

Once again, why is the answer sell the land and then overhaul things? Why not try overhauling things, and not selling the land? Why not cut the places that are actually contributing the largest to the deficit?

Absolutely!! Completely overall the BLM and Forest Circus and cut them down 90% Do this first, BRILLIANT!

Every time this topic gets brought up, it’s always about the deficit and how we can’t afford it anymore. When the reality is selling the ground won’t solve the problem. It’s putting a bandaid on it.
I would concede we should sell ground, if it was the ground causing the problem but it’s not.

I thought the core issue is that the States should own and manage Fed land, because that is how the Founders intended and how things were until the vast lands taken from Mexico? Same logic as why do states manage their big game and not the Fed.

I would concede we should sell ground, if it was the ground causing the problem but it’s not.

The Fed lands are not the core problem of the deficit. Selling them are seen as a means to pay down the deficit. However, it would buy us a short amount of time if we keep spending.

In the context of this thread, we aren’t talking about a few acres. Along with, if you were to cut DoD spending drastically, my stock portfolio would take a hit, so cutting that is not something I “don’t like.”

No one is talking about a few acres, it’s millions. So, do you mean you are against cutting DOD because your portfolio would take a hit? I don’t like eating healthy and I especially despise living below my means!!!!!

 

[Billinsd]

Does anyone really think the Fed would use proceeds from land sales to actually pay down debt? Did I miss something in Utopia?

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2024 using Tapatalk

I certainly don’t believe it for a second.

 

[Billinsd]

So who’s moving to these rural outskirts areas, rural people?

People like me!!! : )

 

[Teodoro]

Selling those lands would be the stewardship equivalent of living off your capital. Everything seems fine at first, and then pretty quick you're impoverished.

 

[CorbLand]

Absolutely!! Completely overall the BLM and Forest Circus and cut them down 90% Do this first, BRILLIANT!


I thought the core issue is that the States should own and manage Fed land, because that is how the Founders intended and how things were until the vast lands taken from Mexico? Same logic as why do states manage their big game and not the Fed.

The Fed lands are not the core problem of the deficit. Selling them are seen as a means to pay down the deficit. However, it would buy us a short amount of time if we keep spending.

No one is talking about a few acres, it’s millions. So, do you mean you are against cutting DOD because your portfolio would take a hit? I don’t like eating healthy and I especially despise living below my means!!!!!

I would love to respond to this post but honestly, have zero idea of what your saying.

 

[Billinsd]

but I’m only arguing that hunters need to stop screeching at the idea of the fed selling a few acres of barren land, but this will never happen. Hunters will continue to respond with pitchforks and torches every time the green decoys call for them with doom and gloom cries about possible land sales.

Why would you expect most hunters to stop screeching about selling any public land they could hunt on? It’s not a few acres, it’s 650 million acres worst case scenario. I cringe at the thought of losing that much public land. I think it’s highly unlikely and would be a fraction of 650 million. Many real hard core passionate hunters will always respond with pitchforks and torches at any real or perceived threat. And this is a very logical response when having public land available nearby to hunt is more important to you than your country or your family’s well being. It’s more important than anything to some.

 

[Billinsd]

I would love to respond to this post but honestly, have zero idea of what you’re saying.

What I wrote was very complicated and long to understand for most people. You need to have the patience, education, reading comprehension, and age to understand. Of course it’s my fault I didn’t write it so it was easier to understand. I apologize.

 

[Billinsd]

I have no interest in buying any public land, and I hunt public land. I just refuse to only look at things as if myself and people that partake in the same recreation are the only type of people that exist in this country, and I’m not going to simp for the feds.

I COMPLETELY AGREE!! Bruh

 

[IdahoBeav]

What I wrote was very complicated and long to understand for most people. You need to have the patience, education, reading comprehension, and age to understand. Of course it’s my fault I didn’t write it so it was easier to understand. I apologize.

I’m highly educated; your comments on this thread are all over the place, very unorganized, and full of self contradictions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

I won't speak to this particular bill or Lee's agenda, but allowing federal land to be sold and developed is not a bad idea as long as it is done with careful selection and honest consideration of critical wildlife habitat.

It’s not a bad idea, it’s a fantastic idea!

 

[CorbLand]

I’m highly educated; your comments on this thread are all over the place, very unorganized, and full of self contradictions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey I think you and I actually agree on something in this thread.