Why does land cost so much?

[Whitlock]

So Don do you not get that your wonderful feds have managed public lands by letting foreign companys make money from them instead of the american people?

How is this good for the people that own the land?

We pay a fee to a foreign company to use our own lands.

Do you think that is right??

[MountainDon]

So Don do you not get that your wonderful feds have managed public lands by letting foreign companys make money from them instead of the american people?

Don't call them my wonderful feds. I never did.   

As for permitting a foreign company to own businesses in the US and to profit from that business, as I said before we Americans may not like it, but if one tries to limit ownerships and businesses, well isn't that big brother sticking his nose into places he should not? Or is that okay some of the time, but not all the time, and how would one decide?    One may as well try to prevent everyday people from buying a US made Honda or Toyota if that is the attitude.


All I've said that if you take the public lands out of the hands of the public sector, the government, where do they go? They end up in the hands of private ownership, individual or corporate. Is that not true?

I ask again how is removing public lands from government control and placing it under private control going to benefit us, the people? Nobody seems to have been able to answer that basic question of mine. Obfuscation is introduced in place of an answer. I wish someone who disagrees with me would spell out their solution to the perceived problem.


Or perhaps there are those who totally disagree with the premise that there should be any free access to lands for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, bicycling, horse back riding, firewood collection, rock hounding, motorized recreation..... In other words should everything really be privately owned?

[MountainDon]

According to the constitution the Federal government is prohibited from owning more than a small amount of land for use as forts and military bases.

I believe there is some misinterpretation going on with that statement.

Article 1, Section 8 (The Powers of Congress), Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art1.asp#1sec8

That means what it says, Congress can ...organize, arm and discipline...; govern; appoint; train; No mention about land or property.



Article 4 , Section 3 (Admission of new States. Power of Congress over territory and other property), Clause 2:  The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art4.asp#3sec2

Also known as the Property Clause. Sounds like Congress makes the rules for lands held by the government.



As far back as 1845, the United States Supreme Court held that Congress holds title to public lands, not by virtue of cession, but by law.  Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 21, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845).  The Property Clause "authorized the passage of all laws necessary to secure the rights of the United States to the public lands, and to provide for their sale, and to protect them from taxation."  11 L.Ed. 571.

from...  http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con30.htm

[John Raabe]

You only have to watch the National Parks movie by Ken Burns to realize that protecting land in perpetuity (under federal or state control) is the only reason we have public places we can all enjoy.

[MountainDon]

I am not defending the feds. I am defending my right and everybody's right to have access to public lands.

Closure of various parts of those lands for a whole gamut of reasons is another subject for complaining about.

[Whitlock]

I ask again how is removing public lands from government control and placing it under private control going to benefit us, the people? Nobody seems to have been able to answer that basic question of mine. Obfuscation is introduced in place of an answer. I wish someone who disagrees with me would spell out their solution to the perceived problem.


[/quote]

Homesteaded, Don just like our forfathers meant it to be given to the people.

I'm done argueing about it eh?

Later,W

[pagan]

When we were planning on moving to Vermont we looked at many properties, one of which was an old church. We really liked the building and as we talked with the realtor he explained that the local community used the main building for putting on little plays, a haunted house, and other such functions. They were not paying for access to the church, or any of the expenses the owner had incurred from the public usage. I explained we would be making the church into our home. He replied that might not be a good idea as the local community would not enjoy losing their community building. I asked what he thought about charging for access. He laughed and said why would they pay when they've been using it for free all these years. I smiled and asked, "So they expect us to pay the taxes, heat, and all maintenance so they can use OUR home whenever they please, for free?" His simple reply of "Yes" sealed the deal, so to speak.

I'm not keen on dealing with a bunch of nimrods so obviously we didn't buy the old church, incidentally, it never sold and was pulled from the market after two years. Occasionally we drive by the church and it's not looking so good, the roof needs replacing, a bunch of the windows are busted out, and it really needs a paint job. It looks like the local community isn't offering anything to help maintain their free community building.

My point is, would anybody here buy a building or land with the full expectation of allowing virtually unfettered public access with no recompense?

[peternap]

He laughed and said why would they pay when they've been using it for free all these years. I smiled and asked, "

My point is, would anybody here buy a building or land with the full expectation of allowing virtually unfettered public access with no recompense?

I had the same problem with hunters when we bought the farm. My answer to why is simple....So they stay healthy enough to mooch off of someone else!

[SardonicSmile]

In UT, in the past 5 to 10 years there are many private developments in places that used to be undeveloped and made for some great scenery.  Several of these private holdings have closed access through their property to areas of public land. Being able to control access to private property is a good and proper right, don't get me wrong on that. But it hurts when the rest of us get cut off from lands we used to enjoy because someone now owns it themselves.

I hike public trails regularly. If any of my favorite hiking trails are ever bought by theme park companies or disturbed in any way they will have a fight on their hands. There have been many attempts around here, but none have been successful so far.

I know this sounds bad, but I would physically fight these people and destroy/vandalize if that's what it came down to.

One of my buddies in the picture below. They tried to turn this waterfall into an amusement park a few years ago.

[pagan]

Sardonic,

If you fought them in that manner they'd label you a terrorist and lock you up for life, no trial, no legal representation, no family visitation. Essentially you'd vanish, never to be heard from again. US Patriot Act, read it and weep.

[muldoon]

I am not defending the feds. I am defending my right and everybody's right to have access to public lands.
Closure of various parts of those lands for a whole gamut of reasons is another subject for complaining about.

I'm just being devils advocate here, but where does this "right" come from?  Where has this been promised to anyone? Does the government have the duty to buy land to provide it for us?  Does the government have the duty to seize private land and make it public? 

I hike public trails regularly. If any of my favorite hiking trails are ever bought by theme park companies or disturbed in any way they will have a fight on their hands. There have been many attempts around here, but none have been successful so far.
I know this sounds bad, but I would physically fight these people and destroy/vandalize if that's what it came down to.

If homeless people decided that the lawn in front of your house was their favorite place to sleep, would you agree with it?   Seems to be the same thing to me, everyone wants "their" land protected, and after they get theirs, lets make sure we dont sell anymore to anyone else. 

--
The truth is that the government cannot give you anything that it does not first take from someone else.  While you personally may benefit from these things, land, healthcare, money, science or college grants, corporate tax breaks, or whatever - the fact is that for you to get the benefit - someone else paid the bill.  Seems a lot of people are ok with that when it works in their favor. 

The next time I see the conspiracy theorists come out - that someone somewhere has some plan - I'll point them back to this thread.  We all collectively make these choices.  We have the government we deserve. 

I ask again how is removing public lands from government control and placing it under private control going to benefit us, the people? Nobody seems to have been able to answer that basic question of mine. Obfuscation is introduced in place of an answer. I wish someone who disagrees with me would spell out their solution to the perceived problem.

Perhaps it does not benefit us.  I do understand your sentiment, I love the national parks too.  It does not change the facts about the attitudes of entitlement that this nation is wrapped in. 

[MountainDon]

I know this sounds bad, but I would physically fight these people and destroy/vandalize if that's what it came down to.

One of my buddies in the picture below. They tried to turn this waterfall into an amusement park a few years ago.

So how was the waterfall saved?  Peaceful legal means?

pagancelt is right. If not caught all one accomplishes with those tactics is a temporary halt and destruction of private property. That sounds too much like the antics of groups like ELF and ALF. I don't see the sense in that type of action. If caught one ends up in jail.

http://www.furcommission.com/resource/Resources/Terror.pdf

[MountainDon]

I'm just being devils advocate here, but where does this "right" come from?  Where has this been promised to anyone? Does the government have the duty to buy land to provide it for us?  Does the government have the duty to seize private land and make it public?  

Nobody has said that the government should buy or seize private land and make it public, at least I do not recall seeing that. 

When the USA began expanding west of the Mississippi it was agreed between all those east of the Mississippi that the federal government would own all the land west of the Mississippi. That may not be verbatim and may leave out some details, but that's more or less what I remember.

Then back in 1870 something the House and the Senate agreed to form Yellowstone Nat Park and President Grant signed the bill. Good thing?  Absolutely.

Also back in the 1800's Congress created the Division of Forestry and eventually set aside land for National Forests which eventually became the Forest Service.

So that's how some of our public lands came about. I for one would rather see all these public lands remain that way rather than owned privately by companies like Weyerhauser, Phelps Dodge or Exxon Mobil.


I get the feeling that some folks would rather see the public lands owned privately and I do not understand the reasoning behind it.

[MountainDon]

The truth is that the government cannot give you anything that it does not first take from someone else.  

So this gets into the realm of the US Government taking the land away from the Native Americans who were here before us. We took it from them so we could have it.

[MountainDon]

Perhaps it does not benefit us.  I do understand your sentiment, I love the national parks too.  It does not change the facts about the attitudes of entitlement that this nation is wrapped in.  

So we draw a line in the sand. Public lands stay. Period. Just looking at the public lands and not clouding the issue by bringing any other single item into the picture I do not see anything on the negative side of the paper. I believe the entire country would be poorer is public lands were removed.

We had public lands before SS, Medicare, etc came along. I do not believe one must dismantle everything just because one does not like the latest additions.

[pagan]

Craig Rosebraugh was a big ELF guy and was investigated for several criminal acts. When subpoenaed to testify before congress Rosebraugh invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 54 times during the hearing. It appears he enjoys having the protection of the law, while denying that to those he deems not worthy of protection. He opened a health food store and then fired workers who were threatening to strike for better pay, benefits, and working conditions. It also looks like he's a capitalist with his own property and an environmental socialist with everybody else's property. Not to mention he appears to care more about monkeys in laboratories then his own employees.

Bill Cotrell was sentenced to 8 years and ordered to pay $3.5 million in restitution for torching Hummers in 2003. Authorities did not use provisions in the Patriot Act that would have allowed them to prosecute him as a terrorist, rather they went with a series of conspiracy to commit arson, as well as other, charges to convict him. He did attempt to use autism as a defense, but it didn't fly.

Daniel McGowan was sentenced to 7 years for two counts of arson, although he faced life without parole under the Eco-Terrorism charges. He burned up two lumber yards.

Jeff Luers was sentenced to nearly 23 years in prison for setting fire to three pickups.

Mark Sands got 18 years in prison for torching seven luxury homes under construction.

The list goes on, but the fact remains you're destroying private property and all a property owner has to do is claim he or she saw a bright flash, like the barrel of a gun, so the shooting was in self defense...and then you're dead.

[ScottA]

Having parks is a great idea. There should be some in every state. My argument is that a great many people are being denied the right to own land. And yes I do think this should be a right. They are denied by virtue of cost caused by scarcity. The argument that these public lands need to be protected to save waterfalls is very short sighted. You can protect the waterfall without having the government own all the land in a 10 mile radius. Basicly they've taken a large part of the planet on which we all live and said you can't live here. You can't make a living from this place. You'll all just have to fight over whats left. The Indians didn't belive the land belonged to anyone. It was all public land to them. If this was still the case we couldn't have civilization but it worked for them. I do belive in civilization but I also belive that land owners can be persuaded to allow their lands to be used for hunting camping etc. so long as people understand they can't trash it. There are ways these ideas could be made into laws that would allow the land to be owned and still enjoyed by those who are responsable enough to respect the owners.

[SardonicSmile]

If homeless people decided that the lawn in front of your house was their favorite place to sleep, would you agree with it?   Seems to be the same thing to me, everyone wants "their" land protected, and after they get theirs, lets make sure we dont sell anymore to anyone else.

I would never own a 400 foot waterfall and deny access to people or even build there. There are gray areas when it comes to property, but this isn't one of them.

Some places should just be left alone.

[pagan]

Scott,

Certain people seem to think mice have greater rights of protection than a person. They also would enjoy seeing people removed from all rural settings and forced into already congested cities. Then we can all look at beautiful pictures of the wilderness taken by the select few allowed to actually witness it in person. You know, protecting "wilderness areas" and "riparian watersheds" for generations to come.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting the environment because if we continue polluting the air, water, and ground we're eventually going to kill ourselves off. I think we just need to find that middle ground of sustainability between the group wanting zero regulations and wanton destruction/consumption of all natural resources and the flip side who want all natural resources to remain untouched and all people crowded into cities leaving most of the land untouched.

I think it was the Native American's view of land that made it so easy for the Europeans to take it with relative ease. Owning land was such a foreign concept to the natives I doubt they truly understood what was happening until it was too late. By the time they did understand and attempted to get rid of the Europeans, they simply didn't have the people to sustain a fight, as the new diseases decimated whole tribes and Europeans flocked to the new world in droves.

[Whitlock]

http://republicans.resourcescommittee.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Ltr_to_Obama_Re_AntiquitiesAct_021810.pdf



http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/021810_monumentlist.pdf


Don't you just love the cost estmation that the BLM puts on the private land

[eddiescabin]

I notice the one with the biggest mouth can barely spell.  Shhh, your education is showing! 

[pagan]

I like how they say costs will vary depending on the location of willing sellers.

[MountainDon]

FWIW, good info on National Monuments and related....

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/hisnps/npshistory/antiq.htm

http://rlch.org/content/view/2026/44/


Looking over the list of National Monuments is interesting. I'm familiar with many. The whole idea of giving presidential power to establish National Monuments was to do so in small pieces. There are several small ones located in the SW that we have visited. I'm in favor of the majority of them.  The ones that irk me are the large areas that were consolidated into large new monuments such as the Grand Staircase-Escalante, UT.

[eddiescabin]

One look at Malibu beaches which are to have guaranteed public access (all beaches in Cali) shows how big money will keep the public out

[Whitlock]

Wow this would suck


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2393940/posts