Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjulius | Hacker News Reader

I want to preface this by clarifying that I am by no means intending to defend this at all - I backpack frequently and greatly value our public lands, and don't want to see them sold. However...

As it stands now, the text of this specifically calls for only .5 to .75% of the 250M acres for both USFS and BLM lands to be sold. No more than 1.5% of the 250M acres will ultimately be sold off. Further, they need to be sold off for specific purposes, and these purposes need to be cost-efficient for the buyer. The map on the page absolutely looks scary, but that fear is diminished a fair bit when you realize that less than a percent of the lands in each color will be sold, and those that are sold are likely not going to be spaces that are deep in the forest and are expensive to reach and develop.

By no means do I want to see this happen, I just wish that folk like Wilderness Society were a bit more clear on what to expect.

View on HN

> I just wish that folk like Wilderness Society were a bit more clear on what to expect.

that just means the stuff that is easier to access is going to be prioritized. there's already 17+ classic rock climbing destinations that are in the proposed areas which could be sold off to his cronies. nobody is going to be buying up the land in the middle of nowhere with no access to it. this is devastating regardless of the absolute percentage.

Not only that but it's the access points that get bought up.

The maneuver seems to be to offset tax cuts this budget year. I think they need to set a precedent so they can offset tax cuts through subsequent years.

Definitely a concern that I share, but I also wonder if it's a matter of diminished returns and to what degree that will impact things. Just because it's highlighted as sellable doesn't mean that it's easy and cost-efficient to develop.

I agree with the general sentiment, but it’s worth pointing out that this is a drop in the bucket compared to the tax cuts, AFAIK :(

I doubt anyone behind this legislation cares about offsetting tax cuts. This isn't about raising money--it's about transferring assets from the public into wealthy, private hands, like these guys[1]. It's always about that.

1: https://landreport.com/land-report-100

This should be the top comment every time this subject comes up.

2 birds one stone.

The reason they need to offset tax cuts is because they're about to extend the huge tax cuts for the rich from the first Trump administration.

The rationalization that is being provided here is exactly the goal. It’s not to sell all the land right at this moment, but to set a precedent and sell it piece by piece over an extended period of time because people have extremely short memory. They used to fight tooth and nail when it came to raising the debt ceiling by billions, now we raise it by trillions every year. It’s the same playbook here. People will justify the sale by saying it’s 1-2% of the land, and over a couple of decades we’ll be losing that much every year.

what governs how frequently that % can be sold or increased?

maybe a better question is - why? even if it's 0.01%, what is the (hopefully legitimate) purpose of this?

Congress can generally choose to sell whatever whenever. All they have to do is say so in a bill.

The proposed purpose is residential use. See my other comment for the text of the law.

How do we have any idea which lands will be sold? In many ways, the lands the public least would want to be sold are the ones that someone would be most interested in, and that kind of thing is exactly what I'd expect from the Trump administration - find a billionaire and sell them 100 acres right next to national park for a "residence."

It is a slippery slope. How often will the republicans be drawing from this well now in the future?

They need a new schtick now that the debt ceiling is going away.

It’s not a single party issue. Drawing from the future is how we got into this big of a hole in fiscally and now is being used as an excuse to sell the land to fund the irresponsible spending.

This article details plans pushed specifically by a single party.

I wish everyone also felt this way about the national debt.

I will be looking for places specifically deep in the forest. Ideal for a hunting lodge or accessing the remaining wilderness. Perhaps a small campground or cabins for others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com