Skip to comments.Report: Nevada would benefit from transfer of federal lands
Posted on 04/26/2014 12:44:35 PM PDT by Duke C.
A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevadas millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer.
A transfer of 4 million acres of U.S. Bureau Land Management land could bring in anywhere from $31 million to $114 million a year, based on a review of four Western states that have significant amounts of trust lands under their control, the report says.
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
Will never happen cause it means some Federale BLM etc drones might get forced to look for work in the dreaded private sector. Same as a flat tax is impossible to get enacted because it means at least half the IRS drones would be looking for jobs at Burger Link etc etc. And since the IRS is a glorified affirmative action jobs program blacks and women would be most affected by a flat tax.
The Internal Revenue Employees, 89,500 (2014). Annual budget, ~11.2 billion ...
Will never happen, the corrupt crook reid needs his blood money to line his pockets.
Make it happen!
Never could wrap my mind around why the federal gubamint should be the largest landowner bar none when there was so much opportunity and fortune to be had by this nation’s populace.
An arguement whether the Feds or the State gets the money sounds like two drunks fighting over the same bottle of wine.
Time for a citizen’s arrest
At one point in the late 1970s the Nevada Legislature claimed 49 million acres that was/is under federal control...Sagebrush Rebellion. I can’t seem to find out what happened (legally) or if it was just sort of “ignore it, it will go away” which obviously didn’t really work out that way.
So many think Bundy is off his rocker to claim that land belongs to Nevada, I spent some time in Nevada during the Rebellion and I can tell you most ranchers believed it should have been/was state, not federal land. It is an issue that has been simmering for years.
It is not going to happen. Rich people (Dem and GOP) do not want to lose property value and will lobby to kill such move. When Fed takes state land, that is many square acres no longer available to build homes. If you own a home already, you property value will go up because land is scarce or limited in availability. After living under such a system, a sudden availability of Fed land for private use will kill existing property values. NYC has the same scam. Rent control killed incentive to build new housing. As the city population grows, the landlords and rich homes grew in value rapidly. Any notion to kill rent control has supporters from low end landlords but strong opposition from rich and established landlords and mansion owners.
Same will happen in the Western states. Establish rich (Dem and GOP) will not want to lose property value and will behind the scene squash any attempts to return state lands back to fed control.
Nevada? All state where there are locked up lands would benefit. It would become a prime example of what happens when states compete.
how about transferring the land to me.
I will take it.
can I set up a Burger King restaurant on the
National Mall in WashingtonDC?
I will gladly pay zero rent.
if not, why not?
I doubt that you or your ancestors had a lawful claim to any property in DC, as the Bundy family did in Navada since 1877.
>>”In a presentation to the task force in November, David von Seggern, chairman of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, asked how the state would replace the hundreds of federal workers now working in Nevada.
He questioned whether Nevada has the financial resources needed to meet the demands for firefighting or assisting in activities that would support mining, grazing and energy production.”<<
Leave it up to the Sierra Club to be looking out for the Feds!
What do you know about the Sagebrush Rebellion Tammy mentioned?
Great map there illustrating the insanity.
I'm just gobsmacked.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
whether or not they have a lawful claim to the property, they have a grazing easement - which is more important than the property itself. Because, regardless of who owns the land, the owner of the grazing easement controls everything on the surface of that land.
But, aside from that small nit, your point is well taken.
The Sagebrush Rebellion is about the US Forestry and the BLM attempts to take Wayne Hage’s Nevada property rights regarding grazing on “public lands”.
I would think Nevada would benefit from Fish $ Game enforcement over this vast area. I mean...if I stalked a desert tortuise to within two feet with a scoped rifle and shot it with a high powered rifle...some fines should apply then, no? Ok, that happens never -but it doesn’t mean it won’t. Mybe we need drones...? Yes, tortuises are cold blooded...no heat signature, but if they move thier little feet fast enough -friction!
See, you to could be a grant getter, what is this heat genoratored by the feet of a fleeting tortuise? Are they even feet? Only science can answer!
Give me 4 million acres, and I would benefit too.
Obama and Reid need all that federal land to back up all the debt they are creating. Reid needs to have the BLM under his control so he and Rory can amass a fortune to rival the Koch brothers.
I personally think that states should lay claim to ALL BLM land. It could be sold and/or mined, used for grazing, oil and gas exploration, etc. etc. and the revenue split with the Feds.
The long run fallout FRom the Bundy ranch standoff could have some very positive outcomes for the states in question and the USA.
It is a huge long shot, but Federal land ownership, apart FRom the National Parks, requisite government buildings, etc., etc. and military reservations has got to be done away with.
Just think of today’s Federal Gov as an affirmative action jobs program for liberals, gays, feminazis, blacks, and so on..... Especially true in the DC Region. Less so in say....Montana