Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/27/2025 7:00:19 AM PDT by RandFan
Five House Republicans on Thursday threatened to vote down the GOP megabill if the Senate includes a provision to sell public lands for development.
The move comes after Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) sought to include those sales in the bill, and this week revised and narrowed his proposal after the Senate parliamentarian ruled that his initial language did not comply with the strict rules governing measures that can be included in party-line reconciliation bills.
“We cannot accept the sale of federal lands that Sen. Lee seeks,” wrote the five Republicans led by Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.). “If a provision to sell public lands is in the bill that reaches the House floor, we will be forced to vote no.”
Zinke — who served as Interior secretary in the first Trump administration — was joined by Reps. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.) and David Valadao (R-Calif.), all of whom represent Western states with large federal land holdings.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
That the provision was only slipped into the bill after midnight on the day the House had to vote for it suggests that it might be primed for insider dealings.
Done right, selected land sales make a lot of sense.
Why would anyone oppose shrinking the Fedgub’s bloated land portfolio?
Constituent votes.
In Alaska in particular, the argument is that as soon as it is in private hands, it will be cut off from the ability to hunt and fish. People would block the land and block access. A minor argument is that big businesses would buy land and develop it and harm the natural environment. Whether for tourism or resource development.
Because they are Deep State.
The Fed has no right to the land in the West and these Reps are wrong.
They really should be asking why the !$**% does the “government” “own” this much land???
Large amounts of land in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (U.P.) are owned by paper companies to harvest their wood in good time.
“ The Fed has no right to the land in the West and these Reps are wrong.”
*****************************************************
Well, a compromise solution would be to simply turn much of those lands over to state ownership.
No “affordable” housing. Like section 8. No cheap condos. Single family homes only. Besides, prices will go down when we deport in the numbers like they (broken) promised.
Question 1: How often do they have forest fires?
Question 2: Why do you suppose that is?
Most foreign-owned land is for forestry, and owned by Canadians. Michigan is #5 by one account.
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2025/05/20/these-states-have-the-most-foreign-owned-land/
Interesting insight into Alaska. Have a brother that has lived there since 78 or so. Just had a nice trip there last month. From Fairbanks to Seward. Beautiful, beautiful state.
It sounds like the mining companies cannot be trusted to preserve the environment.
Federal land sales needs to be left just like it is right now. NO.
I can see all the prime spots being sold off with insider deals.
When is the last time the federal gubment ever did anything like this “right”?
The states are destroying the forests by mismanaging them.
One of the biggest Federal land holdings are military bases and bombing/instrumentation ranges.
There are aspects to this matter that are not trivial.
It’s the government. I doubt much sense would enter into any sales of taxpayer owned land. More like cronyism and bad faith dealings.
It is beautiful and desolate for sure. It’s strange how left and right can come together for different reasons on this subject with the same goal.
I really despise government ownership of land in general, but I definitely understand the reasons why people don’t want to sell it off into private hands. People being people will absolutely block off, protect, and stop people from traveling freely. This would destroy a way of life for a lot of people that live up here.
I believe a lot of the anti-mining sentiment is still hanging on from decades past, where it was more of a free for all with little to no regulation. That caused a lot of toxic chemicals to leech into the surrounding areas. It wouldn’t be that way today, but people still have that in their heads. Hard to overcome. Just like nuclear power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.