Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Question; Whats the approximate value of land owned by US government

Posted on 08/25/2010 8:53:14 AM PDT by big bad easter bunny

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 08/25/2010 8:53:15 AM PDT by big bad easter bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: big bad easter bunny

The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States. Federally-owned and managed public lands include National Parks, National Forests, and National Wildlife Refuges.

Figure about $500 to $4000 per acre depending on location.

Less for the deep woods in Alaska.


2 posted on 08/25/2010 8:56:29 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (Democrats...the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy, and Sedition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big bad easter bunny

This is a question I’ve always wondered about, because a lot of it is not used at all, but you cannot trespass on it either, so what’s it worth?.

I have to imagine it in the trillions, but it depends on what’s on it - buildings, lakes, rivers, coast, etc. and what reources there may be - water, minerals, lumber, etc.


3 posted on 08/25/2010 8:57:50 AM PDT by Frenchtown Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big bad easter bunny

Here is a 1986 paper on just the Fed owned mineral and resource rights: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=328688


4 posted on 08/25/2010 8:58:04 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

IOW, not even close to the $45K of debt, as most of the land is in the lower range per acre. The Census reports US population at 307 million as of July 2009.

That’s about 2.3 acres per cap. Net per cap US land value ballpark $1K to $10K.


5 posted on 08/25/2010 9:02:10 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

it is actually worse than that. The government has partnered with corporations and private land owners to purchase different rights from the bundle of rights you get from fee ownership. Rights like access rights, building rights etc. These are called conservation easements. Half of the U.P. in Michigan is under one.


6 posted on 08/25/2010 9:03:09 AM PDT by 70th Division (I love my country but fear my government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: big bad easter bunny
Deforestation is a far bigger environmental issue that human made CO2. We need areas full of living things for the carbon cycle to work properly.

I'd be more open to the government selling land that doesn't have a lot of plant life. However, I'm sure environmentalists will come up with a reason why that is a bad idea as well. Some of them may even have valid points.

I think the government abuses their authority over these lands, but I'm not sure selling them to private individuals is a better solution.

It you transfer the lands to private individuals then the public looses the ability to effect how that land is managed. Government is a bad solution to most problems, but sometimes the alternatives are worse.

7 posted on 08/25/2010 9:04:46 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big bad easter bunny

I’d say it depends. If the government sells off an individual acre, it could be worth a whole lot. Selling it off all at once in a fire sale would swamp any real estate market and make each acre worth next to nothing... and make comparable acres of real estate, already on the market and financed, worth next to nothing.


8 posted on 08/25/2010 9:05:15 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big bad easter bunny

I have a question: What land in the U.S. in NOT owned by the govt? You don’t own the land if you have to pay rent (property tax) every year.


9 posted on 08/25/2010 9:06:19 AM PDT by raybbr (Someone who invades another country is NOT an immigrant - illegal or otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big bad easter bunny

It’s already pledged to China.


10 posted on 08/25/2010 9:06:57 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ( "The right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended." - Rowan Atkinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cranked

Based on the paper which says $175 billion, inflation calculation says it’s worth approx $344 billion.


11 posted on 08/25/2010 9:08:11 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (Democrats...the party of Slavery, Segregation, Sodomy, and Sedition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: big bad easter bunny
In time, this will be the only solution to keeping the country solvent. They will get a lot more for it if they start selling off land slowing and in an orderly manner than if they are forced to sell due to a general economic collapse.

The reason it isn't happening now is political-- there is a fairly strong coalition of very diverse groups which likes the government being a large landowner.

Not all of these groups are green libtards. Even some very conservative groups like the cattleman's association love the idea of public grazing land and fisherman's groups love the idea of having fedgov stock mountain streams with fish hatchlings.

Both functions could be easily privatized with the fees earned from grazing fees and fishing licenses. Or, if the groups can't trust privatization, allowing fedgov to continue to do them on private land.

12 posted on 08/25/2010 9:08:27 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

I think you could pay off the national debt. just by selling off the Presidio in downtown San Francisco right under the Golden Gate bridge.


13 posted on 08/25/2010 9:09:29 AM PDT by woodbutcher1963
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

I would wager that Fed owned mineral and resource rights range over a trillion ++.


14 posted on 08/25/2010 9:09:29 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: big bad easter bunny
This was part of Harry Browne's (1996 & 2000 LP presidential candidate) plan for eliminating unconstitutional fedgov social welfare programs - sell off federal assets & buy annuities for the retired and near-retired who were dependent, or soon to be dependent on fedgov programs to be eliminated.

His 1996 campaign book "Why Government Doesn't Work" was a blueprint for reducing the federal gov't back down to constitutional levels while protecting those in the system who were too old to build a private retirement fund.

A brilliant book that gives lie to the common but erroneous belief that the fedgov beast can't be reduced back down to a sane, sustainable level.

15 posted on 08/25/2010 9:11:03 AM PDT by LIBERTARIAN JOE (Don't blame me - I voted for Ron Paul!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big bad easter bunny

I’d prefer unrestricted private ownership, but if that isn’t possible, couldn’t lands be sold with some degree of restriction?

I’d rather a landowner go into a transaction knowing up front what can and can’t be done with the property.

In contrast, what we have now is you can buy property thinking you have control, and the government comes along and restricts your rights after you own it.


16 posted on 08/25/2010 9:12:18 AM PDT by chrisser (Starve the Monkeys!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big bad easter bunny
Our national treasures are worth too much to give up for a seasonal corruption of our government. The government can sell oil and pay for much of the problem but I would rather see the world bank and the fed go bankrupt. If we give up our national treasurer for this temporary debt what will we give up next time? Want to give them your property next time. If we go bankrupt with national land we have something to start over with. If we go bankrupt with nothing we will remain nothing forever.
17 posted on 08/25/2010 9:12:54 AM PDT by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big bad easter bunny

This moves in the direction I have been postulating for some time. GEOs - Gold Equivilant Ounces(s)

In short, during the census, establish the average land price in each congressional district. This average should include all land sales from acreage to downtown. Then mulitiply the number of acres owned inside of that district by the average price. This creates a virtual dollar value for the land and buildings. Convert this to gold ounces based upon the average spot price of gold during the prior year.

Do this for all congressional districts, add in the actual number of UNENCOMBERED (no loans, etc) of gold ounces, add in the converted precious metal holdings (again unencombered). This will create a final number of GEOs. Congress then is required to vote (can not delegate) the total currency, currency, financial instraments, and other monetary instraments that may be in circulation against that number of GEOs. The Treasury is required to 1) report the number of total currency, currency, financial instraments, and other monetary instraments in current production and adopt either money tightening or printing in such a manner as to bring the money supply into accordance with the GEO to currency ratio.

This valueation remains in effect till next census and the Treasury reports every year on their efforts and progress on implementing the will of Congress. Congress shall have the power to remove and replace the head of the Treasury by majority of both houses if the Treasury is not able to keep the monetary balance within +/- 5% of the GEO target


18 posted on 08/25/2010 9:13:14 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big bad easter bunny

Wait a minute... there might be legal precedent. Of course! Land-snatching! [grabs a law book]

Hedley Lamarr: Land, land... "Land: see Snatch." [flips back several pages]

Hedley Lamarr: Ah, Haley vs. United States. Haley: 7, United States: nothing. You see, it can be done!

19 posted on 08/25/2010 9:14:18 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

You should start with the Green River Formation and its 800,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 barrels of recoverable oil! Yes, 1 TRILLION BARRELS!

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/
“...More than 70% of the total oil shale acreage in the Green River Formation, including the richest and thickest oil shale deposits, is under federally owned and managed lands...”


20 posted on 08/25/2010 9:16:53 AM PDT by WellyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson