Replies

The US government already owns 30% of the land in the country. Eventually we are going to have to mortgage that stuff to pay Social Security ~

BTW, here we have a problem with beavers. They live along the Potomac just 2 miles away. They cross two 16 lane Interstate highways to get here.

There is no need for a corridor.

We also shut down the BEAR corridor through the simple expedient of having every homeowner in Northern Virginia build a fence. Even bears get tired of tearing through enough fences.

Much of my township (Norvell in the lower right corner) is already part of the Sharonville state recreation area. That in itself I don’t mind but our broke ass state is still buying land that will be removed from the tax base and further impoverish us. They’re looking at paying $2 million for another 2000 acres of farmland just south of me.

Another group in operation in this area is the Raisin Valley Land trust. They don’t buy land, instead they convince little old ladies to sign legally binding contracts that gives them control. The owner still pays taxes but can’t do anything with the land and if sold the contract still stands (which makes the land unsalable).

The US government already owns 30% of the land in the country.

Part of the problem is the geographic maldistribution of federal land holdings. In the east, beginning in the early federal period, federal lands were rapidly privatized to accommodate homesteaders. As settlement moved into the semi-arid western plains, it was found that larger and larger acreages were needed to support each farmer/rancher. By the time we reached the desert and mountain west, the land really wasn't suited to agriculture and the primary value was logging and mining. Congress eventually (the 1880's?) changed the law, and the feds kept title to most of the land. We are left with massive federal landholdings in the west and tiny bits and pieces in the east. Fast forward to the 21st century, and this is a very poor solution for national park needs.

The obvious solution is to privatize federal lands in the west and use the proceeds to expand park holdings in the east. (I'd also use proceeds from the closure of military bases for the same purposes, instead of just giving these often very valuable properties to local governments.) IMHO, this would be a good strategy for the park system. It would also help with the politics of land preservation by reducing the resentment factor in the west, where the feds too often are an abusive landlord, and by increasing park accessibility in the crowded east, where it is needed.

Last but not least, I would place an emphasis on urban and near-urban parks, and try to make these big enough to be a real respite from urban sprawl and suitable for mixed use. Historic sites and waterfronts are obvious places to begin. The total federal acreage doesn't need to increase if it were appropriately redistributed. This isn't something that can be done overnight, but if one drew appropriate boundaries for future parks, one could set about the long process of land accumulation as properties came onto the market.