That’s a different discussion. I could agree that the government shouldn’t own land but the legal fact is they do. I’d like to see the government sell the land to the Bundys. If the land is so scrubby like people say why does the government want to own it? Sell it and pay down debt.
Article 1, Section 8 item 17:
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;(there’s an and here that leads into the next item)
The 10 mile square IS the District of Columbia. One is allowed as the national seat of government.
The ONLY other land ownership legal for the fed gov is:
Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings.
Is this land under discussion a fort? no.
Is this land under discussion a magazine for the storage of military munitions? no.
Is the land under discussion a dock-yard? no.
Is this land under discussion an “other needful building”? no.
So, how is it legal to demand rent on land that can not be legally owned by the authority demanding the rent?