I never thought much about federal land out west and really didn't realize how significant it was. Here's a map of the US public owned lands:
I had never realized it before, either. That map of Nevada is just about solid red. How can that be for a state that's been part of the union for about 150- years?
Be good to have you ponder the study at the link, digest, and comment. The article's bottom line to me is that the longer the Fed holds land, the less defensible becomes their holding. What do you think?
An interesting review. He makes the point that the central government is required to treat different parts of the country equally. This is not possible if the federal government owns most of the territory in some states and very little in others.
He posits that government was not intended to retain property. Jurisdiction over real property was to be a state issue. States controlled land titles, land transfers, inheritance..."virtually all aspects of real estate laws and usage".
He posits that the most important function of the Property Clause was to dispose of territory property and create states. Such property was to be sold to private parties and moneys were to be used to pay off public debt and reduce taxes.
Equal Footing....
since the admission of Tennessee in 1796, Congress has included in each State's act of admission a clause providing that the State enters the Union "on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever."
I wouldn't say Nevada is on equal footing to Texas, would you?