Thread: How much land should the Federal Government own?

Originally Posted by highsea

What do you mean?

I don't see anything wrong with the public owning land whether it's federal or state.

Management of the land is sometimes an issue. But overall public land has been put to good use where it has economic value. It provides income for the treasury and opportunity for homesteaders and small miners, to name a couple of beneficiaries. On top of that you have public recreation and wildlife protection.

There is nothing unconstitutional the government owning land. The Constitutional prohibition refers to government-owned land being constituted into a Federally-governed entity, with the exception of land set aside for a national capital city.

If the states want ownership of all the open public lands within their borders, let them press their congressional members to pass a law transferring ownership to them.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I don't see anything wrong with the public owning land whether it's federal or state.

I think there is a huge distinction between the two.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Management of the land is sometimes an issue. But overall public land has been put to good use where it has economic value. It provides income for the treasury and opportunity for homesteaders and small miners, to name a couple of beneficiaries. On top of that you have public recreation and wildlife protection.

I'm not questioning the value of public lands.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

There is nothing unconstitutional the government owning land. The Constitutional prohibition refers to government-owned land being constituted into a Federally-governed entity, with the exception of land set aside for a national capital city.

Sounds like an opinion. I already quoted the Constitution, and that's not what is says. It says forts and ports, and has enough fuzziness for the feds to assume it means everything from coast to coast and then some if they are not challenged.

My question is and always be, what are the limits?

Originally Posted by JAD_333

If the states want ownership of all the open public lands within their borders, let them press their congressional members to pass a law transferring ownership to them.

Easier said than done, the die is cast. But a good idea nonetheless.

Originally Posted by highsea

First of all, don't call me boy.

If you think $8 Billion for half the state is cool, that's fine with me.

Don't get defensive as that was a legitimate question. If the feds hand over all the lands to Oregon sooner or later the morons in Portland will be making all the decisions of all the land in the state. If anything the feds have saved us from that experience. Secondly, we both know the state would make a greater portion of the land private as land grabbing state by state is much easier than taking federal lands. More private land would also mean more land off limits to the people. We have already started down the road to strip mall hell. Do you really want to hasten the pace. Do you really want the rest of the state to be more expensive to live in, ala portland area? You would also lose the 8 billion dollar/year tourism industry because Oregon would be just another state so why visit? Your talking about lowering the standard of living by increasing the population density while limiting our relatively unfettered access to many of the things that make Oregon so special. All the while making it more expensive to live here just so a developer can sneak in and make a quick buck. Your also talking about diminishing the rights and the voices of all the people which would be trumped by the states.