Glimmerjim wrote:dudejcb wrote:I'm intrigued by this notion of an optimal level of government land ownership. I imagine you have a formula or function to describe this theoretical balance point. Or not!
From my observation, it appears federal land ownership is governed a few ways. The "best places" are set aside as parks, national recreation, or wilderness areas. The worst are owned because no one really wants them except perhaps to strip away some value (grazing, timber, minerals) while not having to protect, defend, pay taxes, or pay to clean up their messes on the acreage. And another seems to be for public benefit (public use or as a public benefit ... e. g., the dams for power and irrigation administered by TVA, BPA, and the Bureau of Reclamation. There are other drivers as well, but this isn't meant to be exhaustive.
That's pretty much been my feeling throughout this thread, dude! Comparing the percentage of Govt owned land on the east or west coast and in Nev. is apples and oranges.
Why? Clearly the land is not worthless or they wouldn't be asking Bundy for a million dollars because he used worthless land, would they? This entire argument started over just ONE rancher out of quite a few using the "worst" land that clearly is worth millions of dollars. If it were not, did the government not commit fraud in trying to collect? Are they not gouging all the ranchers that are paying the fees?
I'm well aware of the differences. I've lived in New Mexico. I've lived in eastern Washington. I've been to California, New Mexico, Utah, Texas, and Nevada more times than I can remember. I've been to Arizona a couple times, I've been to Idaho a few times I've been through almost every state at out west least once. I have worked extensively over the years with people from Idaho, New Mexico, Washington, Nevada, California, and Texas. Given that I grew up in the east and lived in most states from PA to GA and that I know live in the midwest, I have a pretty good ideas of the exact nature of the apples and oranges that I am comparing.
What is your basis for thinking you know what things in the east are like? You have to know both sides to compare them.
The real difference is that have to be different for your argument that they should be treated different to hold any water. They are not that different to justify the federal government to treat them so vastly different.
BTW, my suggest was not to go to the same levels in the west as in the east precisely because the $/acre value of the land is very small relative to the land in the midwest or the east. For example, this makes using it for things like military test facilities much more efficient than using more expensive land located near more people.
You are simply trying to find a reason to keep your subsidized access to government land on top of your desire for top down control of the central government which appeals to your gut reaction that people must be controlled by a central authority, which sadly is the normal human condition and the reason strongmen, dictators, kings, popes, etc. are the norm around the world and over history.