house Bill H.R. 1214
Selling Off Small Plots of National Forest Land
Argument in favor
These are small, remote, and inaccessible parts of National Forests — they won’t be missed, and the funds could be used to maintain the more recreation-friendly land.
08/07/2016
The government already owns 75% of the land west of the mississippi let some of it be sold the the public for private
08/07/2016
The federal government shouldn't own as much last as it does.
03/03/2016
Completely unused public places should always be able to become private land.
Argument opposed
Not requiring a Congressional vote on these transfers could lead to an unwitting transfer of more valuable land that would be better off in federal hands.
08/07/2016
National Forests are SANCTUARIES! By no means should they ever be sold or used for anything. These should stay intact for all time.
08/07/2016
America's National Forrest Lands should Never be sold off nor touched! They belong to the People of America!!!!!!...
08/07/2016
We need to quit destroying our ecosystem as if we simply have another home world to live on. There is no Planet B.
The government already owns 75% of the land west of the mississippi let some of it be sold the the public for private
National Forests are SANCTUARIES! By no means should they ever be sold or used for anything. These should stay intact for all time.
America's National Forrest Lands should Never be sold off nor touched! They belong to the People of America!!!!!!...
We need to quit destroying our ecosystem as if we simply have another home world to live on. There is no Planet B.
Our public lands need to be protected and preserved for future generations. Developers aren't interested in keeping our lands and environment safe; they're interested in making money.
This reeks of oil/natural gas lobby. It sets a dangerous precedence for selling off land that is considered less "valuable" by some arbitrary standard to the highest special interest bidder. They are protected lands, they are public lands, and they should remain such.
Completely unused public places should always be able to become private land.
The federal government shouldn't own as much last as it does.
Absolutely not. These lands are better off controlled by the government for preservation than sold to private citizens who are just a stones through away from the local hardware stores and "No Trespassing" signs. Sorry the fact of the matter is if it's owned by the Feds we have the ability to control what happens with it. As well as recreate in it. If it's bought up it will get logged or shut off from use. Sorry, no!
Sounds like a plan, but these small plots could be problematic and should be sanctioned by congress. Today we cannot trust the fed gov. The Feds via Executive Order takes state lands and the when they no longer us it, decides to sell it. Maybe they should give it back to the state they stole it from rather than selling it to Warren Buffet for resale lining his liberal pockets like buying a railroad knowing Obama wouldn't allow Keystone. Cronyism!
The government owns too much land as it is. It almost owns Nevada as it is.
Return the land to the states. Quit letting foreigners buy our land!
This property belongs to the American people. The people should always get a say in when property is going to be sold.
Well let's see. Are those forests in a state? 10th Amendment! Is the federal government a better steward of natural resources than the state in which those resources reside? Is the federal government a better steward of a forest than a private citizen with a vested interest in the long term health of that forest, his investment? So, yeah. The STATES should be able to sell land without asking permission of the fed. In addition the fed owes those states an apology and restitution for industry that was thwarted as a result of the Feds illegal ownership of that land.
Absolutely Not. This is not the time period of the 1700s In the western regions of the United States where you had the ability to mark a flag and claim your land without any authority. In other words conducting iconic landmarks to be absurdly divided into the hands of multiple share holders devalues the aspects of what the United States constitution had evidently implied. National Historic landmarks are under the behalf of federal ownership due to its conditional matters and its environmental conditions. Think if the Grand Canyon were to be on the market for property possession in individual sections the purchases would boom and multiple urban like structures will be revisited there devaluing the aspect of NATIONAL LANDMARKS TO ABSURB NATURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT. My point being is increasing the amount of federal lands that are urgent to be at a safe status shall be left to that particular designation as implement. Selling off properties to market buyers and entrepreneurs looking to promote residential properties and urbanization would hinder the factor for environmental preservation and damage the habitats/ecosystems of our crucial wild life community as well. Thank you for your time.
There's no reason why the federal government needs to own so much land.