Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-9th) addresses fed land grabs

[dorminWS]

WE SHOULD ALL URGE SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.

/////////////////////////////////////////
Congressman Griffith's Weekly E-Newsletter 4.14.14
Monday, April 14, 2014 –


Acre In, Acre Out

The Federal Government owns approximately 81 percent of Nevada, part of the roughly 650 million acres of land it owns throughout the United States. Nearer to home, Uncle Sam owns approximately 53 percent of Craig County and 49 percent of Alleghany County according to sources in those counties, and owns significant portions of other counties in the Ninth District as well.

About 95 percent of the Federal Government’s land ownership is done through four entities: the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.

While I generally support the legitimate preservation of public lands, the country was not founded in order to have a majority of its land owned by the central government in Washington. On Tuesday, April 3, I introduced H.R. 4423, the Acre In, Acre Out Act, which would stop the Federal Government from continually increasing its land holdings. Under this bill, Uncle Sam would be required to sell a corresponding amount of currently-owned land at a fair market value for each new acre of new land acquired. If that land doesn’t sell after six months, the price would be reduced by 10 percent monthly until it sells. Proceeds from the land sales would be put towards paying down our national debt.

Not only would the Acre In, Acre Out Act stop the Federal Government from grabbing more and more land, but it would also help pay off our national debt while continuing to preserve American lands for purposes such as private ownership and exploration.

The Acre In, Acre Out Act is a good beginning, but I also believe that Congress should make the law clearer. I believe the Constitution is clear that if the Federal Government in Washington wants to take land from a citizen, it can use its power of eminent domain. But when it uses that power, it must pay fair market value for the taking. In other words, I believe that if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or other government entities want to substantially devalue a citizen’s property through a regulation that has a legitimate government purpose, that is okay as long as the government pays the landowner for the taking, either wholly or partially

[WRW]

If fair market is paid for the acre in, how will that acre out pay down the national debt, especially after a 10% price reduction or two?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

If fair market is paid for the acre in, how will that acre out pay down the national debt, especially after a 10% price reduction or two?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Obviously, by an amount less than the amount paid out for new land. I can't speak for the bill, but it seems to me that the primary object is to freeze the feds at their current acreage by not allowing them to acquire any more land unless an equivalent acreage is sold. I'd say the "reduce the price by 10%" requirement is to prevent the feds from evading the requirement to divest of land by overpricing it and then just sitting on it; and that using the proceeds from acreage sold to reduce the federal debt is to keep any branch of the government from using it to expand government as its primary purpose. But that's JMO.

It strikes me as a dang good start.

[dusterdude]

I say kick em out and take it all back


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[smltooner]

Congressman Griffith is a smart man.

[j1mmyd]

Doesn't go far enough. Require the federal government to sell all unimproved land back to the states for what it paid. Let them then lease land from the states for military bases and other functions.

[widefat]

And add to the bill....
No "acre out" land may be purchased by any congressperson, senator, staffer, government official, government employee, or any employee of any company that any of those folks have anything to do with.

[chuckjordan2]

will most likely be sold to a pulp mill/lumber company. Then stripped clear. Think of the clearing in the Amazon. You can then hunt on it.... in about 20 years.

You did know the Redwood forest is in (partially) in Nevada? Imagine that clear cut....

do you really think the average citizen is going to have a chance at this land?

Leave the land alone, so we can all enjoy it.

[mamabearCali]

But they won't leave the land alone. They can will and have leased it to foreign interests. The Feds should not have that much land. I like what has been proposed. I say they can keep 1/10 of it. The area with the Redwoods for example and federal national parks and forests. Then they give 1/2 of it back to the state for the state to either make into state reserves or to sell back to the people, Then the other 1/2 gets sold as has been discussed. Preferably in workable increments so that it goes to ranchers, farmers, and citizens not logging companies.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[chuckjordan2]

I can agree with your position, in concept. But in reality, we know what will happen. If you read about the NV rancher, something is going on there.

OK, sell the land. 10 years from now we'll see what really transpired.

[SpanishInquisition]

*cough reforestation cough*

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

Logging isn't all bad and all logging isn't clear cut. A lot of people who have their private forest land logged limit the loggers to 12 or 14 inches in diameter and up; and prohibit cutting some species. Besides, not only do trees grow back, but if the are not cut when mature, they fall, rot on the ground, and create fuel for out-of-control forest fires. In fact, the US Forest Service clear cuts a lot of forest because they say it is taking the ecological niche of the forest fires they prevent. Around these parts, the tree-huggers and the hunters both raise Cain with the USFS about their clear cutting.

BTW, I'm not connected in any way with the logging or lumber industry except that I have had some private land logged but not clear cut.

As to land that the feds might divest, free market is free market. Set aside whatever percent the public desires for state and/or federal preservation and recreation use and let the market arbitrate on the rest.

One other thing that could be done is intervene in the oppressive and restrictive laws, rules and regulations imposed on the use of federal land by Congress and the agencies in charge. The USFS currently administers its holdings in a manner calculated to keep human beings out of the woods altogether unless they are walking and don't even pee in the woods.