119th house rules - transferring federal land

[Hydrophilic]

NYT article reporting on a house measure Friday (119th congress rules) that makes it easier to transfer federal lands to the state. The article mentions it’s happened in the past. Does anyone have history on how often this measure has been implemented in the past?

House Republicans Pledge Drilling and Make It Easier to Shed Federal Land

The newly elected Speaker said the party would make it a priority to “restore America’s energy dominance.”

www.nytimes.com

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20241230/119PACKAGE3_xml.pdf

Edit: The 115th and 118th congress also had the same measure
115th: https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20170102/BILLS-115hres5-PIH-FINAL.pdf
118th: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/5/text

 

[Big Fin]

Yeah. Folks will be really tired of this issue, but it isn't going away anytime soon.

Most will benefit from putting this link in their bookmarks.

https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member

 

[jryoung]

I don't know how to say this diplomatically, but f*** those guys.

 

[Treeshark]

More info is needed on this to form any sort of informed opinion. Transferring certain federal lands (especially some BLM holdings) over to state control is not necessarily a bad thing.

As we have seen proven out with wildlife management, the individual states generally know what is best for resident beneficiaries. I see no logical reason why the same would not apply to land management in many cases.

 

[Southern Elk]

@Big Fin , is this pretty much copy and paste language from previous republican congresses? I seem to remember you pointing out this language in the past. Either way, you are correct about contacting our congressman. Maybe I’ll send Zinke a reminder.

 

[Hydrophilic]

@Big Fin , is this pretty much copy and paste language from previous republican congresses? I seem to remember you pointing out this language in the past. Either way, you are correct about contacting our congressman. Maybe I’ll send Zinke a reminder.

Also what I was wondering
Previous Trump admin? Any dem or GOP admins prior?

 

[Hydrophilic]

Rules and Manuals of the House for Prior Congresses

Rules and Manuals of the House for Prior Congresses117th Congress (2021-2022)

rules.house.gov

I’m perusing these looking, just curious more than anything

 

[OverlordBear]

No affordable housing will happen till the United States get private equity and corporations out of the business of owning residential property. This is not a land issue it is a greed issue.

 

[TheTone]

No affordable housing will happen till the United States get private equity and corporations out of the business of owning residential property. This is not a land issue it is a greed issue.

If only there weren’t already thousands of privately held buildings and lots just sitting vacant that could be used for affordable housing. I can drive by tons of empty buildings and lots in my town alone and we maybe have 35,000 people here

 

[Big Fin]

No affordable housing will happen till the United States get private equity and corporations out of the business of owning residential property. This is not a land issue it is a greed issue.

If only there weren’t already thousands of privately held buildings and lots just sitting vacant that could be used for affordable housing. I can drive by tons of empty buildings and lots in my town alone and we maybe have 35,000 people here

Now don't you guys be applying common sense to a crisis the fringe operators could leverage for their efforts to screw Americans out of their land.

Too bad many fall for the "all that useless Federal land is why you can't afford a house" story. They feel there is some reason they can't afford a house, and given the American sport of hating on our government, scapegoating Uncle Sam and all that land he is hoarding fits their narrative.

Given the traction the privateers are getting with this "lower housing cost" marketing scheme, expect to hear/read/see it in heavy doses. The average American doesn't GAF about public land, half of them hate their government, and some of them would pawn Grandma's dentures for a roll of snoose or a designer triple shot latte.

Point being, those of us who hunt, fish, camp hike, and volunteer for projects that improve these public lands are in a very small minority in this country. It will require that we be louder and work harder than the folks trying to sell Grandma's dentures.

 

[Lasiocarpa]

More info is needed on this to form any sort of informed opinion. Transferring certain federal lands (especially some BLM holdings) over to state control is not necessarily a bad thing.

As we have seen proven out with wildlife management, the individual states generally know what is best for resident beneficiaries. I see no logical reason why the same would not apply to land management in many cases.

No.
When managing a wildlife population, the ability to be flexible and react quickly with regulation changes in response to disease, winter kill, etc. is a good thing. This favors state management of wildlife.
Management of the land itself in my opinion requires a more measured approach. Impacts from approving development can last for lifetimes. The slow moving federal government is not always a bad thing when considering those sort of impacts...

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

More info is needed on this to form any sort of informed opinion. Transferring certain federal lands (especially some BLM holdings) over to state control is not necessarily a bad thing.

As we have seen proven out with wildlife management, the individual states generally know what is best for resident beneficiaries. I see no logical reason why the same would not apply to land management in many cases.

I see your point and in theory it makes sense, I'm all about more power to the states and less feds. The issue of public lands however is a bit unique. Think about for example certain states that don't permit public hunting, camping, shooting, etc on state lands. Let's say those states aquire millions of acres of federal land. What's the more likely outcome? Will they change the rules on state lands to accommodate hunters and outdoor enthusiasts? Or will they start selling those lands to generate revenue? If I know anything about government the answer is an easy one. We stand a much better shot at getting better management practices out of the feds than risking our access to those lands with the state in my opinion.

 

[Treeshark]

Let's say those states aquire millions of acres of federal land. What's the more likely outcome? Will they change the rules on state lands to accommodate hunters and outdoor enthusiasts?

Those things are up to the beneficiaries of the state.

If that’s what a state decides to do, that is the prerogative of the residents and the residents only.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

Now don't you guys be applying common sense to a crisis the fringe operators could leverage for their efforts to screw Americans out of their land.

Too bad many fall for the "all that useless Federal land is why you can't afford a house" story. They feel there is some reason they can't afford a house, and given the American sport of hating on our government, scapegoating Uncle Sam and all that land he is hoarding fits their narrative.

Given the traction the privateers are getting with this "lower housing cost" marketing scheme, expect to hear/read/see it in heavy doses. The average American doesn't GAF about public land, half of them hate their government, and some of them would pawn Grandma's dentures for a roll of snoose or a designer triple shot latte.

Point being, those of us who hunt, fish, camp hike, and volunteer for projects that improve these public lands are in a very small minority in this country. It will require that we be louder and work harder than the folks trying to sell Grandma's dentures.

Exactly. Housing isn't too expensive because there's not enough land for houses. Housing is too expensive because our market is unbelievably inflated, people are greedy, and the old dollar just doesn't go as far as it used to. I can guarantee that any "affordable housing" they want to put on these lands would be anything but "affordable". You think a condo or apartment in the shadow of the mountains in the West is going to be "affordable"? That's a good one

 

[Treeshark]

I realize that housing is ostensibly one of the talk points in support of this movement.

In reality, I think it’s an error to assume the main driver for this actually has much to do with housing.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

Those things are up to the beneficiaries of the state.

If that’s what a state decides to do, that is the prerogative of the residents and the residents only.

When I say state I'm referring to the government of that state, not it's residents. In fact the residents/beneficiaries who rely on those public lands would be the most hurt by the sale of the same.

 

[Treeshark]

When I say state I'm referring to the government of that state, not it's residents.

I don’t mean to be argumentative, but state residents get the governments that they vote for.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don’t mean argumentative, but state residents get the governments that they vote for.

Another reason not to give them land owned by the rest of us.

 

[Treeshark]

Another reason not to give them land owned by the rest of us.

For better or worse, we get the federal government we vote for too.

“Giving” states public land that is already within their borders is an interesting thing to ponder on a philosophical level. What is a state?

 

[Nick87]

think it’s an error to assume the main driver for this actually has much to do with housing.

That's called oppurtunity.