AZ sells 26 square miles of State Trust Land
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Bigjay73
Well-known member
Hate to see it, but the title is quite misleading. Any company could have placed a bid, it wasn't "quietly sold". Not surprised, New Times makes the New York Times look like Fox News its so far left. Either way, it's a shame.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
In the name of corporate profits the people look away, thinking that those corporations give a damn about them. Nothing to see here!
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Do you have a better place in mind to put that mines waste rock?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Selling the lands outright was wrong, they should have worked out a deal to lease the land for storage, and then treat it, put it back where it was mined. If there's not enough money there for that they should not be mining it. Not into government subsidies to corporations that end up leaving their messes to the public to deal with. Montanan's know all to well about this type of thing.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Not convinced, that with today's political climate in control, there will be any differences with our past in Montana. Results of a mining legacy.
elkduds
Well-known member
One international mining immigrant is going to make all those Californian immigrants look like perfect neighbors.
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
Fair enough. I don’t really see it as a government subsidy but I see where you are going. In truth reclamation standard for hard rock mining suck compared to coal. I’m not sure it would have made a difference whether it was owned or leased by the State. The standards are largely governed by the Feds but monitored by the State. If I was a betting man this land was lost for future use either way. The worlds thirst for copper is only growing and outcomes like this will only grow.
I’m all for the mine expansion and there’s a lot of non sense in that article.
That said, the state could have leased an area for a tailings impoundment to FMM. Instead, they sold 16,000+ acres of land to the company, meaning the entire piece is lost to the public forever.
Most of that land will not be used for the impoundment, but having experience doing a little business with FMM, I highly doubt it will ever be accessible to hunters or anybody else.
Yet somehow, land transfer so this can happen more, remains a popular idea
That said, the state could have leased an area for a tailings impoundment to FMM. Instead, they sold 16,000+ acres of land to the company, meaning the entire piece is lost to the public forever.
Most of that land will not be used for the impoundment, but having experience doing a little business with FMM, I highly doubt it will ever be accessible to hunters or anybody else.
Yet somehow, land transfer so this can happen more, remains a popular idea
Absolutely. X2
This sucks. I've killed a lot of Gamble's quail on/near those lands.
The Arizona Stated Land Board is adamant that the lands they manage are NOT public lands. They even go so so far to say such on their website. As such, they will tell you their accountability is to the State School System and nothing else.
Given the choice between the State Land Board leasing the lands and not being much in the way of taxable value to Yavapai County, versus having the lands be privately held deeded lands in the name of a large mining company, any bet what a local County Commission is going to lobby for when talking to the state and federal delegation? Yeah, expect them to be all on board with the idea of selling these State Trust Lands and having another increase in land values the County can tax. County Commissioners have huge sway in western politics.
If anyone doubts why we should never let the State Land Boards manage western lands currently held by the BLM or USFS, as is often promoted under the notion of "State Transfer," this is another ugly example.
The Arizona Stated Land Board is adamant that the lands they manage are NOT public lands. They even go so so far to say such on their website. As such, they will tell you their accountability is to the State School System and nothing else.
Given the choice between the State Land Board leasing the lands and not being much in the way of taxable value to Yavapai County, versus having the lands be privately held deeded lands in the name of a large mining company, any bet what a local County Commission is going to lobby for when talking to the state and federal delegation? Yeah, expect them to be all on board with the idea of selling these State Trust Lands and having another increase in land values the County can tax. County Commissioners have huge sway in western politics.
If anyone doubts why we should never let the State Land Boards manage western lands currently held by the BLM or USFS, as is often promoted under the notion of "State Transfer," this is another ugly example.
Last edited:
shoots-straight
Well-known member
And this is why a made a stink about the Lands transferred in the water bill. Those states lands in the deal will be made up (Transfered to the state) by federal lands. RIGHT? Montana has been better with State Lands, but we are just a few radical Right political positions away from this.
Here's a related article from last year.
Arizona schools win big as state racks up $330M in land sales
Arizona schools win big as state racks up $330M in land sales
Bigjay73
Well-known member
Hunted a lot of the state land between Bagdad and Hillside over the years. That being said, I'm not sure we understand what state trust land is, how its managed, and once again , that this land wasnt sold. It sucks, but Az has every right to auction off thiese lands, just as anyone entity could have placed a bid. It's sad, I'm sure this was somebody's favorite hunting spot, but it is what it is. Come to Co, you can't set foot in the majority of our state trust lands. They aren't " public" lands. I wish it were different
The point is that many people, including our elected representatives, are pushing for management of federal lands by the states, and this is an example of what we might expect if that were to happen.
Bigjay73
Well-known member
I couldn't agree more. Sorry if i missed that
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I agree with Big Fin's comments and I don't like these things any more than anyone does, but I do understand the difficulty of the situation. To summarize, it is all about the $$$, and it is hard to blame the Board. Public schools are underfunded and the money that was paid for the land will probably go into a traditional portfolio of stocks and bonds that will have a far better return than the land ever did. The return from grazing rights or timber/logging rights or farming is not going going to measure up to the returns they see in the other state portfolios that are invested in traditional assets. By mandate, the Board's job is to use these lands to fund the schools, period. Often times (practically ALWAYS) the best way to do that is to sell them and reinvest the proceeds. The solution may be to increase fees from hunting that go to the State Land trusts, but we have talked about increasing payments to a variety of programs to the point that the list is practically endless. Raise the fees for licenses too far and you price people out of the hobby. The only option is to use your voice and vote to change members so they understand there is value other than the check they get every year. Unfortunately that will not help the school system's funding problem.
Bigjay73
Well-known member
Well stated. Hopefully they limit the sales of parcels that are usable to the public and focus more on the ones close to cities. Half glass full, at least in Az they allow hunting on state land, fingers crossed they dont sell it all off.
