Now with Wyoming public schools facing a $700 million shortfall over the next two years, why do you think the state wants to get its hands on federal lands?
Feds purchase WY state land to protect it
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Now with Wyoming public schools facing a $700 million shortfall over the next two years, why do you think the state wants to get its hands on federal lands?
sbhooper
Well-known member
That is a total waste of tax payers money. Typical.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
I bet that's fair market value for land inside the park with views of the Tetons. It could have been developed into a subdivision for the wealthy and sold by the square foot. Go look at home and land prices in Jackson Hole if you don't believe me.
Half was from private donations and the other half from off-shore drilling that is to be used for acquisition of lands for public benefit. Far from "a total waste" imo.
Zach
Well-known member
I'm confused, the State sold the land to the Feds~"The state of Wyoming sold the parcel, called Antelope Flats, to the federal government for $46 million." from your linked article. If they wanted to get their hands on it again? I guess I'm not hustlin enough...
The public school funding is a whole other ball of wax... And doesn't Wyo have a budget surplus?
Wyoming has a $700 million shortfall due to cheap nat gas and nobody wanting coal. They are slashing positions left and right and ending many programs.
The state just sold 640 acres for $46 million. You don't think they see a cash cow in the 27.5 million acres of land currently managed by the USFS and BLM? That $46 million goes into the Common School Trust Fund account to fund public schools, which are currently experiencing a massive budget shortfall.
Zach
Well-known member
So, they already have the shortfall, or "could" as the article writes? I'd be curious on the cost per student that Wy has.
And "nobody" wants coal? I've got a friend who works for an energy provider here in CO, pretty sure they would like to go back to burning coal, but that it's an option given the current administrations regulations.
This story was from June, about the budget that passed in February: http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gov...cle_de550638-383b-11e6-96bc-73824251ca58.html
When you have to cut $250 million from already appropriated funds, you're in a free-fall and no amount of cutting will get you to zero. They'd have to sell a bunch of land to come up with the difference, with parcels like the above mentioned being prime picks. Or places in the Snowies, Wind Rivers, Wyoming Range, Big Horns, etc.
High value real estate would go first. That's usually pieces of land with high wildlife values.
When you have to cut $250 million from already appropriated funds, you're in a free-fall and no amount of cutting will get you to zero. They'd have to sell a bunch of land to come up with the difference, with parcels like the above mentioned being prime picks. Or places in the Snowies, Wind Rivers, Wyoming Range, Big Horns, etc.
High value real estate would go first. That's usually pieces of land with high wildlife values.
Zach
Well-known member
You don't think they could have sold it for much more to a private entity?
I'm not really sure what you are arguing. Are you arguing that the state won't sell off federal lands if federal land transfer happens, or are you arguing that they will sell them back to the feds at a rate below fair market value?
Zach
Well-known member
Likewise, I'm not sure what the problem is. Yes the state sold the land that they already held, but they sold it to the Feds. Seems like it would be a win/win situation?
On a side note, it's amazing that despite the promises about dollars for education from things such as the lottery & MJ, schools still have budget struggles.
ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
When the goal of gov't agencies is to spend every dollar they receive for fear of having their budgets reduced, these things happen.
They tug at our heart strings about lack of money using the kids as the vicitims, but waste money on every level.
They tug at our heart strings about lack of money using the kids as the vicitims, but waste money on every level.
Schaaf
Well-known member
Oak wasn't saying it was a bad thing. He was hinting at what may happen when the state needs to make money some way and they decide to sell land and the federal government isn't interested in buying the next time around.
Zach
Well-known member
I have no doubts about what states may do to save their budgets, many are selling the collective souls to the MJ miracle cure....
State and Federal spending is a nightmare that the future generations will live out loud. By all means though, lets keep increasing the amount of responsibility and the cost that comes with it.
percentage wise, the amount of funding it takes to manage public land is a pittance compared to many other programs, agencies, and departments. You could easily increase the amount of funding going to those agencies simply by initiating cost savings at the Dept. of Defense.
Or by taxing corporations at a rate that has them actually investing in America, rather than simply taking the profits off shore.
We here is something I can agree with you ....^^^
BuzzH
Well-known member
I know they couldn't have.
Any disposal of State Land has to go through an appraisal and be approved by the State Land Board Commission (top 5 elected officials including the Governor).
IMO, even though I'm not for the disposal of ANY state lands, in this case, the state of Wyoming was better off selling to the Feds...mainly because their checks cash and there was no haggling about fair market value. Not to mention that the Feds will not be sub-dividing it and ruining the other intrinsic and wildlife values that made that property so valuable in the first place. The state will probably collect some PILT money too I reckon.
Similar threads
