Montana House Bill 676 - This could sell off 1.25M acres of State Trust Lands - that's almost 25%!!! This is not the Homesteading Bill

[Rie Bread]

The other thought in my mind on this is that the monies gained by sale of inaccessible state properties possibly can build a pool of money for the state to use to purchase a like number of acres (no net acres gained) for the public. The possibility to purchase better places with access to recreational land.

Can I get what you’re smoking?

 

[HappyCamper]

Elected representatives need to be reminded they represent the whole public, not just the select few that can afford to buy these properties. I continue to lose all faith in these conjobs.

 

[Forkyfinder]

My single favorite part - the myth about school funding and taxes if a conservation easement is used elsewhere but this isnt a big deal?

Sell 640 acres - thats generating revenue for the state (11 bucks per head) - for pennies on the dollar for it to pay subsidized low property tax down the line. I am certain grazing fees compared to ag property tax isnt much of a tradeoff for tax generation.

 

[elkduds]

Watch and remember, this is one page of the playbook for divesting federal public lands.

 

[Southern Elk]

Bump for the Monday morning crowd. Montanans contact your senators.

 

[Nameless Range]

The other thought in my mind on this is that the monies gained by sale of inaccessible state properties possibly can build a pool of money for the state to use to purchase a like number of acres (no net acres gained) for the public. The possibility to purchase better places with access to recreational land.

The state sells parcels all the time, and I believe that money is used in a land banking program where funds from those sales have to purchase new parcels, but I think potential revenue for the trust is the main consideration for what new parcels to purchase. Might be worth checking into.

I’m not actually opposed to the state selling parcels that no one can access to turn around and buy more land, but I think putting it in a bill on a wholesale level and allowing a sort of first right of refusal deal for lessees with water rights, doesn’t sit well with me and could result in a lot of less than ideal losses for Montanans.

 

[BuckRut]

allowing a sort of first right of refusal deal for lessees with water rights

I don't know that the text even reads this well for us. It doesn't say sell to the lessee unless he doesn't like the price. It says it must be sold to that lessee if he asks to buy it. Period.

 

[Eric Albus]

Exhibit A for why states can’t be trusted with federal lands. Why wouldn’t you try to find ways for all of the people of MT to access our public lands instead of selling them off to a privilege few?

Already did that. Kept a bill alive in the house that goes a step beyond PALA, the program will be part of BMA, but specifically pays for access to landlocked parcels.
The reason it passed the house is on account of my asking for an amendment to the program, which the sponsor agreed to.

 

[Southern Elk]

Already did that. Kept a bill alive in the house that goes a step beyond PALA, the program will be part of BMA, but specifically pays for access to landlocked parcels.
The reason it passed the house is on account of my asking for an amendment to the program, which the sponsor agreed to.

An amendment to HB 676? I’m not seeing that we get anything in return for what’s being sold off.

 

[Forkyfinder]

For information...

 

[Gerald Martin]

Party favors for a speaker’s bill leads to great policy being adopted solely for the best interests of constituents….. (Sarcasm)

 

[TheTone]

Party favors for a speaker’s bill leads to great policy being adopted solely for the best interests of constituents….. (Sarcasm)

Party loyalty is far more important than constituents

 

[Forkyfinder]

Party loyalty is far more important than constituents

Yes - because its getting re-elected or promoted that means anything.

Ballsy of the republican party to so flippantly disregard a majority of constituents in such a way.

Ah well - i'll sleep better knowing that the public will see this when the google house bill 676, or what does house bill 676 do, or sell state land in montana

 

[SAJ-99]

Republican party platform
"You don't understand. Just trust us."

 

[MTGunner]

Republican party platform
"You don't understand. Just trust us."

Trust is a two way street. If constituents say no, then it is “ NO”.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Trust is a two way street. If constituents say no, then it is “ NO”.

That is so untrue. IMO, most constituents would say "NO" to PLT, yet it is a platform goal of the dominant Republican party locally and nationally ... and this bill seems to work toward that goal. Once the politicians are coronated, then constituents are subservient peons who don't know squat!

 

[shootbrownelk]

Exhibit A in why transferring federal lands to the states would be a catastrophe.

I emailed my Senator Barrasso last week asking about his stance on turning over all Federal lands to the states. I got a response that he supports keeping public lands public. He didn't say that he didn't support the transfer to the states, just that he wanted those lands to remain open for the public to enjoy. A long winded word salad penned by a staff member no doubt, a non-answer to my question.

 

[SAJ-99]

Trust is a two way street. If constituents say no, then it is “ NO”.

You still believe in democracy. That is so cute. Unfortunately if it were true it never would have made through the first reading.

 

[Beignet]

For information...

As much as everyone enjoys knocking on crunchy old Missoula, our elected officials actually seem responsive to their constituents' preferences and rarely seem to vote in favor of legislation that's bad for the sporting public.

 

[Forkyfinder]

@Ben Lamb do you have any thoughts on this one?