Irrelevant
Well-known member
I'd jump on board with the sale of public land if all proceeds had to be reinvested to acquire new public lands within 2 years. That's effectively how WA operates the sale of its trust lands.
Selling Federal Lands
- Thread starter griff536
- Start date
if the sales are only strategic and not broad dumping not a bad idea.
in any event, likely a general net loss due to inflation and the essentially inevitable increase in land costs i'm sure. but better than losing 100% of what you had in a sale.
Chama Grande
Well-known member
Absent in this discussion is water. There has been more than a few developments proposed around me that have the land available, but no water rights to make them viable projects. Land is less of a limiting factor than some would have you believe.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
But you almost always gain more land in the process. Because strategic sales typically have higher development value, and the ones acquired are low value ranch/timber land. that is until the town grows out closer to them and they increase in value, rinse and repeat.
and i'm sure there are many potential avenues that would involve loss of land that was inaccessible anyway resulting in new land that is accessible.
such a law wouldn't have as much point or value in colorado since CPW is basically only in the business of acquisition or lease. sales of land basically only come from the land board side which is mandated to make money for schools. i'm sure it would go against the trustees statutory mandate more often than not to sell land for the schools but at the same time be required to buy more land with the money that was supposed to go to schools - none of it is legally accessible anyway so really moot to begin with.
