Selling Federal Lands

regarding energy wouldn't both sides of the aisle be shooting themselves and their pocket liners in the foot by seeing public lands privatized? private leases and royalties for energy aren't much of a screaming a deal in comparison to those rock bottom public land rates, right?

you'd think both sides would see the long term investment opportunity in having ample cheap public land to drill and grade for solar.
Au contraire my friend. They would most certainly not sell the mineral rights. Keep the federal minerals, sell the surface. They’d make way more money that way. Extra sweet deal- two revenue streams from one parcel.

Plus the big donor puppet masters get a huge development opportunity too. What’s not to love?

Unfortunately we’ve lulled ourselves into a false sense of security by telling ourselves a line of feel good stories about why this will never happen. The D’s are a bunch of greenies that would never go for it. It’s too politically toxic in xyz state. Etc. But we now find ourselves in a very real situation where we’ve kicked the can down the road budgetarily for decades, both parties conceivably have reasons to justify it, and ultra-wealthy zealots use their unlimited amounts of “speech” to steamroll the wishes of the public. So here we are. I’m not happy about it, but it’s not like anyone paying attention couldn’t see it coming.
 
ultra-wealthy zealots use their unlimited amounts of “speech” to steamroll the wishes of the public.
Apt description. As prime example of "representation of the people", our Montana delegation is comprised of individuals who are NOT public land hunters, hikers, bird watchers, or bikers. 'More likely to sip umbrella drinks in Belize than backpack the Bob, hike to Granite Park Chalet, or bowhunt the Breaks.
 
GOHUNT Insider

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,063
Messages
2,043,134
Members
36,443
Latest member
MIDeerAssassin
Back
Top