Govt land sell off (again)

[Jamie6.5]

Don't equate "public" with "free." They are not the same.
I have no problem with small or minor user fees for public land use. But when I pay that fee, I don't want to be locked out of huge portions because I no longer own horses and/or can't walk 10 miles/day anymore.

So I do have a problem with disposal of public lands, but that doesn't include public lands without any way for the "public" to access them. That said, there are "public" lands that could and should be disposed of, because there is no access, and not likely to be. Those lands still require expenditures to administer them, with no benefit. So either force legal access to them for the public, or get rid of them. Tell the ranchers or timber companies etc. they can either put in a gateless road or pay fair market value/acre.

But all this brings me to my next point, and that is turning land over to the states. The most effective governance is nearly always that entity closest to the people.

How and why is it that our state legislature and governor cannot be trusted with our public lands?

Some of the biggest public land advocates shout the loudest about social programs and consistently support candidates for office who have a record of zero fiscal responsibility.

So the public land advocate knows their candidate will create the conditions whereby the land ends up being sold because they were too irresponsible to administer it properly and preserve administrative funds to do so. So they want the entity furthest from the people to dictate public land policy to them.
I find that mental/emotional/logical disconnect baffling in the extreme.

AFAIC those "public" land advocates should just go to Canada or one of the euro-socialist countries, or STFU.

Sorry my 2 cents worth turned into a buck-and-a-half, but it's an issue I'm passionate about, and one I hope to share with my grandkids someday.

 

[Dungannon]

So I do have a problem with disposal of public lands, but that doesn't include public lands without any way for the "public" to access them. That said, there are "public" lands that could and should be disposed of, because there is no access, and not likely to be. Those lands still require expenditures to administer them, with no benefit. So either force legal access to them for the public, or get rid of them.

During the Reagan administration, Sec of the Interior James Watt had the bright idea of selling off all the isolated tracts with no access in order to balance the budget. Since sales of federal land [or a reserved interest in land] must be at fair market value, a real estate appraisal is required. For an appraiser to inspect and isolated rural property, boundary monuments have to be identified to ensure he is actually looking at the right piece of ground. Even the tiniest parcel was costing hundreds of dollars to appraise. And the fair market values were coming in at less than $100 much of the time, sometimes as high as $5 an acre. Keep in mind, the appraised value is what the real world market shows to be the price paid by someone for similar land - with full knowledge of the land's characteristics and under no compulsion to buy. If your property surrounded an isolated parcel of federal land, would you pay to buy it when no one else could even get access? No one else did either.

Now the federal government could have gone through the condemnation process to forcibly acquire access, but that is a lengthy and expensive process and always generates lots of public backlash. And without legal access, the government can't use it and thus spends nothing to administer the lands. State and county governments weren't interested in getting those lands at that time, even when they could have been conveyed at no cost under the Recreation & Public Purposes Act - because they too would have faced the same legal hurdles and expense to secure access.

Unless the federal, state and local governments just sell off the public lands, there is a huge cost to administer them under existing applicable law. That's why every 10-20 years there is a hue and cry to convey federal lands to local governments because they could do a better job. Then the local governments figure out how much local taxes would have to be raised to pay the salaries and expenses of people to administer those lands and suddenly all goes quiet. Since the federal public lands technically belong to all citizens, then all citizens in the country pay the cost for their management - irrespective of whether they live next door or 2000 miles away.

 

[Jamie6.5]

During the Reagan administration, Sec of the Interior James Watt had the bright idea of selling off all the isolated tracts with no access in order to balance the budget. Since sales of federal land [or a reserved interest in land] must be at fair market value, a real estate appraisal is required. For an appraiser to inspect and isolated rural property, boundary monuments have to be identified to ensure he is actually looking at the right piece of ground. Even the tiniest parcel was costing hundreds of dollars to appraise. And the fair market values were coming in at less than $100 much of the time, sometimes as high as $5 an acre. Keep in mind, the appraised value is what the real world market shows to be the price paid by someone for similar land - with full knowledge of the land's characteristics and under no compulsion to buy. If your property surrounded an isolated parcel of federal land, would you pay to buy it when no one else could even get access? No one else did either.

Now the federal government could have gone through the condemnation process to forcibly acquire access, but that is a lengthy and expensive process and always generates lots of public backlash. And without legal access, the government can't use it and thus spends nothing to administer the lands. State and county governments weren't interested in getting those lands at that time, even when they could have been conveyed at no cost under the Recreation & Public Purposes Act - because they too would have faced the same legal hurdles and expense to secure access.

Unless the federal, state and local governments just sell off the public lands, there is a huge cost to administer them under existing applicable law. That's why every 10-20 years there is a hue and cry to convey federal lands to local governments because they could do a better job. Then the local governments figure out how much local taxes would have to be raised to pay the salaries and expenses of people to administer those lands and suddenly all goes quiet. Since the federal public lands technically belong to all citizens, then all citizens in the country pay the cost for their management - irrespective of whether they live next door or 2000 miles away.

Don't worry, when I start landing Blackhawk helicopters on that/those isolated parcels within rancher's lands, at all hours of the day and night, those ranchers will be more than happy to pay me fair market value, or give me an easement.
But the FMV hasn't been $5.00/acre for a century or more.
Or maybe a well drilling rig can be airlifted in, along with a 20KW generator and a few lights, and we'll start sinking "test holes" and geologic studies.

Do that enough times in the right places and they'll get the message.

 

[Dungannon]

But the FMV hasn't been $5.00/acre for a century or more.

You'd be surprised how hard it is to actually find a comparable sale for establishing the fair market value on a small landlocked parcel.
I know my appraisers did. As I recall, the search extended to four states in order to find more than one. [We're talking rural properties, not residential lots or commercial real estate in town.]

The fair market value for scrub land at the south end of the Catlow Valley was $25 an acre in 1999, and that was land with legal access from route 205. Water could be had if you were willing to drill 6-700' at the south end; 300' typically at the north end. Parcel sizes ranged from 20 acres to 60 acres, and the majority of comparables were county sales for delinquent taxes.