In an effort to keep the federal landscape from growing appreciably, a Republican from Virginia has introduced to Congress a measure that would, in many cases, require land-management agencies to offset every acre added to their oversight by selling an acre.
The measure, introduced by Rep. H. Morgan Griffith, was referred to the House Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry. As drafted, it would have any profits realized from land sales deposited into the federal Treasury for use in reducing the public debt.
NO NET INCREASE IN CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS.
(a) In General.--For acquisition of land by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture that would result in a net increase of total land acreage under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, or the Forest Service, the Secretary concerned shall offer for sale an equal number of acres of Federal land that is under the same jurisdictional status.
(b) Exemptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to easements acquired--
(1) by the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate management of Federal lands; or
(2) by the Secretary of Agriculture to facilitate management of Federal lands.
(c) Consideration.--
(1) In general.--Land sold pursuant to subsection (a) shall be offered for sale--
(A) at fair market value (based on local comparable sales); and
(B) at a price that is reduced by 10 percent each month if the land is not sold or under contract to be sold by the date that is 6 months after the land was first offered for sale.
(2) Exception.--Time periods during which land is under contract for sale or withdrawn from the market shall not be counted for the purposes of price reduction under paragraph (1)(B).
(d) Existing Rights.--The sale of Federal lands pursuant to this section shall be subject to valid existing rights.
(e) Proceeds of Sale of Lands.--All net proceeds from the sale of Federal lands pursuant to this section shall be deposited directly into the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.
Interestingly, another measure, introduced in both the House and the Senate, calls for 44 acres to be added to John Muir National Historic Site.
Comments
Lee, could you identify a piece of legislation where the scope or intent hasn't been clearly stated?
As to the FHA there is a long way between 0 and 50%. I see no catch 22. But then the real answer would be to get the FHA out of the loan business.
Most HOAs have no desire to limit to zero. But as it is, we can't even limit it to 40% or 45%. Agreed, maybe the government has no business backing loans -- but it wouldn't be necessary if banks and mortgage companies were honest.
And ec, can you identify a piece of legislation where the scope or intent HAS been clearly stated?
Murky legislation sure keeps our courts in business.
So all banks and mortgage companies aren't honest. That is quite the accusation.
As I expected, you couldn't provide an example. It was just another of you strawman accusations. I don't know of any legislation that i couldn't identify its intent or scope. And yes there is litigation, not because scope and intent isn't decernable but because beaurocrats and constituants want to go beyond them.
ec, once again you contradict yourself. See your post from 8:27. And trying to claim that all litigation is because beurocrats (sic) and constituants (sic) want to go beyond them is an awfully broad and exaggerated claim. May we see some proof that comment is not a strawman?
Now let's go back to the issue at hand. Is a law like this proposal really necessary or is it just another politcal ploy by a politician pandering to his base of contributors?
We need to remember, too, that many sponsors of these political pander jobs have no desire to actually have their token bill passed into law. Merely being able to claim that they sponsored legislative nonsense that might appease their panderees is enough to garner some contributions and promises of support at the polls or in anonymous PACs.
All good reasons for term limits and campaign reform.
Lee - covert intent is rife in legislation. It can range from Boehner supporting the Keystone without acknowledging that he has invested in companies that profit from the pipeline to "literacy tests" for voting legislation - alledgedly to provide for a literate electorate but in truth applied only to minority voters, and on. If covert intent was not present there would never be an omnibus bill filled with pork but under a benign or patriotic cover title.
Another Bingo moment, Lee! Im bipartison in my disgust for deceptive and/or complete lies in furthering legislation. The modern Democratic Leftist Party are champions of the practice evidently believing we're all stupid and easily led. A winning practice that does have relevance to all levels of government, it would seem. Many of us with strong passions for the Parks with one or both feet in the private sector could present a middle ground of reconciliation if we could diminish the polorized narrative that the politicos present.
Only a bingo moment if you include the party of Greedy Old Plutocrats as champions of the practice and believing we're all stupid and easily led.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could find a middle ground of reconciliation where we could diminish the polarized narrative that not only the politicos present, but also too many of our fellow citizens who have been suckered in by the left, right, or just flat stupid propaganda of anonymous contributors to anonymous political action committees.
Trouble is, maybe they are actually correct in believing we're all stupid and easily led.
After all, aren't we the ones who keep reelecting them?
Is it "necessary"? Necessary for what? Necessary or not I believe it (and much more) is appropriate.