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(2) Exception.--Time periods during which land is under contract for sale or withdrawn from the market shall not be counted for the purposes of price reduction under paragraph (1)(B).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
In other words there is no contradiction and you can't defend your accusations.
I'm not xenophobic or racist. If someone from China wants to buy Federal Land and is the highest bidder, I have no problem with it. The Chinese have bought plenty of US property. Heck, they once owned Pebble Beach golf course.
But you still haven't -- and certainly can't -- provide proof of sincerity. It's a draw. You have no proof, nor do I.
Opinions are not proveable. We both know that. However, given the below 10% trust rating for Congress, the proof seems to be in the actions rather than their words. My point was that this Congresscreep is merely doing what too many of them do, pandering and puttering, wasting time and ignoring things that shouldn't be ignored in hopes no one will notice.
Please...might we move on??? Pretty please?
My, I wonder what the Republican sponsor of this original bill would think about the idea of selling land currently owned by the people of the USA to a citizen of China?
Heck, might as well sell it to those rascals at the U.N. Seems like the folks at Fox News would have a field day with that one:-)
Can you ask him to stop making unsubstantiated accusations? Pretty please.
This IS on topic. He insists the legislation that is the subject of this thread is pandering but he provides nothing to substantiate that accusation. I say the legislation is clear in scope and intent and doesn't go far enough.
Then explain just what the scope and intent of the bill is and tell us how much farther it should go. No ambiguity please. Until you can do that, your claims are not substantiated.
Explain to all of us exactly how this bill will help America and our national parks. Real concrete explanations. No generalizations. No opinons. No repeating echo chamber talking points.
Have you actually read the bill?
I suspect, if he is a true conservative, he would have no trouble with it. Do you think Chinese shouldn't be able to own land in the US?
I haven't made claims, Lee. I haven't attacked the motives of individuals involved. I have nothing to substantiate. I do have opinions. In my opinion, there are massive amounts of federal lands that should be in private ownership.
Selling off those lands could bring substantial revenues to the US Government and could lower the cost of maintaining them. The bill specifically has the revenue reducing our debt. That will help America. Some of that benefit might even go to the parks.